Draft Black Country Plan

Support

Representation ID: 23432

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

9.18 Draft Policy ENV9 (Design Quality) provides guidance on design standards and principles to be assessed and included within design and access statements. We support Policy ENV9 in principle, as this policy seeks to ensure that developments are designed to the highest possible standards. However, we are concerned with reference to Secure by Design included at Part 1) d) of Policy ENV9, as Secure by Design guidance encourages cul-de-sacs and discourages permeability which is at odds with all other design guidance

Comment

Representation ID: 23433

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

9.20 We are generally supportive of Draft Policies CC2 and CC7 which relate to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

However, it is important to note that decentralised energy provision and renewable and low carbon energy dwellings may not always be practicable or viable in new developments. Therefore, we are supportive of Draft Policies CC2 and CC7 insofar as they allow for such requirements to be reduced where it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not practical or viable

Support

Representation ID: 23434

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

9.20 We are generally supportive of Draft Policies CC2 and CC7 which relate to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

However, it is important to note that decentralised energy provision and renewable and low carbon energy dwellings may not always be practicable or viable in new developments. Therefore, we are supportive of Draft Policies CC2 and CC7 insofar as they allow for such requirements to be reduced where it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not practical or viable

Support

Representation ID: 23435

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

10.1 The strategy for Walsall is set out at paragraph C.8 in Chapter 13 of the draft Black Country Plan, which is as follows:

‘In the future, Walsall will be a more confident place, with renewed investment in key infrastructure and key centres, greater opportunities for work and leisure and an affordable, accessible housing stock.’

10.2 We are supportive of this strategy

10.5 We strongly support the proposed Neighbourhood Growth Areas and consider that land at Yieldfields can contribute to the aims for these areas. In Walsall, the Site extends to 38.9 hectares and has the potential to deliver up to 978 new homes alongside the provision of a 2 form entry primary school, a Community Hub, local health centre, significant open space and informal sports provision in a sustainable location. The Site will also seek to deliver a minimum 10% in biodiversity net gain, alongside other on-site habitat provision and enhancement.

Support

Representation ID: 23436

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

Land At Yieldfields, Bloxwich


Response to Draft Black Country Plan 2039 (Regulation 18) Consultation

On Behalf of L&Q Estates

¬
October 2021

Land at Yieldfields, Bloxwich

Response to Draft Black Country Plan 2039 (Regulation 18) Consultation

Prepared on behalf of L&Q Estates




CONTENTS
Page

1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Sustainabiliy Appraisal 2
3.0 Section 2 - The Vision, Strategic Objectives and Strategic Priorities 3
4.0 Section 3 - Spatial Strategy 4
5.0 Section 4 - Infrastructure and Delivery 12
6.0 Section 5 - Health and Wellbeing 14
7.0 Section 6 - Housing 16
8.0 Section 9 - Transport 21
9.0 Section 10 - Environmental Transformation and Climate Change 23
10.0 Section 13 - Sub-Areas and Site Allocations 28

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Site Boundary Plan (Drawing BM-M-03)

Appendix 2: Yieldfields, North Walsall Vision Document (October 2021)

Appendix 3: Review of Sustainability Appraisal (October 2021)

Appendix 4: Yieldfields Delivery Trajectory

Appendix 5: Transport Technical Note (October 2021)

Appendix 6: Preliminary Ecological Review: Constraints and Opportunities (July 2019)

Appendix 7: Heritage Appraisal (September 2019)
 
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 We write on behalf of our client, L&Q Estates, in relation to their interests at land at Yieldfields, Bloxwich (hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’). L&Q Estates welcome the opportunity to be involved in the preparation of the Black Country Plan, and it is within this context that they wish to make representations to the Regulation 18 Consultation.

1.2 On behalf of L&Q Estates, we have previously made representations to the Issues and Options Consultation in September 2017 and submitted the Site to the Call for Sites exercises in August 2017 (under their previous name, Gallagher Estates) and August 2020.

1.3 The Site is shown outlined in red on Drawing BM-M-03 (Appendix 1) and is located on the northern edge of Bloxwich. A Vision Document (included at Appendix 2) has been prepared and submitted as part of this response to the Regulation 18 Consultation on the Draft Black Country Plan, which provides analysis of the Site and a Vision for its development alongside a Concept Masterplan for consideration, in accordance with Draft Strategic Allocation Policy WSA4.

1.4 The Concept Masterplan covers approximately 38.9 hectares of land within the administrative boundary of Walsall. This demonstrates that the Site could deliver approximately 978 new homes, in addition to a new 2 form-entry primary school, Community Hub, open space and informal sports provision, as well as enhancing the existing Grade II Listed Yieldfields Hall.

1.5 The Site is deliverable, available and suitable for release from the Green Belt to deliver a high quality residential-led development that will significantly assist in meeting the Black Country’s identified housing need as well as the unmet need from the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (HMA).




2.0 SUSTAINABILIY APPRAISAL

2.1 NPPF Paragraph 32 states:

‘Local plans and spatial development strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant legal requirements. This should demonstrate how the plan has addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives (including opportunities for net gains). Significant adverse impacts on these objectives should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered).’

2.2 The reference to relevant legal requirements refers to Strategic Environmental Assessment. Neighbourhood plans may require Strategic Environmental Assessment, but only where there are potentially significant environmental effects.

2.3 A review of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) (July 2021) to support the Draft Black Country Plan has been undertaken (Appendix 3). The review concludes that the SA process so far has two major deficiencies and a number of areas that would benefit from further focus before/during the Regulation 19 consultation stage so that the process is as robust as possible. It is anticipated that the SA would then provide a comprehensive discussion around the likely effects of alternatives as evidence supporting the BCP as a reasonable strategy for sustainable development.

2.4 The review also assessed the Site against the SA’s objectives, and the scores given, as well as providing updated scores based on the latest evidence. This concludes that, based on its location, opportunities and performance against the 14 SA Objectives, the Site comprises a reasonable alternative to be selected for inclusion within any proposed site allocations within the BCP to aid sustainable development in this area. Based on the reports available for the Site, it is considered that the Site should be scored more highly against some SA objectives.

3.0 SECTION 2 - THE VISION, STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The Vision

3.1 The Black Country Authorities have set out a vision for the Black Country up to 2039. We support the vision in principle, which seeks to create a prosperous, stronger and sustainable Black Country. This vision provides a positive framework for the Strategic Objectives and is generally aligned with the three overarching sustainability objectives set out in NPPF Paragraph 8.

Strategic Objectives

3.2 We have reviewed the strategic objectives and strategic priorities set out in Table 1 (Black Country Plan – Objectives and Strategic Priorities) of the draft Plan. We are supportive of the Strategic Objectives, which will address the key strategic challenges and opportunities that have arisen since the Core Strategy was adopted in 2011. We consider that the Site, which has the potential to deliver 978 new homes in Walsall alongside the provision of local services and facilities as well as significant open space in a sustainable location, would assist the Black Country Authorities in achieving these objectives.




4.0 SECTION 3 - SPATIAL STRATEGY

4.1 The Spatial Strategy is set out in Draft Policies CSP1, CSP2, CSP3 and CSP4, and illustrated on the Key Spatial Diagram (Figure 2), which provides the overarching basis for the Plan’s proposals for growth and infrastructure improvements. We are supportive of the Key Spatial Diagram, as this accords with Paragraph 23 of the NPPF, which requires broad locations for development to be indicated on a key diagram, and land-use designations and allocations identified on a policies map.

4.2 L&Q Estates’ site is identified on the Key Spatial Diagram as a draft housing allocation (Draft Policy WSA4) capable of delivering over 300 homes and a neighbourhood growth area. It should be noted that the Site has an estimated capacity of 978 homes as set out under Draft Policy WSA4.

Development Strategy [CSP1]

4.3 Draft Policy CSP1 (Development Strategy) provides the overarching spatial strategy for the Black Country, setting out the scale and distribution of new development for the Plan period to 2039. Part 1 of Draft Policy CSP1 seeks to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes and create sustainable mixed communities that are supported by adequate infrastructure. Part 2 of Draft Policy CSP1 identifies that the spatial strategy seeks to deliver this growth and sustainable patterns of development by delivering a limited number of Neighbourhood Growth Areas in highly sustainable locations on the edge of the Urban Area. We are generally supportive of this policy, which seeks to direct growth to the most sustainable locations and to sites which have been assessed as the most suitable by the Black Country Authorities’ housing site selection process and as part of the Sustainability Appraisal.

4.4 The Development Strategy, set out under Draft Policy CSP1, has been developed through a comprehensive assessment of a range of alternative options, as set out in the Spatial Options Paper. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) also includes an assessment of eleven spatial options identified by the Councils. Each option has been assessed for its likely sustainable impacts.

4.5 The Preferred Spatial Option selected is Option J (Balanced Growth), which focuses growth within both existing residential and employment areas in the sub-region, taking advantage of their existing infrastructure capacity, in addition to a limited number of new growth areas near to the edge of settlements that take account of environmental, climate change, accessibility and socio-economic requirements. Spatial Option J ensures that development within the Green Belt is only located in the most sustainable locations areas with good access to help reduce reliance on private car usage. In addition, this Spatial Option seeks to ensure housing is of a high-quality design, which could potentially include ensuring energy efficient homes are provided. Therefore, this option could potentially have a minor positive impact in regard to climate change mitigation. L&Q Estates support this approach and Spatial Option J being pursued.

4.6 The Site benefits from a sustainable location with good access to surrounding sustainable modes of transport. Bloxwich North railway station, which provides services between Birmingham New Street and Rugeley Trent Valley, is located approximately 1.8km to the west and is accessible from the Site by walking, cycling and public transport. Bloxwich North railway station is located along the Chase Line which was recently subject to major improvement works including electrification to enable faster and more frequent services. In addition, the nearest bus stop to the Site is located approximately 650m to the west on Turnberry Road. Further bus stops are located approximately 750m to the south of the Site outside Bloxwich golf club and approximately 950m to the north of the Site opposite the New Masons. These bus stops are serviced by the X51, 1 and 74 bus services which provide direct links to Walsall, Stafford, Cannock and Birmingham. The development of the Site will provide the opportunity to enhance these bus services and provide bus stops closer to the Site. The Site’s good public transport links are also important in the context of Paragraph 142 of the NPPF, which identifies that where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land that is well served by public transport.

4.7 A Transport Technical Note (October 2021) has been prepared by Pell Frischmann (included at Appendix 3) which identifies that the Site presents the opportunity for a sustainable development, underpinned by ‘decide and provide’ principles to firstly reduce the need to travel and secondly to maximise the use of sustainable modes for any journeys. Whilst the Transport Technical Note concludes that the potential traffic impact of the proposals should not be a barrier to the proposed allocation of the Site, detailed assessments of the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding highway network, including off-site junctions, will be undertaken during the preparation of the outline planning application, following the adoption of the Black Country Plan. Suitable mitigation measures will be identified and developed should any junctions require improvement. Therefore, L&Q Estates consider that the Site is a suitable and deliverable site that could be released from the Green Belt to deliver a sustainable extension to the urban area of Bloxwich. This would be in accordance with the aims of the NPPF and would also significantly assist in meeting the housing need of the Council and the unmet needs of the Greater Birmingham HMA.

Neighbourhood Growth Areas

4.8 The strategic approach for the Towns and Neighbourhoods Areas and the Green Belt is set out within Draft Policy CSP3. We are supportive of this policy, in particular Part B (i) which states that the areas outside the Strategic Centres and Core Regeneration Areas will provide 27,068 new homes through a network of new Neighbourhood Growth Areas providing 6,792 homes, in highly sustainable locations on the edge of the Urban Area. As noted above, the part of the Site within Walsall extends to 38.9 hectares and has the potential to deliver 978 new homes in Walsall alongside the provision of a primary school, local services and facilities and open space in a sustainable location.

4.9 Part G of Draft Policy CSP3 advises that a defensible Green Belt will be provided to help promote urban renaissance within the urban area and that provides easy access to the countryside for local residents; with the landscape safeguarded and enhanced where possible for its heritage, recreation, agricultural and nature conservation value. We are supportive of this policy, which aligns with NPPF Paragraph 137 on preventing urban sprawl. NPPF Paragraph 137 states:

‘The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.’

4.10 The Site is located within the Green Belt at the northern edge of Bloxwich, flanking the A34 corridor. Barton Willmore’s Landscape Team have assessed the Site and have previously undertaken a Landscape and Visual and Green Belt Appraisal (LVGBA), which was submitted in support of L&Q Estates’ Call for Sites submission for the Site in August 2020. This Assessment considers that the Site makes only a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. The existing extents of built form along the A34 corridor towards settlements to the north have created a situation in which the urban area of Bloxwich has sprawled and there is potential for merging of towns. However, a shallow ridgeline on the northern edge of the Site provides the basis for reinforcement through green infrastructure provision to create physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.

4.11 There is potential for sensitive development of the Site within the topographical containment provided by the shallow ridgeline extending through the northern part of the site; within the existing extent of development along the A34 north of Bloxwich; and avoiding development of the land in the eastern edge of the Site which is less subject to urbanising influences than those areas nearer the A34. The Masterplan 1 contained in the Vision Document (Appendix 2) sets out to create a landscape buffer and soft edge/transition along the perimeter/edge of the new development to soften the visual impact on the surrounding countryside, thus providing a clearly defined and defensible Green Belt boundary in accordance with Draft Policy CPS3. In addition, the Site would also provide a network of green links, streets and spaces which will provide pedestrian and cycle routes to public rights of way, improving access to the remaining Green Belt.

4.12 As part of the justification to Draft Policy CSP3 provided within the Draft Black Country Plan, Paragraph 3.48 emphasises that it is important that the individual sites (as defined in Draft Policy CSP3) in each of the Neighbourhood Growth Areas are masterplanned together, regardless of ownership, owing to the fact that new development will generate the need for new infrastructure. Where appropriate, masterplans may be prepared through a collaborative process involving the landowner/developer(s) and the relevant Black Country Authority. We are supportive of the Neighbourhood Growth Areas being masterplanned together (per allocation) and want to note that the Site only has one majority landowner who have promotion agreement with L&Q Estates, who are a master developer. More information of L&Q Estates’ experience of delivering large sites, like this Site, is set out in the Vision Document (Appendix 2).

Design

4.13 With regard to achieving well-designed places, Draft Policy CSP4 states that the Black Country’s ongoing transformation will be supported by the development of places and buildings providing a range of functions, tenures, facilities, and services, intended to support the needs of diverse local communities.

4.14 L&Q Estates intend to engage with the local community and other stakeholders through public consultation events to help influence the design of the Yieldfields development during the preparation of the outline planning application, following the adoption of the Black Country Plan. A site-specific design code will be developed for the Site in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 129.

