Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6728

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

RPS has reviewed the DTC TP and would draw the Inspector to the following on matters relating to unmet housing need:

• South Staffordshire District Council (SSDC) had accepted a proposed contribution of 4,000 dwellings and had consulted on this in their Publication (Pre-Submission) Plan in autumn 2022.
• However, in October 2023 SSDC wrote to all authorities within the GBBCHMA setting out that South Staffordshire was revising it strategy and asked for their initial views on this revised approach. The DTC TP says that ‘These letters and responses can be found in Appendix..’.
• Neither the letters sent to it neighbours in the wider HMA in October 2023 nor any correspondence, if it exists, has been appended to the DTC TP.
• The evidence relied upon by the SSDC to demonstrate they have met the duty to cooperate is provided in the DTC TP (at Appendix A). However, this largely relates to various officer working group meetings, email correspondence between parties, and local plan consultation responses.
• The evidence does point to a Statement of Common Ground dated August 2022 across GBBCHMA and key related authorities (Appendix B of the DTC TP). This SOCG refers to the 4,000 dwelling contribution from South Staffordshire. However, as highlighted above, SSDC has now effectively reneged on their previous commitment and so the value of this SOCG of evidence that SSDC has met the duty must be in question. In any event, the SOCG was only signed by 9 of out 17 signatories, and so cannot be taken to formally represent a pan-HMA agreed position.
• Appendix C of the DTC TP provides a draft South Staffordshire Functional Economic Market Area Draft Statement of Common Ground Position at April 2024. This SOCG has no signatories.
• Appendix D of the DTC TP includes a number of draft Statements of Common Ground with individual adjoining and HMA local authorities, and which include commentary on strategic matters relating to the wider strategic housing and employment shortfalls. Notably, the DTC TP indicates that Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall Councils have responded to say that they are not currently in a position to agree officer drafts. None of the draft SOCGs have been formally agreed at Member level.

Object

Representation ID: 6729

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

Progress on formal sign off of the statements of common ground (dealing with both housing and employment) remain outstanding with no clear timetable for when these will be signed.

SSDC’s shift away from their previously agreed position on the shortfall undermines the previous progress made to that point.

On this basis, it cannot be said that engagement to date on addressing the unmet housing need matter has been effective and undermines the need for a positively prepared and justified strategy, contrary to national policy.

The issues set out above cannot be addressed through main modifications. If the Inspector agrees with this, the second Reg 19 Plan must be withdrawn and return to the Reg 18 stage.

Object

Representation ID: 6730

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The revised policy now proposes a reduced number of Green Belt releases and, notably, does not propose any additional safeguarded land to replace those sites safeguarded for development in the Site Allocations DPD (2018). The Council asserts that the spatial strategy is ‘positively prepared’ (Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper 2024, para 3.10). RPS strongly disputes this assertion.

Object

Representation ID: 6731

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RPS agrees that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of green belt land for housing.

However, the revised EC topic paper only considers exceptional circumstances as being justified in respect of Tier 1 settlements. This excludes consideration of Tier 2 settlements, including Huntington, despite Tier 2 settlements being identified under the Council’s preferred capacity-led strategy (Option I). The revised EC topic paper is incorrect and exceptional circumstances should extend to Tier 2 settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 6732

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SA3 of the second Reg 19 Plan identifies just one site for allocation at Huntington (Land at Pear Tree Farm) for 39 dwellings (site 016).

However, once this site is allocated in the new local plan, there will be no other safeguarded residential sites identified at Huntington. RPS contend that, in the context of an ever decreasing supply of non-Green Belt brownfield land, and a very tightly-drawn boundary around the village, in order to provide for an orderly release of land to meet future needs beyond the new plan period (to 2041) the Council should take the opportunity to identify safeguarded land at Huntington to replace site 016.

