Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6386

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The justficiation for the reduced housing target is that the delay the preparation of the Local Plan means that the Strategic Growth Study (SGS) (2018) is ‘out of date’. This argument is flawed as the SGS has formed part of the evidnce for other emerging plans including those at EiP and have not found to be unsound by the appointed inspectors. It is also referenced in the August 2022 HMA wide SoCG as that the Strategic Growth Study represents the only independent document providing GBBCHMA shortfall evidence. Thirdly, even if it is accepted that the Strategic Growth Study is out of date, it is inappropriate
for the Council to progress a Local Plan in an evidence base vacuum. Instead, the Council should be working with the relevant Local Authorities to update the Strategic Growth Study to inform plan making in the HMA. Fourthly,more recent evidence across the HMA from Birmingham and the Black Country authorities’ evidence bases produced between 2022 and 2024 identifies that the unmet housing need to 2041/42 stands at circa. 108,906 homes.

The plan includes Green Belt development, and given that the principle of Green Belt release is engaged, it becomes a matter of scale. The Council has previously tested the provision of 4,000 homes through the Local Plan (and sustainability appraisal) process and found it to be sustainable.It is therefore submitted that the Council should revert to the level of housing provision provided for within the previous iteration of the Local Plan and attempt to address housing needs in a more positive manner.

Object

Representation ID: 6387

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst Policy DS5 seeks to deliver the local housing for South Staffordshire need identified through Policy DS4, we consider that further housing allocations are required, given the GBBCHMA shortfall represents a ‘best case scenario’. L&Q Estates fundamentally disagrees with the assertion that the Strategic Growth Study is out of date. Even if it was, the indications within the Study were that the unmet need would increase, not decrease.

In light of the above, we consider that further strategic housing sites, including Yieldfields Farm, should be allocated within the South Staffordshire Local Plan, in order to assist the Council in meeting the unmet housing need arising from the GBBCHMA. Such an allocation would be consistent with the now removed tier ‘Growth adjacent to the neighbouring towns and cities in the Black Country’. the site could have a significant role in meeting the cross boundary unmet needs and is capable of delivering up to a total of 1,900 new homes, alongside the provision of two primary schools, local services and facilities as well as significant open space. Providing large urban extensions focused to the north of the Black Country aligns with para 60 and 73-74 of the NPPF.

The 2024 is essentially an amendment to the 2022 Regulation 19 Plan. The Council only ‘paused’ preparation of its Local Plan following the 2022 Regulation 19 Plan consultation. On this basis as the Council’s Local Plan reached the pre-submission consultation stage before 19th March 2024 and in these circumstances paragraph 230 requires the plan to be examined under the 2021 version of the NPPF. The Council’s reasoning to significantly reduce the housing requirement is a tenuous attempt to justify the significant reduction in Green Belt release and to address the GBBCHMA authorities
housing shortfall, which is well established. Even in the current 2024 Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan Review the Council have found there are exceptional circumstances to release land from the green belt however they have failed to properly address the requirements of
paragraph 146 c) of the latest version of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 6388

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

The Council's Duty to Cooperate Topic Paper 2024 refers to the GBHMA Development Needs Group Draft Statement of Common Ground dated August 2022, but the SoCG includes information that is no longer correct, inclduing referring to the Council's 4,000 home contribution and does not consider evidence from the emerging Birmingham Local Plan so has not been kept up to date, in line with national requirements.it is evident that not all authorities are in agreement with the matters set out in the SoCG, given it was drafted nearly two years ago and only half of the constituent members have signed it. It can therefore only ever hold limited weight as a document.

It is therefore irrational that South Staffordshire Council can suggest the SoCG constitutes evidence that the Strategic Growth Study requires updating. Furthermore, if the Council is of the view that the Strategic Growth Study is out of date, it should have produced updated evidence to support this position, rather than pursuing an unevidenced Local Plan.

The DtC Topic Paper references an October 2023 setting outt that SSDC was considering revising it's stratgey however these appear absent - these letters must be published in advance of the Local Plan EiP. Without this evidence, it cannot be said that the Council has demonstrated that it has passed the duty to cooperate.