4.15 Therefore, L&Q Estates are supportive of Draft Policy CPS4, and consider that the Site can meet the aims of the policy, particularly as the planned public engagement will ensure the design of spaces and buildings will be appropriate and will respond to local context and identified needs in terms of size, type and tenure. The Vision Document demonstrates that much work has already been undertaken into achieving a well-designed neighbourhood.


 
Green Belt

4.16 Paragraph 140 of the NPPF confirms that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans.

4.17 The Black Country Authorities consider that, through the preparation of the Black Country Plan, exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to remove certain areas of land from the Black Country Green Belt to meet housing and employment land needs. The Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) summarises the various sources of housing supply and compares current supply with identified need. The report calculates that the amount of housing need that cannot be accommodated in the Black Country urban areas remains significant, at around 36,819 homes. This is despite reviewing all potential sources of housing capacity, making a series of structured assumptions around density and windfalls, and comprehensively exploring the capacity on occupied employment land in the context of up-to-date employment land evidence. In addition, the Urban Capacity Review also notes the strategic Duty to Cooperate issues, particularly the current and emerging housing shortfall position across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area. It is also important to note that Paragraph 4.7 of the Urban Capacity Review concludes that “the exceptional circumstances necessary to trigger a Green Belt review in the Black Country, in order to meet housing and employment land needs, have been met”.

4.18 Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, as noted in NPPF Paragraph 141. This will be assessed in terms of whether the strategy:

a. Makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
b. Optimises the density of development, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c. Has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.

4.19 With regard to making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land, the Urban Capacity Review identifies (at paragraphs 2.1.7-2.1.9) that the inclusion and assessment of sites within the current SHLAAs has followed Government guidance, best practice, sustainability principles and the spatial strategy of the current Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS). A ‘brownfield first’ principle is applied. The sites identified as deliverable or developable are mainly those with planning permission, allocations on surplus employment land and other sites in the BCCS growth network (including greenfield sites, where appropriate i.e. those with planning permission or considered to be policy compliant). The SHLAAs have been informed via a Black Country ‘call for sites’ carried out in 2017-20 to inform the BCP.

4.20 Therefore, in terms of the sites included within the Black Country SHLAAs, it is considered that the assessments have been comprehensive in their scope and identifying potential sources of supply, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land. In particular, the Urban Capacity Report (at paragraph 3.1.2) identifies that it has undertaken a review of existing housing allocations, which has resulted in a reduction of housing supply from allocations on currently occupied employment land, as reflected in each of the individual SHLAAs.

4.21 In terms of optimising density, the Urban Capacity Report (at paragraph 3.1.9) refers to the Strategic Growth Study (2018) findings and conclusions, which suggests that the Birmingham and Black Country urban area should seek to apply a minimum 40dph density threshold (net area). This could yield an additional 4,000 dwellings (1,000 dwellings from sites of 200+ dwellings and 3,000 dwellings from small sites below 200 dwellings) in the Black Country (subject to further local testing). The Strategic Growth Study based the findings on a sample of 750 sites across the 14 HMA Local Planning Authorities.

4.22 In 2019, a review was undertaken by the Black Country Authorities to test this conclusion more locally. It identified that from 2009-2019 approximately 86% of sites of 15 dwellings or more have been developed at a density of 35dph and higher. Around 54% have been developed at a density of 35-60dph. The Urban Capacity Report notes that it is not possible to increase densities on sites with planning permission and any increases arising from changes in policy would not take effect until 2024 (anticipated BCP adoption date). An analysis is, however, undertaken of the potential uplift arising from the draft BCP Policy on housing density and accessibility.

4.23 The analysis considers the potential uplift resulting from applying the draft Policy standards to sites of 10 dwellings or more that are unlikely to be the subject of planning permission before 2024. This results in a maximum additional supply of 476 dwellings which is significantly less than the Strategic Growth Study assumption of around 4,000 dwellings. The Urban Capacity Report explains this is due to a more detailed analysis of more up to date site information. The analysis assumes all sites within the 35-45dph density range have a density of 35dph and can uplift to 40dph. The Urban Capacity Report considers that it could be the case that many of these sites are already due to deliver at near 40dph (or above). For example, the Walsall SHLAA 2020-2021 states that it has already applied the emerging minimum 40dph assumption to all sites (bar those considered ‘deliverable’ within the five-year supply). Indeed, some sites within the supply are already significantly exceeding some minimum densities from the BCCS and Strategic Growth Study.

4.24 In terms of the potential to exceed the suggested minimum 40dph, the BCP however needs to take into account the housing mix needs of the area. The Strategic Growth Study (paragraph 6.14) identified that generally it is possible to create developments within densities of 40dph or 50dph which continue to provide for a mix of housing types and sizes, including family housing. The BCCS Policy HOU2 (Table 8) identifies that generally schemes of 35-45dph will constitute 0-25% flatted developments. The Black Country and South Staffordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA, 2017) concluded that given the nature of existing housing stock, the optimum housing mix overall would be 12% 1 bed; 22% 2 bed; 40% 3 bed; and 26% 4 bed properties (to vary by area and tenure). Therefore, given that 66% of the preferred tenure is for 3 bed+ homes, there is limited scope to drive minimum densities further without compromising the housing needs of the community.

4.25 With regard to discussions with neighbouring authorities, the Black Country Plan confirms that it intends to draft and agree Statements of Common Ground with relevant authorities (including South Staffordshire, Lichfield, Cannock and Shropshire) and bodies on key duty to co-operate issues at the BCP’s publication stage. However, the issue of the significant shortfall in planned provision to meet housing requirements within the Black Country and wider HMA has been well-considered, as evidenced by the Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study (2018) which was commissioned by the 14 local authorities that comprise the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area.

4.26 Based on the above, it is considered that the Council have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting the identified need for development outside of the Green Belt in line with Paragraph 141 of the NPPF.

Compensatory Improvements

4.27 Paragraph 142 of the NPPF advises that, where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. Similarly, Draft Policy GB1 (The Black Country Green Belt) states that for sites that are removed from the Black Country Green Belt and allocated to meet housing, or other needs through the Plan (as listed in Chapter 13):
a. ‘The design of development will include physical features that define the new green belt boundary in a readily recognisable and permanent way; and
b. Compensatory improvements to the environmental quality, biodiversity and accessibility of remaining green belt land will be secured to offset the impact of removing the land from the green belt, in accordance with national policy.’

4.28 As such, the Draft Black Country Plan provides for compensatory improvements for the loss of Green Belt through those strategic allocations that are being released from the Green Belt. For example, Yieldfields will deliver significant improvements to the quality and accessibility of the existing Green Belt. These improvements will include the creation of a landscape buffer and soft edge/transition along the development edge and the countryside, in addition to retaining and enhancing existing mature tree belts and hedges, responding to the local countryside character to the north. In terms of connectivity, Yieldfields will include a series new pedestrian and cycle routes from the development to existing Public Rights of Way located in the Green Belt, as shown in the Vision Document and Masterplan. Therefore, L&Q Estates are supportive of Draft Policy GB1, and consider that the site is capable of meeting the requirements set out within Part 2 a) and b) of the policy.




5.0 SECTION 4 - INFRASTRUCTURE AND DELIVERY

5.1 Strategic Policies should make sufficient provision for infrastructure, as confirmed in parts b) and c) of NPPF Paragraph 20, which states:

‘Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision for infrastructure for:

b) transport, telecommunications, security, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat)
c) community facilities (such as health, education and cultural infrastructure)’

5.2 Draft Policy DEL1 (Infrastructure Provision) of the Draft Black Country Plan emphasises that all new developments should be supported by the necessary on and off-site infrastructure to serve its needs, mitigate its impacts on the environment and the local community and ensure that it is sustainable and contributes to the proper planning of the wider area. Therefore, we are supportive of this policy in principle, owing to its conformity with national planning policy.

5.3 We support the draft Plan’s assertion that allocated sites on the fringe of the urban area, which have been removed from the Green Belt, will be easier and quicker to deliver than sites within the urban area. A Delivery Trajectory has been prepared for the Site (Appendix 4) which assumes that a planning application is submitted on adoption of the Black Country Plan in 2024, and anticipates that construction will commence in 2026. The Delivery Trajectory demonstrates that 978 homes could be delivered in the Plan Period, even if the adoption of the Plan or a start on site were to slip by a further one or two years.

5.4 In addition, we agree that some allocated sites will need to be supported by a range of new infrastructure, such as schools, shops and improved local transport infrastructure, due to their significant size.

5.5 Part 3 of Draft Policy DEL1 advises that the Black Country Authorities will set out in Development Plan Documents, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, Supplementary Planning Documents, and where appropriate, masterplans:

a. The infrastructure that is to be provided or supported;
b. The prioritisation of and resources for infrastructure provision;
c. The scale and form of obligation or levy to be applied to each type of infrastructure;
d. Guidance for integration with adjoining local authority areas;
e. The procedure for maintenance payments and charges for preparing agreements;
f. The defined circumstances and procedure for negotiation regarding infrastructure provision.

5.6 We strongly support this approach to address infrastructure requirements for proposed urban extensions, such as Yieldfields, and to review the needs of each area based on its size and location.

5.7 It is anticipated that the development at Yieldfields will be supported by on-site and off-site infrastructure, including a new on-site 2 form entry primary school and local health centre, in addition to a contribution towards improvements for off-site secondary school provision in North Bloxwich. We would, therefore, welcome future consultation on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, once prepared, as this will identify the infrastructure investment required to support the proposed development at Yieldfields, in addition to identifying potential constraints to delivery and the key delivery mechanisms and partners.

Promotion of Fibre and 5G Networks

5.8 Draft Policy DEL3 (Promotion of Fibre to the Premises and 5G Network) requires all major developments to deliver Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) capacity/infrastructure to all individual properties or alternatively, non-Next Generation Access technologies that can provide speeds in excess of 30MB per second, where FTTP cannot be delivered. Further, any proposals for infrastructure to support the delivery of 5G networks will be supported in principle, subject to meeting the requirements of other local policies and national guidance.

5.9 We are supportive of Draft Policy DEL3, particularly as this aligns with Paragraph 114 of the NPPF, which requires planning policies and decisions to support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G) and full fibre broadband connections. However, it is important to note that the promotion of Fibre may not always be practicable or viable in new developments. Criterion (1) is therefore supported insofar it allows for this requirement to be reduced where it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not practical or viable.
6.0 SECTION 5 - HEALTH AND WELLBEING

6.1 Draft Policy HW1 (Health and Wellbeing) provides a strategic context for how health and wellbeing is influenced by planning. We are supportive of this draft policy, particularly as it aligns with the requirements of NPPF Paragraph 92 as it aims to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, are safe and accessible and enable and support healthy lifestyles to address identified local health and wellbeing needs.

6.2 Part C of Draft Policy HW1 advises that new developments that provide a range of housing types and tenures that meet the needs of all sectors of the population, including for older people and those with disabilities requiring varying degrees of care; extended families; low-income households; and those seeking to self-build, will create an environment that protects and improves the physical, social and mental health and wellbeing of its residents, and reduces health inequalities.

6.3 In accordance with Draft Policy HW1, the Site will provide a range of housing types and tenures that meet the needs of all sectors of the population. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (BCHMA) 2021 provides an update on the current position, using best available evidence and information, regarding the need for different types and tenures of housing across the Black Country over the Black Country Plan period. It then disaggregates the future housing need into different types of housing the future population will need, including the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes). For example, the BCHMA indicates that the size of dwelling stock in Walsall in 2020 was as follows:

• One bedroom – 8.7%
• Two bedroom – 25.4%
• Three bedroom – 50.5%
• Four or more bedrooms – 15.4%

6.4 In addition, the Projected Tenure Profile in Walsall in 2039 is anticipated to be as follows:

• Owner Occupied – 59.8%
• Private Rented – 15.7%
• Shared Ownership – 1.4%
• Social Rent/Affordable Rent – 23.1%
6.5 The development at Yieldfields will provide a high quality, affordable and sustainable type of housing to meet identified needs in Walsall, using best available evidence, including the BCHMA. This will ensure that the development accords with the aims of Draft Policy HW1 in achieving a healthy, inclusive and safe development to address identified local health and wellbeing needs.

6.6 In addition, the Site will also include a range of social infrastructure, including a primary school, community facilities, new public open space, children’s play areas and informal sports provision, in accordance with Part G of Draft Policy HW1. The development will also retain and enhance green infrastructure, including existing mature tree belts and hedges, in accordance with Part H of Draft Policy HW1.

Healthcare Infrastructure

6.7 Draft Policy HW2 sets out the requirements for the provision of health infrastructure to serve the residents of new developments. Part 3 of Draft Policy HW2 emphasises that proposals for major residential developments must be assessed against the capacity of existing healthcare facilities and/or services as set out in local development documents.

6.8 We are supportive of this draft policy as it seeks to deliver appropriate local facilities to support residents and to enhance the sustainability of existing areas. It is considered that the healthcare requirements for Yieldfields should be set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, once prepared. We note that work is ongoing in relation to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. We therefore reserve the right to comment further at a later stage, once the specific requirements for this Site have been clearly defined.


7.0 SECTION 6 - HOUSING

7.1 Paragraph 66 of the NPPF requires strategic policy-making authorities to establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need can be met over the plan period. Draft Policy HOU1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) of the draft Black Country Plan states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 47,837 net new homes over the period 2020-2039. The majority of the requirement will be met through sites with existing planning permission and sites allocated for housing by this Plan and other local plan documents. We are supportive of this draft policy which aligns with the aims of NPPF Paragraph 66.

7.2 It should be noted that Barton Willmore LLP has prepared a critical review of the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) on behalf of a Consortium of housebuilders, land promoters and developers (including L&Q Estates). This review, which is being submitted separately in response to the draft Black Country Plan Regulation 18 Consultation, includes a detailed response on the Housing Requirement for the Black Country.

7.3 The Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) identifies a combined housing need for the Black Country Authorities of 4,004 homes per annum which equates to 76,076 homes over the period 2020-39. This is based upon the current standard methodology for calculating housing need (using the 2020-2030 household projections, new 2020 affordability ratios published in 2021, and reflects the 35% uplift to Wolverhampton’s local housing need figure introduced by changes to the standard method in December 2020). The Urban Capacity Review Update notes that this figure is subject to change, for instance when the Draft Black Country Plan reaches its Regulation 19 Publication (Pre-submission) stage in mid-2022 the figure will reflect any changes to the inputs (such as household projections and affordability ratios) and it will cover the period 2021-2039, as the standard methodology only applies to future years.

7.4 It is important to emphasise that the Planning Practice Guidance is clear in its approach that the “standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area” (Paragraph 010; Reference ID: 2a-010-20190220). The Draft Black Country Plan should therefore reflect that the proposed ‘Housing Need’ figure is only a starting point and additional housing may be required to facilitate economic growth or the delivery of affordable housing.