In response to the evidence presented in this submission, the Council should at the very least remove from the Green Belt the Land north of Limepit Lane (portion of site 591) that was previously proposed for allocation at the preferred options stage in 2021.

In addition, in response to the evidence presented in this submission, the remaining extent of site 591 should also be released from the Green Belt and allocated for housing in the SSLP

Alternatively, site 591 should be safeguarded for future release from the Green Belt as part of the next local plan review process to address future housing needs at Huntington.

Comment

Representation ID: 6733

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Details of the Green Belt Study in relation to Site 591 can be found in the full representation.

On this basis, RPS does not consider the evidence in the GBS to be adequate or proportionate and so is not soundly-based in respect of parcel 391.

A separate Landscape and Green Belt Review (LGBR) was prepared by Barton Willmore (BW) and which is appended to this submission (Appendix 2).

In light of the findings of the site-specific assessment, RPS does not consider the Council’s GBS to be sufficiently robust or adequate and so, on that basis, the Council’s assessment of parcel’s 591 is not soundly-based (not justified). Consequently, RPS contend that exceptional circumstances exist to justify releasing these parcels from the Green Belt and to allocate them for housing in the SSLP.

Object

Representation ID: 6734

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RPS has reviewed this latest SA and has a number of soundness concerns.

Our first concern is that the selection of Option G is based on discounting Options A and H on the ground that delivering a suitable housing mix would be challenging under these options (SA report, para 5.3.8 / E.3.3.4). Such an approach is spurious because more homes would be deliverable under Options B (7,030 dwellings) and Option C (9,130 dwellings) which the SA concludes are the ‘best performing options’ (SA report, para 5.3.9).

The selection of Option G would clearly undermine this objective, and so its preference is confusing and illogical.

Object

Representation ID: 6735

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The second concern is that Option G also includes reference to consideration of locational specific factors, no other residential growth option includes such a specific location-based criteria, instead they simply focus on overall scale options (for local and wider HMA needs).

This would suggest the preference for Option G (4,726 dwellings) has been skewed in order to fit with the preferred strategy, rather than being an appraisal carried out in a ‘policy off’ context, contrary to the regulations. Given the lack of consistency evident here, RPS would question whether the SA, and the preference for Option G, has in fact been carried out in a fair and transparent process.

Object

Representation ID: 6736

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

SA, Appendix F provides details of the assessment of Spatial Options. The Council has selected Option I as it’s preferred spatial option.

Our soundness concern with this approach is that the SA favours ‘Option H’ as best performing against the SA objectives overall (SA, Appendix F, F11.14.5). Nonetheless, the SA discounts Option H because it does include any contribution towards unmet need from BBCHMA. On this basis, Option I is favoured instead because it does include a contribution and so performs better under SAO 7 (Housing).

RPS would agree that option H should be discounted for the reasons given by the Council. However, all the other discounted options include higher housing contributions towards the wider unmet need from the BBCHMA than proposed under Option I (SHSTP 2024, section 4.14 The Spatial Housing Options A – I).

Revisit SA in light of the soundness concerns set out in this submission, then reconsult prior to submission of the second Reg 19 Plan for examination.

Object

Representation ID: 6737

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: IM Land

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The second Reg 19 Plan proposes a dramatic reduction in the scale of growth planned for now, in light of wider (unmet) housing need from the BBCHMA as well as sub-regional employment growth proposals planned to come forward in the District (considered below), which does not represent positive planning and is not justified.

It is unclear whether employment growth has been taken into account in determining appropriate housing need. Details on employment development can be found in the full representation.

The substantial over-allocation of employment land in the second Reg 19 Plan will need an additional labour supply to fill the new jobs provided. From the review of the published evidence undertaken by RPS, this appears not to be the case. Without clarity on this matter, the proposed housing target in the second Reg 19 Plan is not justified and so is not soundly-based. RPS therefore recommends that the Council revisits its assessment of local housing need in order to properly assess the impact of planned future employment growth in the District.