Black Country Core Strategy Issue and Option Report

No, we consider that the review needs to go further than a partial review. Whilst the overall strategy of supporting further housing and employment growth with an emphasis on regeneration should be supported, it is clear that the desire to achieve major regeneration of identified areas has failed, for a variety of reasons relating to ownership, viability, market perceptions, site suitability etc.

The approach of the BCCS is based upon the revoked West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and it was produced prior to the adoption of the Framework. Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the amount of housing and employment land that is required that the Black Country Core Strategy needs to respond to. The emerging Core Strategy is also being prepared in a significantly different economic climate to the adopted document. These factors clearly indicate that a new approach should be taken to the development through the Core Strategy review.

The adopted Core Strategy seeks to deliver development by focusing the majority of new housing employment land requirements through a Growth Network and a series of Regeneration Corridors. It is, however, advised in the "delivery" section of the emerging Core Strategy (paragraphs 2.5 to 2.11) that the level of concentration in the growth corridors is "less than participated". One of the reasons for this is that more windfall sites will come forward than expected outside of the Growth Network. These windfall sites have assisted in housing delivery. Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary, of the emerging plan advises that there is currently a shortfall of 3,039 dwellings in the Black Country to meet the housing requirement set by the adopted Core Strategy for the plan period to date. The windfall developments have effectively bolstered housing delivery whilst the housing allocations within the Regeneration Corridors and Growth Network generally have under delivered.

The Growth Network and Regeneration Corridor approach in the adopted Core Strategy is based upon the delivery of a significant quantum of housing on surplus employment land. The emerging plan advises in paragraph 2.5 that it is transpired that there is "not as much surplus employment land suitable for housing as anticipated". This is partly because the economy has strengthened and local firms are more robust than expected and partly because the sites are more affected by constraints than expected.

It is, therefore, our view that the approach of the adopted Core Strategy seeking to focus new residential development on poor quality employment land will not deliver the housing numbers required. In addition, as referred to in response to Question 4, new evidence identifies a significant requirement for additional employment land. As a consequence, the emerging Core Strategy should prepare an approach that places less reliance on the delivery of housing on employment land.

This means that the trajectory of the current plan is unlikely to be met since it now relies heavily on windfall sites, some of which are not suited to market requirements or are also subject to contribution and viability problems.

A new strategy is required which will provide a range of sites on both brownfield and greenfield (Green Belt) opportunities which are capable of being delivered in the new plan period and which will be attractive to the market.

We consider that a portfolio of new strategic sites would be identified in the emerging plan with capacities of 150 to 500 units plus. Such sites are more likely to be deliverable in the plan period although we do see the opportunity for a major mixed use urban extension to the south west of Junction 3 of the M5.

The identification of a range of sites will ensure that there is adequacy of supply and will avoid reliance on major urban extensions which can experience difficulties in terms of funding and timing.

We also consider that a realistic approach needs to be taken to sites coming forward and that a non implementation rate needs to be identified in respect of the windfall element of the housing requirement. This is particularly important given the considerable reliance given to windfall sites in the current supply figure and the acknowledgement with Review department that there have been problems experienced in bring forward brownfield sites.

We also believe that the strategy needs to encompass wider discussions with the adjoining Authorities to the Black Country, including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove whose administrative boundaries adjoin or are close to the Black Country and where there are functional and geographical linkages.

We believe it is important that the Green Belt releases are phased for the early part of the plan period so that a mix of sites can be made available to meet the needs of the market. This will also help with early delivery and will help Local Authorities to maintain a five year housing land supply and also to boost significantly the supply of housing in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the Framework.

This approach is entirely consistent with the requirement of the Framework. The Framework requires Local Authorities to "be significantly" for supply of housing land. In accordance with the requirements of footnotes 11 and 12 of the Framework, housing sites would be "deliverable and available" in order to be allocated. The employment led regeneration approach of the emerging Core Strategy has failed this test at least to some degree.

Indeed, it is specifically advised that the higher than anticipated levels of windfall development do "conceal a delivery challenge". There is a large number of major housing sites concentrating the Growth Network. However, many of these sites have multiple constraints and financial assistance is required for them to come forward (paragraph 2.10). This includes 300 hectares of occupied employment land which has been allocated for housing. This approach brings issues of viability due to the cost of land assembly, business relocation and land remediation. Significant amounts of external funding are required to deliver this. Whilst some funding is available, it is not sufficient to cover the costs of compulsory purchase, which may be necessary on many sites. The sites are clearly not "deliverable" or "developable" in the context of the allocations test put in place by paragraph 47 of the Framework. To be considered deliverable, sites should be available for development now and be achievable for a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site. To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged. This is not the case with a significant number of the employment allocations within the adopted development plan, by the emerging Core Strategies own omission.