7.5 For example, an appeal decision for up to 800 dwellings at the Former North Worcestershire Golf Club highlighted the chronic shortfall in affordable housing which has come forward within Birmingham City since 2011 (Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/W/18/3192918) – a decision which was ‘called-in’ by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 14.108 of the Inspector’s Report states that only 2,757 new affordable homes were provided in the City over the first 6 years of the Plan period. This represents less than half of the target provision and a net increase of only 151 affordable homes if Right to Buy sales are taken into account. The Inspector goes on to state that given the heavy reliance in the five-year housing land supply on City Centre apartment schemes, it is difficult to see how that trend can be reversed in the short to medium term (paragraph 14.109).

7.6 Whilst it is noted that Birmingham City Council does not form one of the Black Country Authorities, it highlights the recent difficulties with delivering homes on brownfield sites. The high proportion of flatted developments, coupled with the increased likelihood of viability issues, has led to a chronic shortfall in the provision of affordable homes. Should the Black County Authorities follow a similar approach, it may therefore be necessary to increase the Housing Requirement, in accordance with national guidance, to improve affordability.

7.7 The latest Black Country Housing Market Assessment (dated March 2021) advises that the total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country represents 21.6% (867 per year) of the annual dwelling growth in the housing market area. The Housing Market Assessment considers it would be reasonable to expect this proportion of new housing as affordable to be delivered on a large housing site in the Black Country, where a figure of 25% would be plausible (subject to viability). The Assessment concludes by suggesting that Councils can be confident that the affordable housing need identified in the model will be addressed by the dwelling growth identified by the Standard Method and no adjustment is required to this figure. However, as noted above, flatted developments and an increased likelihood of viability issues on brownfield sites could mean that meeting the total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country would be much more challenging than predicted within the Black Country Housing Market Assessment.

7.8 In light of the above, it is considered that any shortfall in housing supply should be regarded as a minimum given that it is currently calculated against an untested housing target that may require an upward adjustment to take account of affordability. Therefore, we support Draft Policy HOU1 in principle, particularly the reference to delivering ‘at least’ 47,837 net new homes, given this could facilitate that increased housing number is feasible through good design.


Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

7.9 Draft Policy HOU2 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility) seeks to assess the accessibility of all housing developments to a range of residential services by walking, cycling or public transport to determine housing densities. Whilst we are supportive of this approach, the policy states that all major developments should achieve a minimum net density of 40 dwellings per hectare (dph) where accessibility standards for moderate density housing are met. However, Part 5 of Draft Policy HOU2 states:

‘Chapter 13 provides details of the appropriate density and, where appropriate, house type mix, to be sought on each housing allocation site, in accordance with the requirements set out in this policy. Further details of design requirements for housing developments may be set out in Supplementary Planning Documents.’

7.10 Draft Policy WSA4 (Yieldfields Farm) within Chapter 13 identifies that the Site should deliver a density of at least 35 dph, which is lower that the density requirements set out within Draft Policy HOU2, which requires higher densities of at least 40 dph. We consider that only Part 5 of the Draft Policy HOU2, and thus the requirements set out within Chapter 13 of the Plan, applies to Yieldfields. However, we do consider that an average density of 40 dph is achievable on the Site and Masterplan 1 contained in the Vision Document is based on this density. This ensures that Masterplan 1 can deliver 978 homes, in accordance with Draft Policy WSA4. Due to site constraints, it is considered that the net developable area of Masterplan 1 is 24.7 hectares and if this was delivered at a net density of 35 dph, it would result in 864 homes being delivered.

7.11 With regard to affordable housing, Draft Policy HOU3 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build/Custom Build Housing) states that all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is 20% affordable housing on greenfield sites in medium value zones (where the Site is located). Further, Part 3 of Draft Policy HOU3 advises that the tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations. L&Q Estates support this policy and the collaborative approach to identifying site-specific affordable housing requirements, including tenure and type of affordable homes to be provided on-site.

7.12 With regard to National Wheelchair Accessibility Standards, Part 4 of Draft Policy HOU3 requires 15% of homes on greenbelt sites in medium or higher value zones to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(3): Wheelchair User Dwellings and all remaining homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings. L&Q Estates are supportive of this approach and consider that such requirements can be met on the Yieldfields site.

7.13 With regard to Self-Build and Custom Build plots, Part 6 of Draft Policy HOU3 states that on developments of 100 homes or more, where there is currently a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the self-build and custom build register for the local authority where the site is located, at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower. We support this policy, which aligns with the aims of Paragraph 62 of the NPPF in terms of providing opportunities for people wishing to commission or build their own homes. Further, Part 6 goes on to state that any plots that have not been sold after 12 months of appropriate marketing will revert to the developer to build. L&Q Estates consider that Yieldfields can deliver 5% self-build and custom build plots. However, we strongly support the fall-back option of reverting any unsold self-build plots to the developer to build should any of these plots not be sold.

Education Facilities

7.14 Draft Policy HOU5 states that where a housing development of ten or more homes would increase the need for education facilities to the extent that new or improved facilities would be required to meet this need, planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy will be secured sufficient to meet the need, where this is financially viable. For strategic allocations, the likely requirement for on-site provision of new schools is set out in Chapter 13. Accordingly, Draft Policy WSA4 (Yieldfields Farm) (contained in Chapter 13) sets out that Yieldfields could deliver a new on-site primary school, in addition to a contribution to improvements for secondary school provision in North Bloxwich.

7.15 We support Draft Policy HOU5 and consider that Yieldfields could deliver a primary school to be positioned centrally within the site. The Vision Document demonstrates that the Site could also provide a significant amount of open space to include informal sports provision and children’s play areas.

7.16 In addition, the development would also make a financial contribution towards other local infrastructure, such as transport and secondary school provision. Therefore, we also support of Part 2 of Draft Policy HOU5, which states that where land is provided for a new school as part of a housing development, the financial contribution made by that development towards education facilities will be reduced accordingly.

7.17 Draft Part 4 of Policy HOU5 advises that new and redeveloped education facilities should include provision for wider community use of sports and other facilities where appropriate. Whilst we support the general requirements and intentions of Draft Part 4 of Policy HOU5, clarification is required in relation to whether this policy would apply if strategic allocations include provision for community use of sports and other facilities elsewhere within the site, but not necessarily as part of education facilities.




8.0 SECTION 9 - TRANSPORT

8.1 Paragraph 113 of the NPPF advises that all developments that will generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a travel plan, and the application should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed.

8.2 We are supportive of Draft Policy TRAN3 (Managing Transport Impacts of New Development), which is consistent with NPPF Paragraph 113, emphasising that Transport Assessments and Travel Plans produced by developers are essential to demonstrate that an acceptable level of accessibility and safety can be achieved using all modes of transport to, from and through the development. An initial Transport Technical Note has been prepared by Pell Frischmann (Appendix 5) which concludes that the site would represent sustainable development and would be underpinned by a vision-led approach that would minimise the number of vehicular movements generated and maximise the use of sustainable modes of transport. The Transport Technical Note concludes that the Site is not anticipated to result in any significant transport impacts. In accordance with Draft Policy TRAN3, further detailed assessments of the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding highway network, including off-site junctions, will be undertaken during the preparation of the outline planning application, following the adoption of the Black Country Plan.

8.3 Draft Policy TRAN5 (Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking) also encourages new developments to create an environment that encourages sustainable travel via safe and direct links that connect to existing walking and cycling networks, in addition to public transport nodes and interchanges. We are supportive of this policy, as it accords with the requirements of Paragraph 110 of the NPPF, which advises that in assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, it should be ensured that appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be taken up, and that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved from all users. In accordance with Draft Policy TRAN5, L&Q Estates’ site at Yieldfields will include a series of new pedestrian and cycle routes within the development, in addition to providing opportunities for improvements at the Stafford Road/Turnberry Road junction to provide dedicated crossings to facilitate active travel connections towards Bloxwich town centre, Bloxwich North railway station and local bus stops.

 
Parking

8.4 Draft Policy TRAN7 (Parking Management) identifies that the Black Country Authorities will ensure a consistent approach to maximum parking standards is enforced in new developments, as set out in supplementary planning documents. We are supportive of this policy in principle, however, the current parking standards in Walsall are set out within the Walsall Council Parking Strategy (which was adopted in 2008), and thus it is considered that this SPD should be updated to accord with the requirements of NPPF Paragraph 107 in terms of setting local parking standards. In addition, we consider that new parking standards should set out specific requirements for the provision for charging infrastructure for electric vehicles as part of developments. Draft Policy TRAN8 (Planning for Low Emission Vehicles) lacks clarity in this regard. Consequently, L&Q Estates seek clarification that new parking standards are being developed which will replace the Walsall Council Parking Strategy (2008) and would welcome the opportunity to consult on this, where appropriate.




9.0 SECTION 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Nature Conservation

9.1 Policy ENV1 (Nature Conservation) emphasises that development within the Black Country will safeguard nature conservation by ensuring that locally designated nature conservation sites (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation), important habitats and geological features are protected from development proposals that could negatively affect them. The Black Country Authorities have undertaken ecological surveys and Local Sites Assessment Reports for the strategic allocations, including Yieldfields. In addition, Aspect Ecology undertook an ecological survey of Yieldfields in 2019 (included at Appendix 6) and have undertaken a high-level review of the Local Sites Assessment survey. It should be noted that the Local Sites Assessment survey was undertaken just four months following the Aspect Ecology survey in 2019 and covers the southern-most part of the red line boundary surveyed by Aspect Ecology.

9.2 The Local Sites Assessment concludes that the only part of the survey area which is considered to qualify as a local designation (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation, SLINC) is the route of the old canal and hedgerows bounding the southeast. As such, development of the Site would need to demonstrate no adverse effects on this SLINC or, where damage is unavoidable, measures are put in place to mitigate the impacts. Aspect Ecology consider that as the SLINC designation relates to hedgerows and wildlife corridors, the Site can be developed without causing any adverse effect.

9.3 However, all of the land within the centre of the Site, including some areas previously highlighted as a Potential Site of Importance (PSI), are not considered to qualify as a SLINC. The Local Sites Assessment notes that the arable and improved grassland field and associated species poor hedgerows on-site hold some ecological value for protected species and as an ecological corridor when assessed against the Birmingham and Black Country Local Sites Selection criteria, however, it fails to meet the criteria of a Local Wildlife Site. Accordingly, subject to appropriate mitigation in respect of protected species that may be present, and maintenance of some element of a wildlife corridor, it is inferred that the internal parts of the survey area are unconstrained in terms of potential development. Therefore, L&Q Estates are supportive of Policy ENV1 and consider that locally designated nature conservation sites and important habitats can be protected from the development proposals for Yieldfields, in accordance with the policy.

Biodiversity Net Gain

9.4 NPPF Paragraph 32 advises that local plans should address relevant environmental objectives, including opportunities for net gains. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered). Further, Paragraph 174 advises that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

9.5 L&Q Estates are supportive of Draft Policy ENV3 (Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain), which requires all development to deliver a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity value when measured against baseline site information. The Site will seek to deliver a minimum 10% in biodiversity net gain, alongside other on-site habitat provision and enhancement, in line with Part 5 of Draft Policy ENV3.

Trees

9.6 L&Q Estates are supportive of Draft Policy ENV4 for the provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows. Part 3 of Draft Policy ENV4 advises that where removal of trees is unavoidable, replacement trees should be provided to compensate for their loss, on a minimum basis of three for one.

9.7 Part 6 of Draft Policy ENV4 states that all available data on extant tree cover and associated habitat will be considered when making decisions on the proposed loss of trees and woodland to accommodate infrastructure and other development proposals. In areas where evidence demonstrates that current levels of tree cover are low, proposals that incorporate additional tree planting, to increase existing levels of habitat and canopy cover, will be considered positively, as part of the wider contribution to biodiversity net gain. We are supportive of this pragmatic approach to loss of trees in the context of biodiversity net gain. However, it is considered that Part 6 of Draft Policy ENV4 conflicts with the aims of Part 3 within the same policy, which specifically requires replacement tree planting to compensate for any trees removed, as opposed to assessing the wider opportunities for biodiversity net gain. Therefore, further clarification is required in relation to which part of Draft Policy ENV4 would be applicable to strategic allocations, including the Site (Draft Policy WSA4).
9.8 Part 12 of Draft Policy ENV4 requires new tree planting to be included in all new residential developments, as street trees or as part of landscaping schemes. We support this requirement and can confirm that the development of Site would provide significant tree planting.

9.9 Part 13 of Draft Policy ENV4 requires new developments to make a minimum contribution of 20% canopy cover across the development site and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across the development site. Whilst it is important to ensure that development proposals include new tree planting, this cannot result in schemes becoming unviable. We would therefore recommend that Part 13 of Draft Policy ENV4 is amended to confirm that this contribution can be reduced subject to viability considerations or confirm that the Black Country Authorities would accept tree planting in an appropriate off-site location.

9.10 Part 24 of Draft Policy ENV4 identifies that there will be a presumption against the wholesale removal of hedgerows for development purposes, especially where ecological surveys have identified them to be species-rich and where they exist on previously undeveloped land. Whilst L&Q Estates appreciate the aims of this policy, it should be noted that some developments will require the loss of some hedgerows to gain access. As set out in the Vision Document (Appendix 2), access to the Site will be taken from the A34 Stafford Road. Map 3 of the Birmingham & Black Country Local Sites Assessment Report for the Site identifies that the Site’s western boundary along the A34 comprises hedgerow with trees. Where access to the Site and the associated visibility splays are required, some of this hedgerow will need to be removed. Given the access would not result in the wholesale removal of the hedgerow, it is considered that this would be in accordance with Part 24 of Draft Policy ENV4.

Heritage Impact

9.11 Draft Policy ENV5 (Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country) states that development proposals that would potentially have an impact on the significance of any designated heritage assets, including any contribution made by their setting, should be supported by evidence that the historic character and distinctiveness of the locality has been fully assessed and used to inform proposals. Clear and convincing justification should be provided, either in Design and Access Statements, Statements of Heritage Significance, or other appropriate reports. In some instances, local planning authorities will require developers to provide detailed Heritage Statements and/or Archaeological Desk-based Assessments to support their proposals.

9.12 We are supportive of Draft Policy ENV5, which accords with Paragraph 194 of the NPPF. This policy is of relevance to the Site, owing to the fact that the site contains a Grade II Listed building, comprising Yieldfields Hall. Furthermore, Bloxwich Golf Club, which is located approximately 750 metres to the south of the Site, is also Grade II Listed. Both of these heritage assets are located within Walsall Borough.

9.13 A Heritage Appraisal (September 2019) (Appendix 7) has been prepared to assess the deliverability of development on Site with reference to the historic environment constraints. It has been informed by a desk-top review including a review of the historic map evidence together with a site visit made on 26th July 2019.

9.14 The Heritage Appraisal concludes that in line with local and national planning policy and the legislative test, there will be a desirability that any development sustains or enhances the heritage interest of the listed building. The development potential of Yieldfields Hall is likely to be limited to proposals that retain the buildings and ancillary structures of heritage interest and puts them to a viable use. L&Q Estates will seek to retain Yieldfields Hall as part of the Site’s development to provide either a community or residential use.