Object

Representation ID: 6404

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policies SA1 and SA2 are not considered to be sound as they are not positively prepared, not justified and not consistent with national policy. The updated 2024 Housing Site Selection Topic paper summarises Land at Yieldfields Farm (Site Ref: 492 a, b and c), in the context of the Council’s new preferred spatial strategy (Option I), concluding that the land is not adjacent to a Tier 1 settlement and thus is not consistent with the preferred spatial strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 6405

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policies SA1 and SA2 are not considered to be sound as they are not positively prepared, not justified and not consistent with national policy. The updated 2024 Housing Site Selection Topic paper summarises Land at Yieldfields Farm (Site Ref: 492 a, b and c), in the context of the Council’s new preferred spatial strategy (Option I), concluding that the land is not adjacent to a Tier 1 settlement and thus is not consistent with the preferred spatial strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 6900

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Plan Period
The NPPF is clear that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years from adoption (emphasis added)2. In order for compliance with the NPPF to be achieved, the SSLPR would need to be adopted by 2026 at the latest. Whilst that may be achievable with a fair wind, it is considered that any delays to the Submission and subsequent Examination of the SSLPR could result in the Plan falling foul of the requirements of the NPPF. Given the NPPF requirement for strategic policies to look ahead 15 years is a minimum expectation, and the potential for a prolonged Examination, given matters such as the Duty to Cooperate which are likely to require significant consideration, the Plan period should be extended until at least 2043. An extension to the Plan period to 2043 would increase the Council’s Local Housing Need derived from the Standard Method by an additional 454 dwellings, with the potential for additional contributions required towards the unmet needs of the GBBCHMA too.

Object

Representation ID: 6901

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is considered that the substantial unmet needs of the GBBCHMA should be addressed. The SSLPR makes a far too limited contribution to the unmet needs of the GBBCHMA, given such unmet needs are so significant and increasing. It is therefore considered the SSLPR must accommodate further growth in order to be considered positively prepared and thus sound at Examination. It is suggested that the starting point should be 4,000 dwellings, aligned with the contribution proposed in the 2022 version of the SSLPR Publication Plan and as recognised by the Black Country authorities, with an appropriate increase to take account of the significant growing unmet needs of the Black Country including specifically Wolverhampton, and substantial unmet needs arising from Birmingham.

Object

Representation ID: 6902

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Buffer
Draft Policy DS4 reports a buffer of approximately 10% in housing supply, providing for 5,199 dwellings in supply as set out in Table 7 against a Housing Requirement of 4,726 dwellings. However, it is considered that a 10% buffer is insufficient to afford the appropriate level of assurance and flexibility in housing supply for the Plan period. Indeed, the proposed buffer has reduced from the 2022 version of the SSLPR Publication Plan which reported a buffer of circa 13%. The Local Plans Expert Group recommended to Government in 2016 that a further allowance should be made, equivalent to 20% of the Housing Requirement. A 20% buffer would provide flexibility across housing supply to ensure local housing needs can be met even in circumstances where assumed supply does not come forward as anticipated. Consider that it is appropriate to incorporate a buffer into the Housing Requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 6904

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Draft Policy DS4 identifies that a significant proportion of the identified housing supply is made up of commitments, i.e. sites with planning permission.
We note in the supporting Housing Site Selection Topic Paper (2024) that a significant number of sites with planning permission that have not yet commenced are included in the housing supply, without any account taken of the potential for such planning permissions to lapse if unimplemented. It is considered that a minimum 10% lapse rate should be applied to commitments not started, to ensure the supply is robust.

Object

Representation ID: 6905

Received: 29/05/2024

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Windfall Allowance
Draft Policy DS4 seeks to incorporate a windfall allowance of 600 dwellings on small sites in the housing supply. This has been carried forward from the 2022 version of the SSLPR Publication Plan, but at an increased proportion of the total housing supply identified; up to 11.5% from 5.8%.
We have concerns with the inclusion of any windfall allowance in South Staffordshire. Whilst recent windfall delivery rates may have strong, given the emerging Local Plan Review only seeks to maintain existing policy mechanisms for windfall development, rather than expand the scope for windfall delivery, the ability for windfall delivery rates to persist is queried.
there is considered to be significantly limited opportunities for windfall development in the District. This is particularly noteworthy in the context of substantial Green Belt coverage in South Staffordshire, tightly drawn Development Boundaries.
Consider the windfall allowance should be removed from the housing supply in draft Policy DS4.