Finally, we consider that a more robust SHMA should be undertaken focusing on the Black Country and the adjoining Authorities. The housing market areas should not be confined to the administrative boundaries of the Black Country Authorities.

We consider that a more in depth analysis needs to be undertaken of the brownfield windfall sites which make up the housing supply and, in particular, their ability to be brought forward. It is not clear to the development industry, given the current rates of completions and the need for a significant step up in delivery rates, that the windfall sites will come forward at the rate required.

A study needs to be undertaken regarding the true capacity likely to be obtained from brownfield windfalls. This will help to identify an appropriate non completion allowance.

As noted in the response to Question 1, we also believe that the SHMA needs to be reviewed so that it follows the housing market area and not simply Local Authority boundaries.

We further support the intention identified at paragraph 3.11 that the Council intends to explore new means of providing housing beyond the housing market area used for the BCCS review where there are clear migration or commuting links with Local Authorities. This strengthens our view that the SHLLA may have to be reviewed because of the linkages with surrounding authorities.

We also note that there appears to be no acknowledgement that the current shortfall provision, identified at some 3,000 units, has been taken into account in the housing requirement figure.

We are also of a view that the Black Country Green Belt review should prioritised. It is noted that it is suggested that the Green Belt review will not be completed until mid 2018. It is, however, anticipated that the preferred options consultation will be undertaken in September 2018. There is going to be a clear reliance on Green Belt sites in delivering the emerging housing requirement. We are concerned that there is insufficient time for the Authorities to properly digest the findings of the Green Belt review and identify strategy for new development based upon Green Belt land release in and around the Authority area in the time allowed between the completion of a Green Belt study and the publication of a consultation document.

Finally, we believe that further research should be undertaken regarding the effect of Government grant regimes in bringing sites forward. Our experience to date has been that the programmes have been time consuming, costly and unwieldly and have had limited benefit in helping to increase the supply of housing land.

National guidance requires Local Authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs in the market and affordable housing in their housing market area, as far is consistent with policies set out in the Framework. The objective is to boost significantly the supply of housing.

We have already commented in respect of our responses to Questions 1 and 2 that the SHMA needs to be reviewed and this could lead to an increase in the overall requirement for the Black Country Authorities.

As a starting point, we are concerned with the approach the SHMA has undertaken towards the HMA. It is advised that the SHMA does not seek to visit the HMA but build upon the work undertaken in establishing the Greater Birmingham HMA part of the preparation of the Birmingham Development Plan. HMAs overlap. The HMA for Birmingham will not be exactly the same as that for the Black Country. The emerging SHMA should have at least tested whether the HMA boundary remains valid for the purposes of its assessment. This approach is, however, entirely missing.

It should also be noted that the SHMA does not fully address affordable housing requirements. It is confirmed in paragraphs 7.26 to 7.29 of the SHMA that the National Planning Practice Guide requires a "policy on" calculation of the housing needs for certain groups of people. Affordable housing need is not a direct component of the demographic part of the objectively assessed needs assessment. As such, an updated calculation of this nature is not included in the SHMA. It is for the client Authorities to consider whether more new homes over and above the objectively assessed housing needs figure identified in the SHMA should be provided in the plan area to address more affordable housing need through policy adjustments.

The Framework advises that paragraph 159 that Local Authorities should develop SHMAs to inform their local plans. The SHMA should, amongst other things, "address the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the need for different groups in the community". This process has not been completed by the SHMA. It does not, therefore, provide a complete picture of housing need within the subject Authority areas.

The SHMA is not, therefore, in accordance with national guidance in this regard. The SHMA needs to be supplemented with additional information that factor in affordable housing requirements to establish a true objectively assessed housing needs figure.

Furthermore, there is a difference between the objectively assessed housing needs figure and the quantum of housing which should be allocated for development by the plan. Not all housing sites deliver as expected. This is clearly evidenced by the existing Core Strategy where there has been significant under delivery in the Growth Network. As referred to in our response to Question 1, there is clear uncertainty regarding for delivery of a significant number of the housing sites identified on the existing employment land by the current development plan documents. It is necessary for the emerging Core Strategy to identify housing requirement notably above the objectively assessed housing needs figure take account of non-delivery of proposed housing allocations. At the present time the Black Country Core Strategy has undelivered its housing requirement by approximately 11.6% (Appendix C - Black Country Monitoring Summary). It is, therefore, our view that the finalised objectively assessed housing needs figure should be increased by a minimum of 11.6% of flexibility to supply and to take account of the delivery in delivering the urban regeneration sites.