9.15 With regard to the review of the Site, the Heritage Appraisal concludes that designated heritage constraints are likely to be limited to the immediate area surrounding Yieldfields Hall. There are no significant constraints affecting the wider site.

9.16 With regard to Bloxwich Golf Club, the Heritage Appraisal concludes that the Grade II listed clubhouse is visually screened from the site and the agricultural landscape is not considered to contribute to the heritage interest in the asset. It is therefore concluded that the principle of development on the site is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the significance of the building, including the contribution made by its setting.

Open Space, Sport and Recreation

9.17 Draft Policy ENV8 (Open Space, Sport and Recreation) advises that each local authority will set out, in their Local Plans and on Policies Maps, proposals for specific open space, sport and recreation facilities and planning requirements for open space, sport and recreation. We support this policy and consider that Yieldfields could provide a policy compliant provision of public open space, including parks and gardens and amenity space, in addition to adequate provision for children and young people.

9.18 Draft Policy ENV9 (Design Quality) provides guidance on design standards and principles to be assessed and included within design and access statements. We support Policy ENV9 in principle, as this policy seeks to ensure that developments are designed to the highest possible standards. However, we are concerned with reference to Secure by Design included at Part 1) d) of Policy ENV9, as Secure by Design guidance encourages cul-de-sacs and discourages permeability which is at odds with all other design guidance. Yieldfields will seek to accord with Secure by Design whilst ensuring best practice placemaking. The Vision Document demonstrates that our design approach incorporates an awareness of safety, security and anti-social behaviour issues and ensures that these issues are appropriately addressed through the design process.

Climate Change

9.19 Policy CC2 (Energy Infrastructure) identifies that we would need to include opportunities for decentralised energy provision within the site, unless it can be demonstrated that the development is not suitable, feasible or viable for district heat or decentralised power networks. In addition, Draft Policy CC7 (Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards) identifies that major development must:

a. achieve a 19% carbon reduction improvement upon the requirements within Building Regulations Approved Document, Part L 2013, or achieve any higher standard than this that is required under new national planning policy or building regulations; and, in addition
b. incorporate generation of energy from renewable or low carbon sources sufficient to off-set at least 20% of the estimated residual energy demand of the development on completion.

9.20 We are generally supportive of Draft Policies CC2 and CC7 which relate to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. L&Q Estates are committed to responding to the climate crisis and are actively looking to deliver housing to standards above those set out in current building regulations in response to this challenge. Indeed, their most recent Corporate Strategy includes a commitment to setting an L&Q design standard in response to the emerging Future Homes Standard, as well as more broad investment in modern methods of construction. However, it is important to note that decentralised energy provision and renewable and low carbon energy dwellings may not always be practicable or viable in new developments. Therefore, we are supportive of Draft Policies CC2 and CC7 insofar as they allow for such requirements to be reduced where it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not practical or viable.
10.0 SECTION 13 - SUB-AREAS AND SITE ALLOCATIONS

10.1 The strategy for Walsall is set out at paragraph C.8 in Chapter 13 of the draft Black Country Plan, which is as follows:

‘In the future, Walsall will be a more confident place, with renewed investment in key infrastructure and key centres, greater opportunities for work and leisure and an affordable, accessible housing stock.’

10.2 We are supportive of this strategy and consider the delivery of the Site will help this to be achieved, particularly as the development will include a housing mix to meet the needs of Walsall including policy-compliant affordable housing provision, in addition to open space, sport and recreation facilities. The development will be sustainable in accordance with the strategy proposed for Walsall.

Neighbourhood Growth Areas

10.3 At Paragraph C.28 of Chapter 13, the Draft Plan identifies that the existing growth network does not have the capacity to accommodate all need for new homes and jobs. Consequently, a number of Neighbourhood Growth Areas are proposed in sustainable locations close to the existing urban area that have good access to services. L&Q Estates site at Yieldfields comprises a proposed Neighbourhood Growth Area within the draft Plan, as shown on the Walsall Spatial Plan.

10.4 Paragraph C.28 goes on to state:

‘These areas will provide for additional homes and jobs to meet the needs of our residents. They will also provide for new or enhanced services where necessary, and in most cases, developers will be required to enhance biodiversity through the provision of new areas for wildlife and the restoration of existing ones.’

10.5 We strongly support the proposed Neighbourhood Growth Areas and consider that land at Yieldfields can contribute to the aims for these areas. In Walsall, the Site extends to 38.9 hectares and has the potential to deliver up to 978 new homes alongside the provision of a 2 form entry primary school, a Community Hub, local health centre, significant open space and informal sports provision in a sustainable location. The Site will also seek to deliver a minimum 10% in biodiversity net gain, alongside other on-site habitat provision and enhancement.
Strategic Allocations

10.6 Table 31 includes all Walsall sites allocated for housing by the Draft Black Country Plan. The Site is included in the Table (Site Ref. WAH232) and has an indicative housing capacity of 978 homes. Further information in relation to Yieldfields is included within Draft Strategic Allocation Policy WSA4 - Yieldfields Farm (sometimes recorded as Yieldfields farm), Stafford Road, Bloxwich. Again, Draft Policy WSA4 states that the estimated capacity of the site is 978 houses. Paragraph C.32 states that for each site where the allocation includes housing, an indicative site capacity is provided, however, the precise number of homes to be developed will be determined through the planning application process. L&Q Estates are supportive of the indicative housing capacity included in Strategic Allocation Policy WSA4, in addition to Paragraph C.32, and will seek to engage with the Local Planning Authority, members of the public and other key stakeholders to ensure the Site can meet the aims of the policy.

10.7 We note that Table 31 includes an error in relation to the indicative net developable area for Yieldfields. This is stated in Table 31 as being 37.26 hectares, whereas in Policy WSA4, the indicative net developable area is stated as being 26 hectares. L&Q Estates confirm that based on the site constraints, it is considered the net developable area of the Site located in Walsall equates to 24.7 hectares, and therefore, it is assumed that the figure in Table 31 is an error. We would request that both figures are amended to 24.7 hectares to reflect the Site’s constraints.

10.8 In addition, we note that the anticipated delivery timescale for Yieldfields included in Table 31 suggests that 600 homes will be delivered within the Plan Period (i.e. by 2039). However, L&Q Estates consider that the entire capacity of 978 homes could be delivered at the Site over the Plan Period. Indeed, the Black Country Plan Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021) assumes that for larger sites, where there may be two or more outlets, a delivery rate of 200 dpa could be achieved. It is considered that a delivery rate of 200 dpa is very optimistic and based upon L&Q Estates’ extensive experience, it is considered that a delivery rate of 100 dpa (with two outlets) is achievable. As such, a Delivery Trajectory has been prepared for the Site (Appendix 4) which assumes that a planning application is submitted on adoption of the Black Country Plan in 2024, and anticipates that construction will commence in 2026. The Delivery Trajectory demonstrates that 978 homes could be delivered in the Plan Period, even if the adoption of the Plan or a start on site were to slip by a further one or two years.

10.9 Overall, L&Q Estates strongly support Draft Policy WSA4 and the design principles included for the Site. The Vision Document submitted in support of these representations (Appendix 2) demonstrates that the development at Yieldfields can achieve all of the design principles included in Draft Policy WSA4 relating to design quality, heritage, delivery of appropriate local facilities, education contributions, transport, remediation, drainage and biodiversity.

10.10 Notwithstanding the above, we have some proposed amendments to make to Policy WSA4, as follows:

• We note that the Site is referred to as ‘Yieldsfield Farm (sometimes recorded as Yieldfields farm), Stafford Road, Bloxwich’. L&Q Estates have confirmed that the Site should simply be referred to as ‘Yieldfields’, to avoid confusion.

• As noted above, Table 31 includes an error in relation to the indicative net developable area for Yieldfields, which is identified as being 37.26 hectares. Draft Policy WSA4 identifies this as 26 hectares. Based on the Site’s constraints, we consider that the net developable area is 24.7 hectares and suggest that both Table 31 and Draft Policy WSA4 can be amended to reflect this.

• Draft Policy WSA4 identifies that the Site should deliver a density of at least 35 dph, which is lower than the density requirements set out within Draft Policy HOU2, which requires higher densities of at least 40 dph. We consider that only Part 5 of Draft Policy HOU2, and thus the requirements set out within Chapter 13 of the Plan, applies to Yieldfields. However, we do consider that an average density of 40 dph is achievable on the Site and Masterplan 1 contained in the Vision Document is based on this density. This ensures that Masterplan 1 can deliver 978 homes, in accordance with Draft Policy WSA4. Due to site constraints, it is considered that the net developable area of Masterplan 1 is 24.7 hectares and if this was delivered at a net density of 35 dph, it would only result in 864 homes being delivered. Therefore, we suggest that the net density figure in Table 31 is amended to state 40 dph is achievable on this site.

Comment

Representation ID: 43902

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Urban Capacity Review - Identification of Additional Housing Capacity

3.0 HOUSING NEED



Introduction


3.1 In Section 2 ‘Housing Need’, the Urban Capacity Report identifies a combined housing need for the Black Country Authorities of 4,004 homes per annum which equates to
76,076 homes over the period 2020-39.


3.2 This is based upon the current standard methodology for calculating housing need which uses the 2014-based MHCLG household projections for the 2020-2030 period, new 2020 affordability ratios published in March 2021, and reflects the 35% uplift to Wolverhampton’s local housing need figure introduced by changes to the standard method in December 2020.


3.3 The Urban Capacity Report notes that this figure is subject to change, for instance when the BCP reaches its Regulation 19 Publication (Pre-submission) stage in mid-2022 the figure will reflect any changes to the inputs (such as household projections and affordability ratios) and it will cover the period 2021-2039, as the standard methodology only applies to future years.


3.4 For the purposes of this report, the housing need figure utilised by the Black Country Authorities calculated via the standard housing methodology is also used as a benchmark for calculating the anticipated housing supply shortfall. However, this does not preclude Consortium members identifying an alternative housing need figure in response to the emerging BCP.

3.5 It is important to emphasise how the standard method only provides a m inim um starting point for establishing housing need.


3.6 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)2 is clear that housing need is “an unconstrained assessment of the number of homes needed in an area” and “should be undertaken separately from assessing land availability, establishing a housing require ment figure and
preparing policies to address this such as site allocations” (Our emphasis).


3.7 The PPG3 is also clear in its approach that the “standard method for assessing local

housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes





2 Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 2a-001-20190220
3 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 2a-002-20190220


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 5 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


needed in an area” (Our emphasis). This is emphasised throughout the ‘Housing and economic needs assessment’ section of the PPG.

3.8 The emerging BCP should therefore reflect that the proposed ‘Housing Need’ figure is only a starting point and additional housing may be required to facilitate economic growth or the delivery of affordable housing.

3.9 Paragraph 010 of the PPG also includes a number of ‘circumstances’ in which housing need could exceed the standard method minimum. These include economic growth strategies, strategic infrastructure projects, unmet housing need from neighbouring authorities, or where past levels of delivery or previous assessments of need (such as a recently-produced Strategic Housing Market Assessment) are significantly greater than the outcome from the standard method. However, the PPG is clear that this list of
‘circumstances’ is not exhaustive.


3.10 For example, in respect of affordable housing an appeal decision for up to 800 dwellings at the Former North Worcestershire Golf Club highlighted the chronic shortfall in affordable housing which has come forward within Birmingham City since 2011 (Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/W/18/3192918) – a decision which was ‘called-in’ by the Secretary of State.

3.11 Paragraph 14.108 of the Inspector’s Report states that only 2,757 new affordable homes were provided in the City over the first 6 years of the Plan period. This represents less than half of the target provision and a net increase of only 151 affordable homes if Right to Buy sales are taken into account. The Inspector goes on to state that given the heavy reliance in the five year housing land supply on City Centre apartment schemes, it is difficult to see how that trend can be reversed in the short to medium term (paragraph
14.109).


3.12 Whilst it is noted that Birmingham City Council does not form one of the Black Country Authorities, it highlights the recent difficulties with delivering homes on brownfield sites. The high proportion of flatted developments, coupled with the increased likelihood of viability issues, has led to a chronic shortfall in the provision of affordable homes. Should the Black County Authorities follow a similar approach, it may therefore be necessary to increase the housing requirement, in accordance with national guidance, to improve
affordability.











31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 6 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


3.13 In this context PPG4 states “An increase in the total housing figures included in the plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable
homes” (Our emphasis).


3.14 The latest Black Country Housing Market Assessment (dated March 2021) advises that the total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country represents 21.6% (867 per year) of the annual dwelling growth in the housing market area.

3.15 The Housing Market Assessment considers it would be reasonable to expect this proportion of new housing as affordable to be delivered on a large housing site in the Black Country, where a figure of 25% would be plausible (subject to viability). Affordable housing delivery in the Draft Plan ranges from 10% to 30% and for the purposes of this section we have assumed 20% delivery.

3.16 The Assessment concludes by suggesting that Councils can be confident that the affordable housing need identified in the model will be addressed by the dwelling growth identified by the standard method and no adjustment is required to this figure.

3.17 However, as noted above, flatted developments and an increased likelihood of viability issues on brownfield sites could mean that meeting the total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country would be much more challenging than predicted within the Black Country Housing Market Assessment.

3.18 As such, it is considered that any shortfall in housing supply should be regarded as a minimum given that it is currently calculated against an untested housing target that may require an upward adjustment to take account of affordability.

Economic growth


3.19 As we have identified above, Paragraph ID2a:010 of the PPG states “The standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area. It does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing e conomic circum stances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour.”


3.20 It is therefore appropriate to consider whether the level of housing need put forward by the local authority – in this case the standard method minimum – would accommodate economic growth aspirations and align homes with jobs. Failure to do so may exacerbate unsustainable commuting patterns.



4 Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 2a-024-20190220


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 7 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


3.21 From reference to the most recent evidence base document on housing need (The Black Country Housing Market Assessment, March 2021), growth between 2020 and 2039 would create between 39,528 and 46,191 jobs.5

3.22 However, the Housing Market Assessment (HMA) only incorporates this output of job growth from the adjusted Standard Method scenario they have considered. There is no consideration of job growth forecasts from any of the forecasting houses such as Oxford Economics, Cambridge Econometrics, or Experian.

3.23 Barton Willmore would recommend that the baseline economic growth forecasts from one or all of these forecasting houses are consulted. This will help to determine whether the job growth calculated in the HMA is a robust assumption.

3.24 Furthermore, we would recommend that demographic forecasting scenarios are undertaken using software such as PopGroup. This will enable the application of assumptions such as Economic Activity Rates (EARs). The EARs are a key assumption when forecasting. This is because they make a forecast of the proportion of each age group that will be economically active over the Plan period. This can have a significant impact on the number of people, and therefore the number of homes, required to support economic growth.

