Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 5000

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

St Philips notes that the Council has not reflected on the critical concerns raised by St Philips in the previous PO and SHSID consultation responses. Firstly, as St Philips
previously stated in their PO representations, the Council should not utilise completions already delivered in the District prior to the current base year in generating the District’s housing need for the plan period. As St Philips has previously advised, to ensure a sound approach, which aligns with the guidance in the PPG3, St Philips consider that the Council’s LHN should be applied to the whole emerging plan period (2018-2039).
Secondly, as set out in detail within St Philips’ PO and SHSID representations, both the NPPF and PPG are clear that the LHN figure generated by the standard method is a minimum starting point and the PPG is clear that it would be appropriate for a higher figure to be adopted on the basis of employment, infrastructure, affordable housing or unmet housing needs.
An affordable housing need uplift would be required to account for the affordable housing needs of in-migrating households from the Black Country or Birmingham, resulting from the proposed 4,000 dwelling unmet housing needs contribution.
Whether there would be a sufficient supply of housing to meet the indigenous employment needs identified within the Council’s new ‘Economic Development Needs Assessment.
Moreover, the Council’s proposed unmet need provision is contrary to the clear caveats set out in the SGS, that it is for Local Planning Authorities to test potential growth through the local plan process (Para 1.41 and 1.42). The quantum of growth identified within the SGS is therefore not a maximum or minimum, and it is for the Council to establish through its own Local Plan process the quantum of growth the District is capable of accommodating above its own LHN.
To this end, St Philips PO response suggested that there was a cogent need – if not a requirement – for the Council to prepare a robust and evidence-led approach which draws on analysis that considers the functional housing market relationship between the various local authority areas. As the Council will be aware, Lichfields, on behalf of St Philips, undertook this analysis. Lichfields’ functional housing market relationship analysis indicates that the Council should be seeking to make provision for c.25% of the total unmet needs of the Black Country HMA up to 2039 and c.7% of the total unmet needs of the Birmingham HMA up to 2031. When combined this would equate to c.8,650 dwellings above the District’s own housing needs, which should be seen as a starting position and tested through the Sustainability Assessment [SA] process.
However, St Philips disagrees with the conclusions of the Reg 19 SA. On the face of it, the Reg 19 SA is fundamentally unclear as to how the Residential Growth Options have been scored. Indeed, there appears to be little evidence to justify the scores given, as the Reg 19 SA notes that the assessment is only at a high-level, is limited, and results in “uncertain impacts being identified for various SA Objectives” (Para N32), other than the Housing SA objective, due to “the uncertainty over the distribution of development” (Para E.2.1.).
Disagree and state there are flaws in the SA conclusions on the growth scenario conclusions.
contribution.
It is evident that there are opportunities to allocate additional ‘suitable, available and achievable’ land and sites in sustainable locations across the District. Indeed, St Philips site at Wolverhampton Road, Wedges Mills (Site ref: 529) is one of these opportunities.
Disagree with the buffer - quoting other authorities which have had higher.

Object

Representation ID: 5001

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Council’s updated ‘Rural Services and Facilities Audit 2021’ [RSFA] identifies Wedges Mills as a Tier 5 settlement, and the PP therefore still does not propose any allocations within the settlement, or at all along the edge of Cannock. Indeed, the draft policy states that these “settlements are not intended to experience further housing or employment growth, owing to their poorer public transport links and lack of services and facilities relative to other settlements within the district.”
the Council will be aware, in St Philips’ previous representations to the PO St Philips expressed concerns regarding the Council’s omission of any growth on the edge of Cannock. Particularly because this approach had no regard to the role that Cannock’s ‘higher order’ services have for the residents of settlements along its boundary, such as Wedges Mills, and that Wedges Mills is sustainably located on the edge of Cannock, which utilises the variety of existing services, facilities, and employment opportunities in Cannock.
Despite now assessing sites within the West of Cannock (A5 Corridor) area of search within the SSTP, the SSTP concludes that having considered all reasonable alternative sites on the western edge of Cannock, no site is considered to perform so well as to change the Council’s preferred spatial housing strategy.
In this regard, St Philips disagrees with the Council’s conclusion. In particular, due to the fact that this has been informed by an assessment of St Philips’ site at Wolverhampton Road, Wedges Mills (Site ref: 529) which contains unjustified and incorrect assessments of the Site. Whilst the Site was assessed in a previous ‘Sustainability Appraisal (2021)’ and ‘Housing Site Selection Topic Paper (2021)’ [HSSTP] and discounted the site due to Green Belt and landscape harms.
However, St Philips’ previously submitted Vision Document clearly demonstrated that any impacts from the development could be appropriately and sensitively mitigated. Indeed, St Philips’ vision for the Site did not comprise the full area of the Site, but comprised only a limited area located adjacent to the current western built-up area of Wedges Mills and would be contained within the existing tree-lined field boundary.
For this and other reasons St Philips disagree with the Housing Site Selection Topic Paper 2021 and Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment November 2022.
St Philips, therefore, requests the Council to consider a modification to draft Policy DS5, which considers the issues raised within these representations. In particular, St Philips considers that the Council should allocate Land at Wolverhampton Road, Wedges Mills for residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 5002