The current completion rates are significantly below what is required for even the current local plan figure and are significantly below the figure of 3,690 units per annum identified above. Even at 78,190 units over the plan period, this produces an annual requirement of 3,554 units per annum which is also far in excess of what has ever been achieved annually in the BCCS. We consider that this is a challenging figure in terms of the current supply, over half of which is dependent upon existing housing supply in the urban area and is largely made up of brownfield windfalls.

In this context we believe that it is going to be important to significantly change the balance of the current supply with a far greater reliance on greenfield/Green Belt sites than the 25,000 units identified.

We note that the overall supply from the urban area depends upon some 42,507 units from existing sites in the urban area and a further 8,335 units from the urban area, much of which appears to come from former employment sites.

Given the problems in releasing employment sites in the current strategy (see paragraph 3.16 and paragraph 2.5, the latter identifying the problems in releasing employment sites), we consider that the local plan strategy which relies on some 65% of provision on urban brownfield/windfall sites (using the draft figure of 78,190) is wholly unrealistic given that, to date, the current local plan has failed to meet existing requirements.

The components of the supply in the urban area (completions plus existing housing supply plus estimated further housing supply) total some 56,520 units which equates to a requirement of 2,569 units per annum over the new plan period. However, that required completion figure is in excess of what has been achieved to date through the current local plan, which relies entirely upon brownfield windfalls in the urban area, that figure being 2,325 units per annum.

It is apparent, therefore, that the current supply of brownfield/windfall sites is unlikely to produce sufficient units to meet its share of the housing requirement and, therefore, the contribution which this makes to the overall requirement should be reduced (this will be consistent with our argument about adopting a non completion rate) and the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites outside the existing urban boundary should be increased. This will require contributions to be made from greenfield/Green Belt sites within the BCCS administrative area and also from sites in sustainable locations which are well related to the Black Country in neighbouring authorities.

Although we reserve our position on this point, we would expect that the contribution from the existing brownfield windfalls to be reduced by some 25%, to reflect the problems of market attractiveness, viability, delivery etc and with a consequent increase in the greenfield/Green Belt allocations.

In summary, the SHMA does not properly identify the housing requirement for the HMA. In addition, the reliance upon brownfield urban sites is not supported by evidence. There is, therefore, a requirement for a fundamental shift in the plan strategy with greater reliance placed upon Green Belt/greenfield land release in and around the wider HMA area of sustainable locations in order to ensure delivery.

It is not clear if the land requirement fully encompasses land to be lost to residential development and other uses. The current supply of housing identified in the emerging plan requires a significant contribution to be made from former employment sites. It has been noted, however, in the Issues and Options document that employment sites have failed to come forward at the rate expected, partly owing to problems in site delivery but also partly because of recovery in the demand for the stock of existing employment sites.

We expect that demand to continue for local and sub regional requirements on appropriate sites.

In addition, we believe there will be a demand for large, greenfield sites to encourage inward investment and we consider that sites should be identified to the north and south of the Black Country which are well connected to the existing motorway network.

We consider that the employment requirement should be based on a net addition in order to take account of any losses to alternative land uses.

We agree that a range of sites will need to be allocated including, as noted above, high quality sites to attract inward investment.

We also question whether the figure of 394 hectares of employment land can be regarded as being realistically deliverable and we believe that further assessment about the delivery of this land should be undertaken.

We agree that a review of the Green Belt is an imperative element of the new strategy. This needs to be completed in time to inform the Core Strategy Review to be published in September 2018.

We consider the review will need to assess the implications of land release in adjoining Authorities including South Staffordshire, Wyre Forest and Bromsgrove.

Green Belt sites in both the Black Country Authority area and in these other authorities will have a vital role to play in providing the necessary housing supply to meet the housing requirement over the plan period. They will need to make an early contribution to housing supply and should not be phased for delivery in the latter part of the plan period.

We also think it is important that the Green Belt Review extends beyond the current plan period in order to provide a lasting Green Belt boundary in accordance with the advice set out in paragraphs 83 and 85 of the Framework. That advice suggests that the boundaries should be set so that they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period. If necessary, safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt should be identified in order to meet long term development needs "stretching well beyond the plan period".

We would suggest that the Green Belt Review should be conducted in order to provide for development needs up to 2051.