3.25 Barton Willmore would recommend use of the EARs published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The OBR was created in 2010 to provide independent and authoritative analysis of the UK’s public finances. The OBR produce detailed five-year forecasts for the economy and public finances twice a year and are an official independent fiscal watchdog. Their forecasts of economic activity are therefore considered entirely independent and highly robust.

Affordable Housing Need


3.26 At the outset, Barton Willmore do not advocate that affordable need should be met in full, given the judgment of Mr Justice Dove’s in the Kings Lynn case (High Court Judgment)6, which concluded that neither the NPPF nor the PPG suggest affordable housing need must be met in full.









5 Paragraph 5.7, page 71, The Black Country Housing Market Assessment, March 2021
6 Paragraphs 32-25, pages 10-11, High Court Judgment, Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, ELM Park Holdings Ltd, 09 July 2015


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 8 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


3.27 However, the need should be considered in the context of PPG which states “An i n cr ea s e

i n t he t ot a l hou s i ng f i g u r es included in the plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes” 7 (o ur e m p ha s i s ).


3.28 Table 6.4 of the HMA concludes that net affordable housing need across the Black Country is 867 affordable dpa. This is based on a 30% affordability threshold, i.e., where rent payable constitutes no more than 30% of gross household income.


3.29 The same table also shows the HMA’s calculation of net affordable need based on a 25% affordability threshold. This would increase need to 2,188 affordable dpa and this 5% difference in affordability threshold highlights what a significant impact a judgement on affordability can have.

3.30 However, this need is also based on an affordability threshold related to rent only. The HMA confirms that total net annual need increases from 867 affordable dpa to 3,618 affordable dpa if households were tested for their ability to afford market entry owner occupation rather than market rents.

3.31 The Draft Plan8 sets out the requirements for affordable housing provision, which is dependent on the specific site characteristics. The expected provision ranges from 10% to 30%. As an average, if we were to assume provision of 20%, this would require overall housing need of 4,335 dpa. The Standard Method’s minimum need of 4,004 dpa would therefore deliver most of the affordable housing need.

Past delivery


3.32 Past delivery of affordable housing in the Black Country should be analysed. Table 1008c of the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) live tables provides historic data relating to affordable housing supply. We have reproduced the data on affordable housing completions for the Black Country in Table 3.3.
















7 Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 2a-024-20190220
8 Policy HOU3, page 101, Black Country Draft Plan, July 2021


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 9 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


Table 3.3: Affordable housing completions in the Black Country, 2015-2020

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Dudley 24 107 192 279 264

Sandwell 238 50 122 61 102

Walsall 239 207 240 236 11

Wolverhampton 48 90 157 85 176


Black Country 549 454 711 661 553
Source: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government live table 1008c


3.33 Table 3.3 shows that net affordable completions have fluctuated over the past five years, with 586 affordable dpa being delivered on average.


3.34 Compared with the most recent calculation of affordable need from the HMA based on the affordability of market rents (867 affordable dpa), this means only 68% of affordable housing has been delivered.

3.35 It is important to emphasise how this is based on affordable need determined by applying a 30% affordability threshold. The application of a lower threshold would mean a much lower amount of affordable need has been delivered.

3.36 However, based on the ability to afford market entry owner-occupation rather than market rents (3,618 affordable dpa) past delivery has only provided for 16% of the affordable need.

3.37 Table 3.4 provides a comparison of affordable completions set against completions of all tenures.


Table 3.4: Affordable completions vs overall housing completions

Completions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Affordable 549 454 711 661 553

All tenures 2,534 2,529 2,942 3,009 2,620

Affordable % of all completions 14% 15% 34% 40% 29%


3.38 Table 3.4 shows that over the past five years the Black Country authorities combined have delivered affordable housing at an average rate of 21%. Continuation of this same rate of delivery would require overall housing need of 4,129 dpa over the Plan
period based on the 30% threshold and market rents.







31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 10 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


3.39 However, as we have identified above this is dependent on an affordability threshold of

30%. An affordability threshold of 25% increases affordable housing need to 2,188 dpa, and on this basis the overall housing need would need to be over 10,000 dpa to deliver affordable housing need in full.

3.40 Furthermore, the affordable need based on affording market entry owner-occupation

(3,618 dpa) would require overall housing need of over 17,000 dpa.


3.41 It is therefore clear that affordable housing need is acute based on market entry ownership. In this context it should be emphasised how PPG states “An i ncr ea s e i n t he t ot a l h ou s i n g fi gu res included in the plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes” 9 (our em p ha s i s ).

Afforda ble st ock losses


3.42 The historic delivery measured at 21% above is based on gross affordable stock and takes no account of losses to affordable housing provision through demolition or schemes such as Right to Buy and Right to Acquire. This is an important factor to consider.


3.43 MHCLG Live Table 1008c confirms that 2,928 affordable dwellings were completed in the

Black Country over the past five years. But this is the gross figure only.


3.44 Barton Willmore have used MHCLG live tables to determine how demolition and other housing schemes (such as Right to Buy) have affected the actual affordable housing stock on the ground in Horsham.

3.45 The data shows that stock losses amounted to 2,026 affordable dwellings over the past decade. So, despite 2,928 affordable homes being completed over the past decade, affordable stock has only increased by 902 dwellings (180 affordable dwellings per annum).

3.46 Based on this measure, affordable delivery has only been 7% (902 affordable stock increase) of delivery across all tenures (13,634 dwellings) over the past decade. Based on 7% delivery, overall housing need would have to be over 12,000 dpa to deliver the affordable need based on the affordability of rent (867 dpa).










9 Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 2a-024-20190220


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 11 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


Summary


3.47 The following key points should be noted from our review of housing need in the Black

Country:


• The evidence base does not incorporate any forecasts of job growth; this is considered essential to determine whether the proposed housing need will support the economic growth aspirations of the Draft Plan;
• Bespoke demographic modelling scenarios should be undertaken to indicate

whether an increase to standard method is required to support economic growth;

• This should incorporate sensitivity testing using economic activity rates from independent sources such as the OBR;
• The Council’s HMA concludes affordable housing need to be 867 dpa across the

Black Country;

• However this is based on a 30% affordability threshold in respect of the cost of rent only;
• A small downward adjustment to this affordability assumption would significantly

increase affordable housing need;

• Furthermore, need is significantly higher (3,618 dpa) based on the ability to afford market entry owner-occupation rather than market rents;
• The past five years has seen 21% affordable delivery as a proportion of overall completions;
• However, this falls significantly to only 7% once losses to affordable stock are taken into account;
• Based on the Council’s own evidence of need based on market entry, and our analysis of actual stock increase in affordable housing, the Black Country authorities should seek to increase overall housing delivery beyond the proposed
standard method.























31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 12 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


4.0 EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY



4.1 This section provides a critical review of the existing housing supply as identified by the Black Country Authorities in the Urban Capacity Report. A high level review of the overall methodologies employed is provided under ‘Existing Evidence Base’, followed by a review of each assumption employed related to discount rates; demolitions; density; windfall allowances; and (whilst not expressly referenced in the Urban Capacity Report) implementation rates.


4.2 Case Study examples were utilised within the previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review (dated April 2020) prepared by Barton Willmore, in order to test the assumptions and demonstrate whether it represents a robust position. These examples represented a small sample but were a cross-section based upon site size. Several of the case studies had also featured in news items related to the Black Country’s urban capacity and regeneration of brownfield sites.

4.3 Table 4.1 below includes case studies examples from SHLAAs included in the previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review (April 2020) and provides commentary following revised information contained within the recently updated SHLAAs. In addition, a new case study example of 206 Thorns Road, Quarry Bank, Dudley has been included in the table.


Table 4.1: Case Study Examples from SHLAAs

Site Name Site Details Site Scale

Within Urban

Supply


Commentary

Friar Park,

Sandwell (SHLAA Site Ref 2985)













Rattlechain Site, Sandwell

750 dwellings.

26.65ha. Subject of allocation. Within 0-5 year supply.











322 dwellings. 7.24ha. Subject of allocation.

Represents

largest scale of site within the urban supply.

The delivery

trajectory has been amended from
previous 2018/19

SHLAA – now only

50 dwellings within

0-5 years (2020-

2025) rather than the whole capacity within 5YHLS
Referenced in

SHLAA (2019/20)

as a ‘stuck site’.




31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 13 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


Site Name Site Details Site Scale

Within Urban

Supply
Commentary

(SHLAA Site Ref

2940)




Former Caparo

Steelworks, Walsall

Within 6-11 year supply.




252 dwellings. 6.7ha. Subject of allocation, outline planning permission (Oct 2019) and recent reserved matters application.
150 dwellings within 0-

5 year and 160 dwellings within 6-15 year (SHLAA assumes
310 dwellings based upon previous outline planning permission
from 2010).






Represents

medium-large scale of site within the urban supply.

Now included in trajectory as
deliverable within

10-15 years

Now under

construction in the

2020/21 Walsall

SHLAA update


55-77 Lichfield

Street,

Wolverhampton




Former G&P

Batteries Site, Grove Street, Heath Town, Wolverhampton (SHLAA Site Ref
34400)

Vacant land rear of

2-26 Blowers
Green Crescent, Dudley
64 dwellings. 0.12ha. Expired outline
planning permission. Identified as developable (2024-29).
35 dwellings. 0.79ha. Expired outline
planning permission. Neighbourhood Plan allocation. Identified as developable (2024-
26).

22 dwellings. 0.55ha. New site identified- pre application discussions
Represents

medium- small scale of site within the urban supply









Represents smaller scale of site within the urban supply
No longer in SHLAA








Now 56 dwellings and updated outline permission
– within deliverable supply.




No longer in SHLAA




31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 14 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


Site Name Site Details Site Scale

Within Urban

Supply
Commentary




206 Thorns Road, Quarry Bank,
Dudley

underway. Identified as deliverable.
26 dwellings. 0.55ha. Within 0-5 year supply.


4.4 For the avoidance of doubt, we raise no comments in respect of the suitability of these sites for residential development. They have been chosen to help highlight the delivery assumptions made within the Urban Capacity Report.


4.5 However, as Table 4.1 demonstrates, the sites we considered as part of the previous Urban Capacity Report have not delivered as originally anticipated by the Black Country Authorities, with some removed entirely from the supply.


Existing E vidence Base


4.6 The Urban Capacity Report draws upon the individual Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs) for each of the Black Country Authorities. These were all updated for the monitoring year 2020/2021 to support the Urban Capacity Report Update.


4.7 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraphs 2.1.7-2.1.9) identifies that the inclusion and assessment of sites within the current SHLAAs has followed Government guidance, best practice, sustainability principles and the spatial strategy of the current BCCS. A
‘brownfield first’ principle is applied. The sites identified as deliverable or developable are mainly those with planning permission, allocations on surplus employment land and other sites in the BCCS growth network (including greenfield sites, where appropriate i.e. those with planning permission or considered to be policy compliant). The SHLAAs have been informed via a Black Country ‘call for sites’ carried out in 2017-20 to inform the BCP.


4.8 Following a high-level review of each SHLAA, it is considered that whilst they vary in their level of detail on methodology and site assessment, they do all have recourse to the appropriate national guidance and provide a relatively sound basis for identifying a range
of sites.








31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 15 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


4.9 At the time of writing the previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review (dated April 2020), none of the SHLAAs included reference to the involvement of development industry stakeholders, as set out within the PPG (Reference ID: 3-007-20190722 and Reference ID:
68-007-20190722). This involvement can range from the use of a ‘Panel’ to input into the

methodology and assumptions as well as more site by site detailed engagement (such as written agreements with developers on the delivery intentions for a site). The previous
2019 Wolverhampton SHLAA referred to the use of a Panel of relevant stakeholders in the formulation of the 2010 SHLAA methodology, but there was no clear reference to more recent engagement. The 2018/19 Dudley SHLAA stated it will look to involve development stakeholders further in future SHLAA updates. Whilst the SHLAAs all stated they had engaged with stakeholders via the Call for Sites process (and via further dialogue in cases) to inform deliverability assumptions on sites there was relatively limited detail contained within the SHLAA commentary on how this was undertaken (e.g. any written agreements with landowners/developers) and within the individual site tables provided (with Dudley MBC and Wolverhampton CC arguably providing the most detail).


4.10 This position has now been updated and rectified within the updated SHLAAs. For example, the Sandwell SHLAA advises (at paragraph 2.3) that a Black Country SHLAA stakeholder workshop was held during Autumn 2020, with around 50 attendees from the development industry. Attendees were invited to join a Black Country SHLAA Stakeholder Panel. A meeting of the Panel took place on 24th February 2021, to discuss and provide comments on the draft 2020 SHLAA report/tables of sites and feed into the final published reports. Indeed, Barton Willmore was invited to the stakeholder workshop and have joined the Black Country SHLAA Stakeholder Panel. It is intended to involve the Panel on any updates to the SHLAAs on an annual basis. As such, the concerns raised within the previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review regarding a lack of reporting on the involvement of development industry stakeholders have been adequately addressed within the SHLAA updates.


4.11 In addition, our previous review of the 2019 Urban Capacity Report highlighted that there was also relatively limited information with respect to how the ‘achievability’ of sites has been determined based upon more recent viability considerations. It is noted though that achievable sites are now defined within the Sandwell SHLAA update as sites where there is a ‘reasonable prospect’ that housing will be developed on the site at a particular point of time. Market forces, cost factors and delivery factors should be taken into account in assessing a site’s achievability for development. This should include site preparation costs, the inability to attract necessary funding or investment could also be a constraint to development. Market demand, the value of alternative land use, and the impact of nearby
uses could also be a constraints to development.


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 16 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


4.12 However, it is noted that the Sandwell SHLAA update (at paragraphs 8.16) now states:


“All sites that are being actively promoted by a developer will be considered achievable as it is assumed an analysis of a site’s viability for development would have been completed by the developer.”


4.13 We would therefore query whether a site should be regarded as ‘achievable’ simply on the basis that this has been confirmed by the developer. Indeed, Table 4.1 above, highlights how the expectations regarding delivery of a site can change significantly over a short space of time.


4.14 Our previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review (2020) used the Rattlechain site case study example to demonstrate that the previous 2018/19 Sandwell SHLAA had relied upon a range of potentially marginal brownfield sites within the urban capacity supply. This site was included within Sandwell’s 2018/19 SHLAA developable supply (6-11 years). The Sandwell Housing Delivery Test Action Plan (August 2019) identified that this site requires remediation and is likely to require funding to bridge the viability gap for residential development to occur. However, no further actions were then identified for this site and the necessary funding, such as any opportunities from the Combined Authority. Consequently, the previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review queried the achievability of this site, particularly as the required funding position was not reflected in the SHLAA commentary. However, this site has since been moved to Sandwell’s 10-15 years developable supply in the SHLAA update as has been described as one of three stalled sites within the Borough.