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In summary, whilst St Philips would support the inclusion of a housing mix policy within the Local Plan Review, the Council should not be overly prescriptive in the application of a principally demographically derived District-wide housing mix. Indeed, the Housing Market Assessment is clear that the “profile set out is a guide to the overall mix of accommodation required in South Staffordshire although it is acknowledged that the Council may wish to divert away from this profile in particular instances” (Para 8.12). A degree of flexibility is encouraged by St Philips.
In this context, St Philips is concerned that Policy HC1 as it is drafted is unsound. Paragraph 82d of the NPPF requires that planning policies:
“be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, allow for new and flexible working practices (such as live-work accommodation), and to enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.”
Furthermore, paragraph 62 of the NPPF states that “the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies”. As it is drafted, Policy HC1 is overly prescriptive and does not allow for sufficient flexibility to react to new evidence that suggests the districts housing needs have changed. Furthermore, the Councils district wide approach to housing mixes does not adequately assess the housing needs of different communities within the District.
St Philips therefore recommends that Policy HC1 be amended to allow for housing mixes to be justified based upon up-to-date market evidence of housing need and demand at the point of decision making. This would ensure that the PP is sound and compliant with paragraphs 62 and 82d of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 5003

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

St Philips notes that the Building regulations (Part L) have recently been amended to require that new homes will need a 31% reduction in CO2 in comparison to preceding standards. Policy NB6 sets out standards above those required at a national level.
The Council’s proposed strategy aims to seek carbon reduction standards above those introduced by the Government in June 2022. St Philips does not accept the proposed direction of travel within draft Policy NB6 as there is no evidence to support the departure from the latest changes to the building regulations (Part L).
Following a review of the 2022 Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Study (SCRE) submitted in support of the PP, St Philips considers that the 63% reduction in carbon emissions against the 2022 Building Regulations Part L is not justified. The SCRE only refers to legal acts such as the Energy Act 2008 when justifying departure from the 2022 building regulations (Part L) but does not provide supporting evidence to deem this direction of travel as being necessary.
As draft Policy NB6 has not been justified by sufficient evidence, St Philips considers that this policy is not legally compliant with national policy.
In order to make the Local Plan Review legally compliant, St Philips recommends that the more onerous standard proposed should be reduced to reflect the 2022 building regulations (Part L).

Object

Representation ID: 5005

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Omission site: Wolverhampton Road, Wedges Mills (Site ref: 529)

It is evident that there are opportunities to allocate additional ‘suitable, available and achievable’ land and sites in sustainable locations across the District.

Indeed, St Philips site at Wolverhampton Road, Wedges Mills (Site ref: 529) is one of these opportunities.

Support

Representation ID: 5007

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: St Philips

St Philips welcomes the Council's decision to ensure development is directed towards sustainable locations such as Wombourne. St Philips are highly supportive of the Council's decision to allocate Site 416a within the Land off Orton Lane allocation within the PP.

Object

Representation ID: 5008

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: St Philips

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

St Philips is highly supportive of the Council's decision to allocate Site 416a within the Land off Orton Lane allocation within the PP. St Philips would also note that the Site is located in the highly sustainable settlement of Wombourne. Wombourne is ranked second in the proposed settlement hierarchy and is the largest of the settlements that have been designated within Tier 2. The Site will therefore make a valuable contribution to meeting the housing needs of the District and its neighbouring local authorities. However, whilst broadly supportive of the PP, St Philips has some concerns regarding draft Policy HC1 and NB6 covered in separate representations.

Object

Representation ID: 5099

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: St Philips

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

St Philips is concerned that evidence provided within the Council’s latest Housing Market Assessment could quickly become out-of-date. The Council should therefore allow for housing mixes to be justified based upon evidence of housing need and demand at the point of decision making, rather than through a prescribed housing mix set out in the latest Housing Market Assessment.

Any current assessment of housing mix is likely to not reflect the changing demand for properties as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and working from home practices. Furthermore, St Philips considers that the Councils approach to prescriptively apply a District-wide housing mix is inflexible and unsuitable when different areas will have differing requirements and demographic profiles.

St Philips recommends that housing mixes are based upon market signals and housing need and demand at the point of decision making.

Object

Representation ID: 5100

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: St Philips

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

St Philips notes that the Building regulations (Part L) have recently been updated and from 15 June 2022, homes will be required to achieve a 31% reduction in carbon emissions in comparison to previous standards[1]. Through Policy NB6, the Council is seeking to implement standards above what is required by Building Regulations. Following a review of the PP’s evidence base, St Philips considers that the Council has not provided sufficient evidence to justify this departure from national standards and therefore the policy is not legally compliant. This is in conflict with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 5137

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

We are largely supportive of policy HC1 housing mix as it states that on major development sites, the market housing mix ‘must’ include a minimum of 70% of properties with three bedrooms or less. We would prefer the wording of ‘must include’ to be amended to ‘should’ as such a target would place a disproportionate and inflexible burden on small and medium housebuilders who may be more inclined to provide bespoke homes with a higher specification for customers seeking larger homes. Moreover, a housing mix policy for the borough as a whole does not account for the vagaries of local markets, nor local supply issues.

We therefore do not consider this policy is consistent with NPPF para 82.