We believe that an extensive review needs to be undertaken in order to ensure that an appropriate strategy is arrived at. Clearly, reliance upon the existing strategy will fail to meet the housing requirement and employment land requirement identified.

We believe that elements of the evidence base require further examination including the SHMA and also the likely delivery of housing and employment from existing brownfield windfalls and existing sites.

There appears to be some confusion in the plan as to the extent of the gap identified. The policy talks about 22,000 homes but then also identifies a further 3,000 units as a shortfall in the housing area. It is unclear if the current shortfall of 3,000 units has been addressed.

In this context there may be a need to identify a further 28,000 homes over and above the existing, alleged, capacity in the urban area.

There is a need to continue to plan for a growing population. However, the SHMA underestimates delivery, this is not taken into account affordable housing needs. Furthermore, the emerging plan housing requirement will need to take into account the fact that not all housing allocations deliver. As a consequence the housing requirement will need to be significantly above the objectively assessed housing needs figure within the SHMA. The suggested "gap" between supply and need of 22,000 dwellings is, therefore, less than that actually required.

This figure may increase further when proper account is taken of the true delivery capabilities of the land in the existing urban area. So far, the current local plan has failed to deliver development rates which would meet with the housing requirement for the new plan period and indeed do not even meet the requirement which will be needed from the current supply identified. This suggests that the contribution from greenfield/Green Belt sites from within the BCCS area and from Authorities adjoining it will need to be increased significantly.

The Green Belt release should not be seen as a matter of a last resort but needs to be part of an overall strategy with early releases needed to ensure supply of housing sites in the early part of the plan period.

We are content with four of the five Core Strategy Vision and Sustainability principles but the fourth bullet point, 'Brownfield first' is no longer relevant. As we have explained in our responses to previous questions, the reliance on Brownfield development needs to be significantly reduced. It is already acknowledged that a significant number of homes, 22,000 - 25,000 may have to be allocated on Greenfield / Green Belt sites (these could be still higher if the current shortfall is to be rectified) and if an update to the SHMA reveals the need to release new land to meet affordable housing needs. We have already explained that we are concerned that there is an over reliance on Brownfield sites and that this could, overall, increase the requirement for new development on Green Field / Green Belt sites to some 40,000 units which will be approximately half of the overall housing requirement, once account is taken of the shortfall from the early part of the current local plan period.

For these reasons, Greenfield / Green Belt sites will have to be released at the same time as the Brownfield supply in order to ensure an adequate supply in the early part of the planning period. This is entirely consistent with paragraph 17 of the Framework which, whilst encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites, does not seek to prioritise their use over greenfield sites.

We would also question whether or not the reference to 'comprehensive approach to development' has any real meaning in terms of delivery of individual sites. We consider that if 'comprehensive' development is required this can still take place on a phased basis so long as new development achieves a comprehensive approach in due course.

We consider that spatial objectives two and three need to be reviewed. Whilst we would continue to support the delivery of high quality employment and within the regeneration corridors, which will also be helpful to local business, it should be recognised that inward investment may require high quality Greenfield sites on the edge of the Black Country. The availability of land 6a54 was a considerable benefit in bringing JLR to the Black Country and the opportunity for similar scale developments should be seized through the local plan review process. In particular, we consider that further strategic employment development on the north side of the Black Country and also to the south east, adjoining Junction 3 of the M5, should be identified.

We also have concerns that the regeneration corridors have failed to deliver wide spread change throughout the Black Country and that they may not provide a basis for sustainable communities in the new plan. In this context, we believe that this particular objective should be replaced with the following:

'Identification of a series of deliverable housing sites on Brownfield and Greenfield within, adjoining and well connected to the Black Country which will meet the BCCS requirement over the plan period. These sites will be of differing scales and will provide different market opportunities to delivering housing over the planning period.'

We agree that the policies should be changed. The growth network strategy will not provide for the new housing and employment requirements for the Emerging Local Plan and need to be amended to reflect the fact that a significant proportion of both housing and strategic employment sites will have to take place on Greenfield / Green Belt sites outside of the current urban boundary and indeed on sites outsides of the BCCS administrative area.

The presumption in favour of using Brownfield sites first also needs to be altered so that an appropriate portfolio of residential and employment sites can be developed over the planning period.

We do not comment upon specific regeneration corridors but we believe that they will all need to be reviewed to see if they are fit for purpose. In particular, they should be examined to see if the employment elements are still likely to be required by the existing and new local businesses. Where it is clear that significant change in the regeneration corridor are unlikely to happen during the new planning period, alternative provision should be made.