4.15 As part of the evidence base to inform the preparation of the draft BCP, a Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021) has been prepared which assesses whether the housing and employment sites being considered as potential site allocations are financially viable and deliverable. The Study confirms that in order for the Black Country to achieve its housing targets, it is likely that grant funding will be required to facilitate development, particularly those brownfield sites with an industrial legacy to overcome and/or in a low value market area. It is considered that this viability assessment work will improve the robustness of future SHLAAs in terms of demonstrating the ‘achievability’ of sites.


4.16 In terms of the sites included within the SHLAA, it is considered that the assessments have been relatively comprehensive in their scope and identifying potential sources of supply. Again, whilst the SHLAAs differ in their level of detail, reference is made within each
assessment to the appropriate national guidance and the resultant supply identified is


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 17 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


reflects these different sources available. The PPG (Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 3-011-

20190722) identifies the range of sites and sources to be considered.


Table 4.2: Summary of types of sites for consideration

Type of site (from PPG with additional BW commentary) Existing housing and economic development allocations and site development briefs not yet with
planning permission

SHLAA/Urban Capacity Report

Commentary

Housing development allocations on surplus

occupied employment land have been reviewed; identifies the need for reallocation for continued employment use. Review underway for
strategic centre allocations (Centres Study) and open spaces, but economic growth requirements and open space deficiencies mean that these
are unlikely to yield significant additional supply


Planning permissions for housing and economic development that are unimplemented or under
construction, or have been refused/withdrawn
Land in local authority’s ownership/

Surplus and likely to become surplus public sector land


Sites with permission in principle, and identified brownfield land
Vacant and derelict land and buildings (including empty homes, redundant and disused agricultural buildings, potential permitted
development changes e.g. offices to residential; subdivision of existing housing; flats above shops)





Additional opportunities for un- established uses (e.g. making
Included








States these are included. SHLAAs include examples such as car parks. Open space and other allocations are being reviewed as per above commentary
Included. SHLAAs employ brownfield land first approach of BCCS
Included. SHLAAs employ brownfield land first approach of BCCS. This supply generally
consists of smaller sites by its nature which are

included in sites with planning permission and accounted for under the windfall allowance.
May be opportunities for some larger scale, but it is considered that any of significance to the supply would have been identified via the
SHLAA process. Intensification potential addressed in density uplift assessment
Included. SHLAAs employ brownfield land first

approach of BCCS




31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 18 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


Type of site (from PPG with additional BW commentary) productive use of underutilised
facilities such as garage blocks)
SHLAA/Urban Capacity Report

Commentary


Business requirements and aspirations
Review of housing and economic development needs undertaken separately-has informed
SHLAA site assessment process. Identifies need
for retained, occupied employment land resulting in loss of housing allocations


Large scale redevelopment and redesign of existing residential or
economic areas
Redevelopment of existing housing has tended to result in net loss of dwellings in the Black
Country area. Demolitions are accounted for


4.17 In particular, the Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 3.1.2) identifies that it has undertaken a review of existing housing allocations, which has resulted in a reduction of housing supply from allocations on currently occupied employment land. This is reflected in each of the individual SHLAAs.


4.18 Overall, it is considered that the SHLAAs adopt a methodology that is largely in accordance with national guidance for establishing the existing housing land supply position. Previous areas of concern regarding the robustness of the SHLAAs highlighted in our previous report, particularly the involvement of other stakeholders and evidence related to viability, have been rectified within the latest SHLAA updates. A Black Country SHLAA Stakeholder Panel has been setup since the previous SHLAAs were produced, and the latest SHLAA updates have reviewed and updated the recording of stalled sites within the developable supply. However, further site-specific detail within the SHLAAs (for example, related to landownership or funding required) would provide greater transparency and enable more informed judgements to be made on the overall robustness of the supply. It is considered, therefore, that the SHLAAs continue to present a ‘best-case’ scenario at this point in time of the potential housing land supply. The remainder of this section considers the assumptions applied via the SHLAA methodology individually. Given that the matter of reallocated housing sites relates to wider employment land need considerations, it is
discussed in further detail under Section 5.









31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 19 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


Discount Rates


4.19 Discount rates are applied in accordance with Government guidance and best practice in SHLAAs. The PPG (Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 3-024-20190722) advises that local planning authorities should factor in an overall risk assessment to consider if sites will come forward as anticipated. The principle of employing a discount rate is, therefore, supported.


4.20 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 2.1.13 - 2.1.15) notes that previously a discount rate of 10% has been applied to all committed sites (including permissions and allocations) and a discount rate of 15% applied to all unidentified sites expected to come forward within the regeneration corridors or freestanding employment sites. These rates were justified by the Black Country Authorities with reference to the BCCS where the discount rates were independently examined by the Inspector and accepted as reasonable. It is noted that the individual SHLAAs do not contain any further specific local evidence in relation to non-implementation rates.


4.21 The Urban Capacity Report states that a review of the discount rates has taken place during

2020 which has involved the use of data from only the City of Wolverhampton (the only authority with consistent monitoring records for sufficient years available). It notes that the exercise reviewed data from the past 17 years and found that 96% of homes on 33 sites granted planning permission in Wolverhampton in 2001-2004 were completed by
2021. This is considered justification for a lower discount rate of 5% (rather than the previous 10%) to be applied to sites within planning permission and not yet under construction.

4.22 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 3.1.4) notes that this updated position is consistent with the assumptions of the Strategic Growth Study (2018). This assumed a 15% discount rate for sites without planning permission in the Black Country, reflecting the more significant delivery challenges, and it applied a 5% discount rate to sites with planning permission. We note that at the Footnote to Table 2 the Urban Capacity Report states that in relation to the identified housing land supply, the capacity of sites with planning permission but not yet under construction is discounted by 5%, the capacity of developable allocated sites is discounted by 10% and the capacity of developable allocated sites on occupied employment land is discounted by 15%.

4.23 As such, on the basis of the information available, we would consider a 5% discount rate for sites with planning permission to be unjustified. Indeed, the approach is only supported by evidence from the City of Wolverhampton and is based on delivering sites over a short



31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 20 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


period of time. If a 5% discount rate was to be proposed moving forward, we would recommend that it is supported by evidence from each of the constituent authorities. Indeed, as a result of COVID-19, it is reasonable to assume that there will need to be an increase to discount rates, at least in the short-term.


Demolitions


4.24 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraphs 2.1.16 – 2.1.17) reflects on the fact that the rate of demolitions anticipated in the BCCS has not materialised. This assumed the removal of
3,340 (net) dwellings from the housing supply by 2026. However, demolitions have been a fifth of that anticipated to date. This is largely due to the previously anticipated large- scale housing renewal schemes generally coming to an end (with changes to regeneration programmes). In addition, replacement rates have been higher than expected on some schemes resulting in a lower net loss. The individual SHLAAs reflect the latest position for anticipated demolitions and replacement rates.


4.25 It is recognised that following the discontinuation of large-scale housing renewal programmes (such as the former Urban Living Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder programme, which covered areas of Sandwell and ended in 2011) the scale of demolitions has reduced from that previously anticipated. Each individual SHLAA assumes the following demolitions, however there is limited information available on the source of these assumptions.


Table 4.3: Individual authority demolition assumptions

Dudley Sandwell Walsall Wolverhampton

423 dwellings total, comprising 323 housing stock
demolitions and

100 anticipated

demolitions (BCCS

assumption of

20dpa)

340 dwellings total (no reference to source of assumption)

No overall

demolition figure expressed as figures presented as net.

513 dwellings total


4.26 Given the absence of supporting information, it is difficult to critically review the assumptions. The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 3.1.3) does note that the Dudley MBC
10-year Housing Asset Management Strategy (October 2019) has identified that around

2,500 homes (12% of the Council’s stock) are not considered viable and are to be reviewed




31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 21 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


for investment, de-investment or demolition. To date, 423 demolitions are programmed to take place which have been factored into the housing land supply position. It notes that further demolitions are possible over the next 10 years which will need to be factored into future SHLAAs when the information is available.


4.27 The Dudley MBC Housing Asset Management Strategy (page 40) notes that of the 2,500 units, 37% are high rise flats and 40% are low rise flats. It identifies that the Council are looking at the longer-term viability of all of the flatted developments with a particular focus on high rise stock, and it is likely that further recommendations on disposal and/or demolition of additional stock will need to be considered (page 7). The strategy (page 7) states that property numbers overall are expected to decline through right to buy, demolitions and disposals.


4.28 Whilst precise demolition figures are not known at present, and have therefore not been factored into the supply position for Dudley, it is noted that from one scheme alone in Netherton 200 households have been rehoused from four high rise blocks which are programmed for demolition in 2019/20. There is no reference to any replacement dwellings on these sites at present within the housing asset management strategy (page 2). Considering the above commentary, it is clear there will be a further net loss going forward. The BCCS previously assumed a replacement rate of 52%. Assuming that 50-100% all of the properties are to be demolished and replaced at this rate it could result in a further
650-1,250 homes to be accounted for in the shortfall (which is in excess of the 423 dwellings currently assumed for Dudley).


4.29 The position in relation to demolitions will therefore need to be kept under review, particularly in light of any further implications arising from the housing asset management strategies of the respective Black Country Authorities and any other regeneration related programmes.


Densit y (and Net Deve lopable Area)


4.30 4.27 In accordance with BCCS Policy HOU2 the following density and net developable area assumptions have generally been applied across all four SHLAAs. There are some variations to reflect local circumstances (e.g. for Wolverhampton CC a 100% net developable area is assumed for City Centre sites, for Dudley MBC sites over 2ha assume a 75% net developable area). These are applied to sites that do not yet have planning
permission (including allocations), unless particular site-specific factors indicate otherwise.






31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 22 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


Table 4.4: BCCS yield assumptions

Sites of 15 dwellings or more





Surplus occupied
employment

sites

35dph is minimum expectation (net of open space and major roads). Assumes 0-
25% flatted

developments.
35dph (gross). Equivalent to 41dph assuming 85% net developable area.

45-60dph schemes that have good access to residential services by foot or public transport. Assumes 25-50% flatted developments.
50 dph (gross) in highly accessible locations.

60dph and higher within strategic or town centre.
Assumes 50% or more flatted
developments.


4.31 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 3.1.9) refers to the Strategic Growth Study (2018) findings and conclusions, which suggested the Birmingham and Black Country urban area should seek to apply a minimum 40dph density threshold (net area). This could yield an additional 4,000 dwellings (1,000 dwellings from sites of 200+ dwellings and 3,000 dwellings from small sites below 200 dwellings) in the Black Country (subject to further local testing) 10. The Strategic Growth Study based the findings on a sample of 750 sites across the 14 HMA Local Planning Authorities.


4.32 In 2019, a review was undertaken by the Black Country Authorities to test this conclusion more locally. It identified that from 2009-2019 approximately 86% of sites of 15 dwellings or more have been developed at a density of 35dph and higher. Around 54% have been developed at a density of 35-60dph. The Urban Capacity Report notes that it is not possible to increase densities on sites with planning permission and any increases arising from changes in policy would not take effect until 2024 (anticipated BCP adoption date). An analysis is however undertaken of the potential uplift arising from the draft BCP Policy on housing density and accessibility.


4.33 The analysis considers the potential uplift resulting from applying the draft Policy standards to sites of 10 dwellings or more that are unlikely to be the subject of planning permission before 2024. This results in a maximum additional supply of 476 dwellings which is significantly less than the Strategic Growth Study assumption of around 4,000 dwellings. The Urban Capacity Report explains this is due to a more detailed analysis of more recent date site information (paragraphs 3.1.19 of the Urban Capacity Report).




10 The Strategic Growth Study (paragraph 6.13) identified between 2008-11 the average development density within the Black Country was 40-50dph


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 23 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


4.34 It should be noted that to calculate this, the analysis assumes all sites within the 35-45dph density range have a density of 35dph and can uplift to 40dph (paragraph 3.1.19 of the Urban Capacity Report). It could be the case that many of these sites are already due to deliver at near 40dph (or above). For example, the Walsall SHLAA states (page 15) that it has already applied the emerging minimum 40dph assumption to all sites (bar those considered ‘deliverable’ within the five-year supply). The previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review referred to the case study example of the Former G&P Batteries Site identified within the developable supply of Wolverhampton. At the time of writing the report in April 2020, this site was expected to deliver at a density of around 44dph (35 dwellings on 0.79ha net site area). However, since this time, an outline planning application has been granted in February 2021 for 56 2-bedroom flats, which would deliver a density of around 71dph. Therefore, some sites within the supply are already significantly exceeding some minimum densities from the BCCS and Strategic Growth Study.


4.35 The Urban Capacity Report assumes that the uplifts in density can only be assumed from

2024 onwards, given the anticipated adoption date of the BCP. However, as the BCP reaches a more advanced stage of development its draft policies will carry more weight. In the context of the NPPF drive to ensure the planning system makes the most effective use of land (NPPF, Chapter 11), the emerging BCP policies could become a material consideration helping to drive density increases ahead of 2024. This could yield some additional supply to current assumptions. However, given the current assumed figure of
476 dwellings from 2024, this is unlikely to yield any significant gains.


4.36 In terms of the potential to exceed the suggested minimum 40dph, the BCP however needs to take into account the housing mix needs of the area. The Strategic Growth Study (paragraph 6.14) identified that generally it is possible to create developments within densities of 40dph or 50dph which continue to provide for a mix of housing types and sizes, including family housing. The BCCS Policy HOU2 (Table 8) identifies that generally schemes of 35-45dph will constitute 0-25% flatted developments. The Black Country and South Staffordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA, 2017) concluded that given the nature of existing housing stock, the optimum housing mix overall would be 12%
1 bed; 22% 2 bed; 40% 3 bed; and 26% 4 bed properties (to vary by area and tenure). Therefore, given that 66% of the preferred tenure is for 3 bed+ homes there is limited scope to drive minimum densities further without compromising the housing needs of the community. Indeed, the case study example of the Former G&P Batteries Site comprises a
100% 2-bedroom flatted development which achieves a high density but clearly fails to

provide a mix of housing.






31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 24 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


4.37 The case study example of the Caparo Site (Walsall) also demonstrates the need to consider the appropriate housing mix on sites alongside density assumptions and take account of the most up to date market conditions. This site, which is now shown as under construction in the 2020/21 Walsall SHLAA update, was identified within the previous 2019/20 Walsall SHLAA (Site HO0181) as having capacity for 310 dwellings (based upon a previous outline consent from 2010). The subsequent reserved matters approval for the site permitted a capacity of 252 dwellings with a mix of housing sizes (in line with an extant outline planning consent from 2019)11. Based upon the site area of 6.7ha, this delivers approx. 35dph. If a net developable area of 85% is factored in, then this represents 44dph. In reality, the capacity of this site has reduced from that anticipated in the SHLAA and the previous outline consent, resulting in 60 fewer dwellings.


