Black Country Core Strategy Issue and Option Report

Our concern is that it takes a considerable amount of time to make funding available for new development and this is holding back sites from being released.

Furthermore, it cannot be guaranteed that the funding which is provided now will continue to be available during the plan period.

In this context it is important to ensure that there is a balance portfolio of housing provided, some of which will be less dependent upon intervention funding. It is for this reason that we endorse a higher proportion of development on greenfield/Green Belt sites that is currently in the plan (see response to Question 3).

Our response is that such matters will be better addressed at the development management stage when it will be possible to assess the specific impacts on individual schemes. The locational criteria to be applied to the inspection of sites should suffice for development plan purposes. Some of this will reflect matters such as proximity to local services.

We make no formal comment at this stage but we participate in the next stage of the plan when more details of this approach are given. We would stress, however, that given the likely constraints which will exist on many of the Black Country sites, care should be taken to ensure that overly restrictive policies are not introduced which could further reduce the attractiveness of sites for development.

We agree that HOU1 of the adopted Core Strategy needs to be reviewed. We agree that the proportion of housing to be built on previously developed land will need to be significantly changed and we have indicated elsewhere that the plan should provide approximately 50% provision of the overall requirement on greenfield/Green Belt sites.

We do not favour the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land. Given the considerable amount of housing required across the BCCS, it will be necessary for both greenfield and brownfield sites to be released at the same time. Indeed, the greenfield/Green Belt sites are likely to serve different areas of the housing market and so it is important that a range of sites are made available for all sectors of the housing market at the same time. Furthermore, the current strategy has failed to deliver the required level of housing from former employment sites.

In terms of a discount rate we note that there have been problems in meeting the housing requirement in the plan period. This is of particular concern given that the housing trajectory for the adopted Core Strategy starts at a relatively low rate. The extent of the shortfall is already 3,000 units. Given the problems of bringing forward brownfield sites, acknowledged elsewhere in the Issues and Options document and including matters such as viability, ground conditions, failure to release employment sites, we believe that a discount rate of 25% should be applied. We consider that the proportion of a greenfield land as an element of the overall supply should be increased to provide more certainty about provision across the plan period and to ensure that the housing strategy accords with paragraph 47 of the Framework. It should be noted that the requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing land became national policy after the adoption of the BCCS.

We make no comment at this stage about proposals for high density allocations within strategic centres, particularly in Walsall, until more market research has been carried out to ensure that there is both demand and an appetite from the house building industry to provide this type of product.

The calculation of density standards is a difficult subject. It is always important to start first with an understanding of what the net developable area of a site may be irrespective of whether it is brownfield or greenfield. It will be necessary to have regard to site constraints, parking requirements, offset distances, green infrastructure requirements, drainage requirements etc. All these factors can significantly limit the net developable area on a site. It is important not to overestimate densities which could be achieved when identifying sites to be released for development. Once schemes provide more than 40 dwellings per net developable acre the density will usually require some element of flatted development.

The insistence on 35 dph as a minimum could well be problematic on greenfield sites, particularly if these are expected to accommodate significant areas of green infrastructure.

We would suggest that the policy should be targeted to provide densities of 30 to 40 dph depending upon site specific circumstances. High densities could be achieved in more centralised locations adjoining transport hubs, again subject to achieving acceptable design standards. We have explained elsewhere the importance of ensuring that development management expectations need to be married to strategic housing requirement delivery objectives.

We would keep the threshold at 15 homes or more. This will help to assist smaller house builders to provide schemes on smaller sites which tend to have more exacting development management issues such as overlooking, relationship with existing uses etc and which can limit the ability to increase densities.

In our response to Question 36, we identify the fact that greenfield sites may have more exacting requirements in terms of green infrastructure and that density standards may well have to be reduced. We suggest that density standards of 35 dph net developable should be considered.

Generally speaking we believe that provision for the housing for the elderly will be demand driven. Occupiers will understand their markets and we would not welcome a restrictive policy regarding the location of either accommodation for the elderly or affordable housing.

No. The SHLAA does not fully assesses affordable housing requirements as referred to above; as such it should not dictate an overall mix. House builders will provide housing to meet their assessment of the localised market. Setting general standards across such a large area can be difficult and can cause problems with housing delivery. Furthermore, it is important to understand the likelihood that new housing will also generate movements from existing stock to new stock thereby freeing up smaller properties for first time buyers and younger families.

No, we do not support this approach. This is not a significant sector of the housing market. Given the need to encourage housing on a variety of sites, many of which will have problems in terms of delivery, we would not favour a policy which could create problems for delivery and viability which would arise if self and custom built housing were introduced into any housing requirement.