4.38 Overall, the density and net developable area assumptions are considered reasonable at present. Indeed, tenure models such as Build to Rent lend themselves to delivering high density schemes within urban centre locations. There is limited scope to go above 40dph as a minimum because of the need to ensure sustainable communities from a housing mix perspective. The case study example from Walsall demonstrates the need for assumptions on capacity that reflect historic permissions to account for the most up to date market conditions. This should be ascertained via discussions with the landowner/developers and further development industry involvement in the SHLAA process. It is therefore important to recognise that wherever a minimum density is required there will always still be the need to consider the appropriateness of this on a site-by-site basis.


Windfall Allowances


4.39 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 2.1.24) identifies that since 2015/16 the Black Country Authorities have applied a consistent definition of windfall sites to inform the approach. These are defined as sites of 9 homes/0.25ha or less on the basis that such sites will not be allocated as part of the BCP. Collectively the Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 2.1.24) identifies that windfall sites constitute 557 dwellings per annum of the existing housing supply from the mid-2020s onwards (not applied in first years to avoid double counting with planning permissions). This roughly equates to 7,800 dwellings (assuming from 2025 onwards). The individual SHLAAs assume the following rates and
include local evidence to justify them.





11 https://www.wmca.org.uk/news/wmca-announces-multi-million-pound-investment-to-transform-derelict-steelworks- into-252-home-community/



31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 25 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


Table 4.5: Individual authority windfall assumptions

Dudley Sandwell Walsall Wolverhampton

176dpa (2,816

total) from 2023 onwards supported with local
information

108dpa (1,728 total) from 2023 supported with local
information

97dpa (1,455 total) from 2024 supported with local
information

116dpa (1,652

total) from 2025 onwards supported with BCCS
Inspector Report

and local

information. 812

additional windfalls from city centre densification in
addition to this.


4.40 The figure of 557 dwellings per annum from the mid-2020s onwards (totalling around 7,800 dwellings) referenced in the Urban Capacity Report equates to approximately 20% of the total existing housing supply identified at present (39,257 dwellings including additional supply from density uplift and other sources). This is not an insignificant proportion of the supply, which remains unsecured. It also represents 10% of the Black Country local housing need overall (76,076 dwellings).


4.41 The BCCS Inspectors Report noted that in the context of an 8% surplus in supply, a windfall allowance constituting 6% of the supply overall was considered appropriate (equating to
418 dwellings per year).12 Assuming that the BCP meets all of its local housing need, plus an 8% surplus as previously in the BCCS, the current windfall allowance of 7,800 dwellings would represent around 9% of the overall supply.


4.42 The Black Country Authorities should therefore consider if the windfall allowance assumed remains appropriate going forward on this basis. Whilst the windfall rates included within the plans have been supported by local information, the overall proportion they represent as part of the supply needs to be considered to ensure a housing strategy which is as
‘secured’ as possible. Whilst the level of overall housing land supply that will be provided is still unknown, assuming the situation outlined above applies (i.e. an 8% surplus over and above local housing need of 76,076 dwellings, equating to 82,162 dwellings) the Black Country Authorities may need to reduce the windfall allowance accordingly. If a 6% windfall allowance was assumed in line with the BCCS on this basis it would mean the



12 Although it is not clear how this 6% figure was derived in the context of the BCCS requirements and anticipated supply for 63,000 dwellings (2006-2026).


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 26 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


windfall supply assumption would need to reduce to around 4,900 dwellings13 (a reduction of 2,900 dwellings). At the very least, it is considered that the windfall allowance should at least be supported by a sensitivity analysis, demonstrating the effects on supply in the event that the windfall allowance is reduced.


Impleme ntation Rates


4.43 The Urban Capacity Report does not expressly reference implementation timescales in terms of lead in times and build out rates. Indeed, the supporting SHLAAs vary in their degree of reference to implementation timescales. Generally, the SHLAAs state they adhere to the NPPF and PPG in terms of determining which sites are ‘deliverable’ and
‘developable’ with reference to the existence of planning permission. In relation to major sites the SHLAAs have generally determined site-specific trajectories. However, there is limited detail on what overarching assumptions may have informed these judgements e.g. average lead in times based on planning permission status.


4.44 At the time of writing the previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review, the 2018/19

Sandwell SHLAA had assumed the whole capacity of the Friar Park site (i.e. 750 dwellings) will be delivered within five years, despite the site having no planning consent. A news article14 from the Combined Authority (October 2019) outlined that the site had just been purchased and remediation work would begin before a community consultation exercise on a masterplan, followed by discussions with potential development partners. Typically, a site with no planning consent may assume a 2-3 year lead in time (to account for relevant consents and site preparation works, particularly where site remediation is required (as is the case with Friar Park). Therefore, the previous Black Country Urban Capacity Review (April 2020) queried the deliverability of 750 dwellings within a two-year period. In particular, noting the definition of ‘deliverable’ within the PPG and that any assessment of a site should be supported by “robust, up to date evidence” (Paragraph 007, Reference ID:
68-007-20190722). However, this has since been reviewed and rectified within the

2019/20 Sandwell SHLAA update, as the delivery trajectory has been amended such that now only 50 dwellings are included within 0-5 years (2020-2025), as opposed to the whole capacity within the 5YHLS.


4.45 In respect of smaller sites, the application of the timescales specified within the SHLAAs (based upon the PPG) also needs to be more transparent and consistent. The case study example of 206 Thorns Road, Quarry Bank, Dudley demonstrates that some smaller major


13 4,900 dwellings represent around 6% of the 82,162dwellings supply required- identified as local housing need
(76,076dwellings) plus 8% surplus in supply.
14 https://www.wmca.org.uk/news/wmca-and-sandwell-council-deal-unlocks-biggest-brownfield-housing-site-in-region/


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 27 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


sites with no current planning permission have been included within the five-year supply. In addition, this site is identified within the 2019/20 Dudley SHLAA update as having access constraints. It is considered sites such as these should be considered ’developable’ rather than ‘deliverable’ in accordance with the PPG.


4.46 Whilst these examples related to implementation timescales do not necessarily affect the overall supply picture for the whole Plan period, they do raise concerns about assumed deliverability in early years and any knock-on effects for the trajectory for later years i.e. reliance upon a backloaded trajectory. The Urban Capacity Report notes (paragraph
2.1.40) that the re-phasing of sites beyond 2026 to reflect realistic delivery timescales has already been done. However, this should be kept under review particularly as it is assumed that 37% of the current supply will be delivered in the first five years of the BCP (trajectory within Appendix 2 of the Urban Capacity Report). Further clarity on the assumptions and site-specific trajectories for the major sites would provide a more robust and transparent picture of the overall supply.


Sum mary of Existing Housing Supply Re view


4.47 The table below provides a summary of the review undertaken and any subsequent changes to the overall housing land supply accordingly.


Table 4.6: Summary Existing Housing Supply Review
Assumption Consortium Review commentary Potential adjustments to supply
Discount rate Discount rate should be justified further with reference to up to date local evidence on implementation.

To be confirmed


Demolitions Acceptable in principle, however it will be necessary to continue to monitor. Dudley MBC additional housing strategy demolitions not accounted for at
present.
Reduce by up to 1,250 dwellings


Density (and net developable area)
Assumptions considered generally reasonable, although additional supply from density uplift to be treated as a
maximum. Further supply could come
0 dwellings




31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 28 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Existin g Housin g Su pply


Assumption Consortium Review commentary Potential adjustments

to supply

from implementing policies ahead of

2023 with weight of advanced BCP,

NPPF policy context, and also from sites of less than 15 dwellings. However, any additional supply from these sources is likely to be limited.


Continue to monitor whether up to date site specific assumptions are being relied upon (rather than historic
permissions, for example).


Windfall

Allowances
Potentially overstated in context of overall housing land supply and
previous BCCS assumptions. To keep

under review.
Reduce by 2,900 dwellings


Implementation

Rates
Consider consistency of application of assumptions and implications for
trajectory i.e. backloaded trajectory.
0 dwellings




4.48 For the avoidance of doubt, the above assumptions should be considered as a ‘best case

scenario’ for the purposes of this review.


























31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 29 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING CAPACITY



5.1 This section provides a review of the specific types of other sources of additional land supply which forms part of the overall Urban Capacity Report supply.


Surplus O ccupied Employme nt La nd


5.2 The BCCS proposed that 25,000 new homes would be developed on surplus employment land by 2026 (with around half of this in Sandwell MBC). When factoring in a discount rate of 15% this totalled 29,400 homes to be allocated. Detailed evidence produced to support the subsequent Site Allocations (SAD) and Area Action Plans (AAP) for the individual authorities resulted in only 16,182 dwellings being allocated on surplus employment land. Since these were allocated between 2013-2019, only 679 homes have been completed. An additional 703 homes have secured planning permission.


5.3 As part of the evidence base work for the BCP a Black Country Employment Area Review (BEAR) has been prepared, which has been informed by a landowner engagement exercise (as noted in the Landowner Engagement Exercise Technical Report (August 2021)). The BEAR seeks to identify the current intentions for existing employment sites and business needs to inform the BCP approach on the protection and retention of employment land. The report reviews the extent to which existing housing allocations involving the redevelopment of employment land should be deleted, with those sites retained for employment activity. The BEAR has concluded that many of the occupied employment sites currently allocated for housing contain businesses which have either invested in their premises and/or intend to remain in situ in the long term, and specifically throughout the new Plan period. In addition, it should be noted that the re-allocation of employment sites to housing would impact negatively on the ability of the Black Country to provide sufficient employment land to meet its identified needs, as any employment land lost to alternative uses would need to be replaced elsewhere and added to the land requirement. Therefore, the BEAR strongly suggests that these sites should be retained for employment uses and current housing allocations deleted through the Black Country Plan review. The overall effect of this would be a significant reduction in housing capacity compared to when the allocations were made, potentially by around 10,974 homes.


5.4 The Black Country Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) Update (Stage 2,
2021) also identifies a requirement for a net increase in employment land over the new BCP period, which is likely to require the retention of more existing employment land than previously anticipated (Urban Capacity Report, Section 2.2). As a result, the expected




31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 30 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


supply from occupied employment which is currently allocated for housing development is to be significantly reduced via the BCP. Of the 14,800 homes currently allocated on occupied employment land, only 3,826 homes are to remain (included within the 2020
SHLAA housing supply). This represents a significant reduction in housing capacity of

10,974 homes (Urban Capacity Report Table 1 and paragraph 2.1.36).


Table 5.1: Reduction in housing supply on employment land in Black Country
Relevant source and plan period
Expected housing supply from occupied employment land

BCCS (2006-2026) 29,400 dwellings (includes discount) SADs/AAPs (2006-2026) as adopted 16,182 dwellings (488ha)
SAD/AAPs (2006-2026) as at 2020* 14,800 dwellings (444ha/167 sites)

SHLAA (2020)** (2006-2039) 3,826 dwellings (102ha/48 sites)

*Taking into account completions and planning permissions. Figures are undiscounted.
** Taking into account results of the BEAR and EDNA. Figures are undiscounted.


5.5 The Urban Capacity Report (Section 2.2) identifies that there is a potential shortfall in employment land needs for the BCP Plan period, based on the previous EDNA (Stage 1,
2017). However, it should be noted that the EDNA Stage 2 (2021) was released following the publication of the Urban Capacity Report, and therefore we have reviewed the most up to date information contained within the EDNA 2 below.


5.6 EDNA 2 notes that there have been some significant changes in the use of employment space since the publication of EDNA 1 and, in particular, in the last 18 months. Whilst manufacturing remains an important sector for the Black Country Economy, the COVID-19 pandemic has fuelled e-commerce, resulting in increased demand for logistics space requirements (B8 use). Accordingly, there is projected to be an undersupply of employment land of 149-169ha. It has been estimated that the potential loss of employment land over the next planning period would be 62.7ha based on the detailed review of employment sites (including losses to residential uses and other alternative forms of development for employment spaces in the Black Country). Allowance for this loss will need to be factored in planning for the future provision of employment space in the Black Country, bringing the level of employment land requirement to meet employment needs in the Black Country to 30-31ha per annum over the next planning period (equivalent to between 212 and 232 ha undersupply over the next planning period).

5.7 The Urban Capacity Report (at Section 3.2) concludes that, at this stage, a significant shortage of employment land will remain. This is after consideration of the potential for additional sources of employment land to meet the shortfall, such as current non-



31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 31 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


employment allocations which have not yet been developed for the alternative use; intensification of existing sites; any vacant land; and contributions from outside of the Black Country e.g. within South Staffordshire and Shropshire. It is concluded that these potential additional sources will not fully accommodate the need for employment land and the gap in supply will remain significant in scale.


5.8 Overall, the findings of the EDNA and BEAR collectively identify a need for the BCP to continue safeguarding a wide range of local employment areas and promote the recycling of brownfield land within existing employment areas (as well as intensifying their use). The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 2.2.11) notes that even in the context of a need for a net increase in employment land for the BCP, there may be some employment areas which are not ‘fit for purpose’ to meet future needs and could therefore be considered for alternative uses. However, the Urban Capacity Report notes that these could only make a very limited contribution towards meeting housing land requirements and are subject to overcoming significant viability issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that no further or minimal additional housing land supply will arise from occupied employment land.


5.9 We consider that the anticipated circa 3,800 dwellings which are assumed to come forward on existing employment sites should be kept under review given the evident employment land gap going forward, and the viability of such sites (as recognised in the Urban Capacity Report paragraphs 2.1.29 – 2.1.30). It is questionable whether these 3,800 dwellings on surplus employment land can be delivered in the context of an employment land shortfall; competing uses for land for housing and employment supply shortfalls; and the issue of the viability of redeveloping sites of this nature. Indeed, the Viability and Delivery Study (May 2021) confirms that in order for the Black Country to achieve its housing targets, it is likely that grant funding will be required to facilitate development, particularly those brownfield sites with an industrial legacy to overcome and/or in a low value market area.


Strategic Ce ntre s


5.10 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 3.1.22 and Table 5) identifies that the Strategic Centres are not included in the review of existing allocations at present, but they provide a potential source of new supply. They form part of the identified supply for the BCP, as identified within the respective SHLAAs of the Black Country Authorities, providing around
8,100 dwellings (undiscounted, including windfall allowances). It notes that as the BCP
plan period up to 2039 extends beyond that of many Area Action Plans for the centres, there may be the potential to identify further sites for housing.




31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 32 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


5.11 The BCP will set indicative housing targets for each of the Strategic Centres (Brierley Hill Town Centre, Walsall Town Centre, West Bromwich Town Centre, Wolverhampton City Centre). The targets will draw upon the most up to date SHLAA information and will take into account the Centres Study, which is currently underway, and more detailed information being prepared for Brierley Hill and West Bromwich. The Urban Capacity Report (paragraphs 3.1.27 – 3.1.31) assumes the following potential uplifts from this work.


Table 5.2: Summary of existing and uplift capacity in Strategic Centres

Strategic

Centre

Existing

Capacity as at

2020

(dwellings)

Additional review Uplift in Capacity

(dwellings)

Brierley Hill 2,804 Area Action Plan (2011)

to be reviewed alongside BCLP. Will review existing housing allocations and capacity for further supply. Potential for uplift
based existing

allocations and recent evidence base work (Centres Study and DY5
Enterprise Zone

Review)

350


Walsall 937 Up to date assessment of capacity via Area
Action Plan and SHLAA (both 2019). Further capacity may arise from surplus retail sites due to impact of Covid-19 pandemic, but this
requires further

evidence to quantify.
No uplift assumed








31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 33 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


Strategic

Centre
Existing

Capacity as at

2020

(dwellings)
Additional review Uplift in Capacity

(dwellings)

West Bromwich 201 Review of capacity underway with masterplan due for consultation in late
2021 followed by

Interim Planning
Statement. Potential for uplift.

200


Wolverhampton 4,412 Area Action Plan (2016) provides detailed allocations, and also
makes additional

allowance for

residential on other sites and windfall for upper floor
conversions. Impact of Covid-19 pandemic and regeneration schemes (e.g. Future High Streets Fund) leading
to increases in

capacity.
750




5.12 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraphs 3.1.24 – 3.1.25) also notes that whilst the Strategic Centres may have a role to play in accommodating uplifts in supply, the need for them to continue functioning as key sources of employment, retail, leisure, commercial and civic uses should be borne in mind. The issue of more complex site assembly for centre developments is recognised. The need for the housing mix requirements of the emerging BCP should also be a key consideration i.e. a large proportion of the future housing needs
cannot be readily accommodated in high density centre developments.






31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 34 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


5.13 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 3.1.32) states there is some uncertainty with regards to the uplift whilst awaiting the completion of the Centres Study and more detailed evidence for West Bromwich and Brierley Hill. The Viability and Deliverability Study will also test the potential for supply from strategic centres. We would note that as these studies are not available at present, it is not possible to fully review the validity of the assumed uplift in supply. Furthermore, as the Urban Capacity Study (paragraph 3.1.33) notes there is uncertainty with regards to the full impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and national planning guidance changes e.g. whilst the pandemic may give rise to reduced demand for retail space, there may be increased demand for dwellings of sufficient size with good access to public open space. Further supply to that already identified, and the
1,300 total dwelling uplift, is unlikely to be significant in scale. Other Sources
5.14 The Urban Capacity Report (paragraph 3.1.34) concludes that open spaces within the BCP area are unlikely to yield any additional housing supply. The updates to the Open Space Assessments and Strategies to support the BCP are now largely completed and confirm that most existing open space should be retained. Releasing any significant amounts of open space for housing would result in a significant under-provision of open space. It is, therefore, concluded minimal additional housing supply is likely to be derived from this source. We also note that some of the SHLAAs do already include greenfield sites within the overall housing land supply, where they are policy compliant. This source of supply has therefore already been accounted for to a degree.


5.15 In respect of any other vacant land, we note that the SHLAAs have already considered a wide range of sources of sites. However, should any further vacant land (including surplus public sector land) become available it is clear there will be competing priorities given the shortfall in employment land. It cannot therefore be guaranteed any such additional land would be brought forward for housing.


5.16 In relation to further sources of additional brownfield sites from employment land and strategic centres, it is considered that the SHLAAs and Urban Capacity Report have sought to identify as far as possible all existing potential sites. The BCCS and emerging BCP continue to promote a ‘brownfield land first’ approach. The crux of the housing supply issue is that the Black Country Authorities have now identified the need to retain employment land that was previously identified for housing redevelopment.

5.17 It is recognised that the Combined Authority focus on bringing forward long-standing problematic brownfield sites will help to secure housing delivery. However, it is unable to


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 35 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


identify ‘new’ sites where these simply do not exist. The sites which have been the subject of funding announcements by the Combined Authority (for example the Friar Park and Former Capero sites) are accounted for within the Black Country housing supply already; the funding position does not therefore identify new sites, it is helping to secure the delivery of existing sites in the supply going forward. This is to be welcomed as it demonstrates that historically difficult sites can be brought forward with such funding mechanisms in place. However, it does not serve to deliver any new sites. It also highlights the continued challenges the Black Country urban capacity supply faces as these sites would not be coming forward without public sector intervention.


5.18 The Black Country has historically been, and continues to be, a focus for brownfield regeneration funds and schemes as outlined in the Urban Capacity Report (paragraph
2.1.30). A range of mechanisms already have and continue to be deployed via the Black

Country Local Enterprise Partnership and Combined Authority, such as the West Midlands Housing Deal Land Fund of £100m focused on the Wolverhampton to Walsall corridor. Furthermore, the Urban Capacity Report (at paragraph 2.1.30) states that the current funding mechanisms are time limited and are not capable of addressing the viability gap associated with the delivery of sites of former employment land; there is a need for continued engagement with the relevant agencies to secure additional support. Further funding is required to bridge the viability gap for those sites that are already accounted for in the existing supply, as illustrated by the Rattlechain site in Sandwell. For the avoidance of doubt though, it is again emphasised that this funding is being used to deliver sites already within the urban capacity supply i.e. allocations in SADs and AAPs; not identify and deliver additional brownfield sites. The supply gap identified within the Urban Capacity Report will therefore remain despite the sources of funding.


5.19 In relation to densification, it should be noted that the Black Country Area (outside of strategic centres) remains largely suburban in character. It is therefore questionable how far the exercising of any such permitted development rights would go towards generating any significant additional supply.


5.20 From a national perspective, the government has made clear that it intends to progress with introducing new permitted development rights of relevance to brownfield land developments and to provide potential for ‘densification’. For example, new permitted development rights for upward extensions to dwelling houses and for buildings in commercial or mixed use came into force in August 2020, whilst a new Class MA, permitting the change of use of a building from Class E (commercial, business and service) to residential, has replaced the previous Class O (office to residential conversions). However,
as these new permitted development rights only came into force in August 2020, it is too


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 36 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Identific ation of A ddition al Housing C apacit y


early to determine how successful these legislative changes are in providing additional housing supply. Indeed, the scope for office to residential conversions has actually reduced, owing to a capping of total floor space that can be converted under Class MA (development is not permitted if the cumulative floor space of the existing building changing use under Class MA exceeds 1,500 sqm). However, Class MA does enable the conversion of other community uses (i.e. commercial, business and service uses) as opposed to only business/office uses. Therefore, the resultant impact on additional housing
supply and windfalls will need to be monitored.


























































31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 37 October 2021
Blac k Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Summar y of Key Fin din gs


6.0 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS



6.1 The summary table below provides an overview of the potential adjustments to the housing land supply position arising from this critical review. In light of the findings, an additional shortfall of around 4,000 dwellings is identified as a result of potential further demolitions in Dudley MBC and an unjustified windfall allowance. No further discounts have been applied so far however, as the accompanying commentary demonstrates, this figure still represents a ‘best case’ scenario for future housing delivery.


Table 6.2: Summary of Consortium adjustments to Black Country shortfall

Existing
Total
Housing
Supply
(2020-39)

Maximum potential uplift

Total Local
Housing
Need
(2020-39)

Potential Shortfall (2020-
39)

Consortium
Review
Adjustment (to existing housing
supply)

Consortium
Review
Adjustment to Potential Shortfall

Dudley 11,064 584 11,648 11,989 341 Additional demolitions
-1,250

-909

Sandwell 8,510 344 8,854 27,873 19,019 0 19,019
Walsall 7,807 0 7,807 16,568 8,761 0 8,761
Wolverhampton 10,100 848 10,948 19,646 8,698 0 8,698

Black Country 37,481* 1,776 39,257 76,076** 36,819 - 2,900
Windfall rate
reduction

38,469

*Supply from 2019 Urban Capacity Report was 42,171 dwellings. The reduction of 4,690 dwellings is mainly as a result of reductions in supply in Dudley (2,486 dwellings) and Sandwell (1,902 dwellings).
**Local Housing Need from 2019 Urban Capacity Report was 71,459 dwellings. Increase of 4,617 dwellings is largely due to the 35% urban uplift via the standard method for Wolverhampton.


6.2 In the first instance, it is noted that the standard method only provides a minimum starting point for establishing housing need. The PPG outlines a number of ‘circumstances’ in which housing need could exceed the standard method minimum. This can include economic growth as well as the provision of affordable housing. As set out in Section 2.0, affordable delivery has only been 7% (902 affordable stock increase) of delivery across all tenures (13,634 dwellings) over the past decade. Based on 7% delivery, overall housing need would have to be over 12,000 dpa to deliver the affordable need based on the affordability of rent (867 dpa). Whilst we do not advocate that the Black Country Authorities accommodate affordable housing in full, it highlights the potential need for an adjustment to the standard method figure. As such, the Housing Need figures set out at table 6.1 should be regarded
as a minimum.



31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 38 October 2021
Blac k Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Summar y of Key Fin din gs


6.3 In respect of discount rates, it is considered that further local evidence should be used to justify rates going forward. Any future review of these rates on the basis of updated evidence for the BCP should continue to be realistic and reflect the nature of the urban capacity supply of the Black Country with its identified delivery difficulties.

6.4 In respect of densities, the assumptions are considered generally reasonable, albeit the uplift assumed from increased densities should be treated as a maximum. This is particularly important in relation to the necessary housing mix for the BCP going forward. Moreover, the Black Country Authorities will need to clearly demonstrate how they propose an increase in residential densities without compromising the required housing mix. As set out within the Black Country and South Staffordshire SHMA (2017), 66% of the preferred tenure is for 3 bed+ homes. Increasing the delivery of flats within the Black Country will not, therefore, provide much needed family housing.

6.5 The Black Country Authorities should provide further clarity on implementation assumptions for individual sites that have informed the housing trajectory to provide additional transparency. This is particularly important in the context of a number of problematic sites within the supply (e.g. with remediation or site assembly issues) being relied upon to meet future housing needs. The availability of funding going forward to secure such sites will need to be a key consideration.

6.6 With regards to additional sources of supply, including surplus employment land, the approach of the Black Country Authorities to reviewing existing housing allocations is welcomed. This provides a more up to date picture of the potential supply of housing from this source. The case study examples of Friar Park and the Rattlechain site illustrate the continued delivery challenges within the Black Country on former employment sites. These sites are included within the circa 4,000 dwellings expected to come forward on former employment sites as part of the overall Black Country housing supply, but they would not be achievable without public sector intervention. The existing assumed housing supply should therefore be treated with caution, which is particularly dependent upon sufficient public funds being available to bridge the funding gaps on difficult sites. The issue of competing land uses also needs to be borne in mind in the context of an employment land shortfall for the Black Country. It is, therefore, maintained that the current circa 4,000 dwellings identified from employment land within the supply should be treated as a maximum at this stage.


6.7 In terms of non-employment land sources of supply, it is considered that the SHLAA processes have sought to identify as far as possible a range of other sites e.g. vacant land, public sector disposal opportunities. However, such sources are unlikely to yield any
substantial additional supply relative to the overall housing supply shortfall identified to


31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 39 October 2021
Blac k Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Summar y of Key Fin din gs


date, particularly as some of these sources of supply are already accounted for within the overall capacity. It is also noted that there is no available evidence at present to support the assumption that West Bromwich town centre can accommodate an additional 500-1,000 dwellings. This uplift from the Strategic Centres should therefore also be treated with caution and assumed as a maximum at this stage.

6.8 As set out in the Urban Capacity Report, there is understood to be a shortfall of 36,819 new homes over the Plan period from brownfield sites across the Black Country Authorities. However, based on the information available, this should in fact be considered to be approximately 38,469 new homes over the Plan period. This is also before matters of competing land uses, viability and affordability are taken into consideration. A shortfall of 38,469 dwellings should therefore be regarded as the ‘best case scenario’.

6.9 This is clearly a significant shortfall that needs to be addressed in full as part of the emerging Black Country Local Plan. Whilst continuing to promote the development of brownfield land will form part of addressing housing need, it is clearly apparent that further greenfield and Green Belt options will need to be included to ensure that housing need is met in full. In the event that the Black Country Authorities are unable to meet their full housing need, through the Duty to Cooperate, this will need to be accommodated elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham HMA.

6.10 The Urban Capacity Report (at Graphs 1 and 2 and paragraphs 2.1.40 – 2.1.41) notes that as a result of the findings housing land supply has fallen below that required to meet the housing targets set out in the BCCS up to 2026; an under-supply of around 10,347 homes representing 37% of the remaining BCCS housing target is demonstrated. The loss of supply on occupied employment land and the re-phasing of sites beyond 2026 has given rise to this shortfall. In respect of the BCP, the findings also serve to demonstrate that housing need outstrips supply from 2020/21 onwards, with the gap widening until there is a total shortfall of 38,595 homes (not taking into account the potential uplift in supply arising from density increases and the Strategic Centres) in 2038/39, representing
51% of the total housing need for 2020-39. In light of this significant under-supply and clear pressing need in the short term as well as over the plan period, there is a clear imperative for the Local Authorities within the Housing Market Area to address the
shortfall now.













31201/A5/P2c/WW/AB/bc Page 40 October 2021
Black Count ry Ur ban C apacity Review Recommendations an d Nex t Steps


7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS



7.1 This critical review provides a basis for engagement with the Black Country Authorities as well as the wider Greater Birmingham HMA local authorities. It highlights areas of concern and those of indicative support in relation to the scale of the shortfall in housing land supply, which will need to be taken into consideration as the BCP progresses.


7.2 On behalf of the Consortium, Barton Willmore prepared a critical review of the 2019 Urban Capacity Report in April 2020. This review queried the robustness of the individual Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs) for each of the Black Country Authorities, as they largely remained silent on the involvement of development industry stakeholders and evidence related to viability. Whilst these previous areas of concern have been rectified within the latest SHLAA updates, some concerns remain in relation to the assumptions made on the overall robustness of the supply.


7.3 Several of the Greater Birmingham HMA authorities are currently considering the potential to accommodate unmet needs from Birmingham City and the Black Country through their respective Local Plan reviews, such as Cannock Chase, Lichfield and South Staffordshire. This critical review demonstrates that a significant housing supply shortfall within the Black Country area exists and these neighbouring authorities are therefore justified in considering the need to accommodate shortfalls arising, under the Duty to Cooperate. However, it should be emphasised that the findings of this Report remain a ‘best case scenario’. Whilst we have demonstrated within this Report that the shortfall should be considered as approximately 38,469 dwellings, this could increase even further as the supporting evidence base continues to be tested.

7.4 This update of the Urban Capacity Review has taken place during early 2021, to provide evidence to accompany the Draft Black Country Plan which was published for consultation on 16th August 2021. The next update of the Urban Capacity Review will take place in early 2022, to provide evidence to accompany the Publication (Reg. 19) Black Country Plan due to be published in summer 2022. This should be kept under review to ensure the issues outlined within this Report are suitably addressed.