Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 5148

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land at Blackhalve Lane (Site 520) should be proposed for allocation. Part of the site was proposed for allocation in the Black Country Plan (BCP). We firmly consider a more comprehensive scheme would ensure a more holistic approach is taken to creating a robust, enduring and permanent Green Belt boundary. The site is also within close distance to the proposed allocation to the south ‘Land north of Linthouse Lane (site reference: 486c Policy SA2) and allocation of our site, Land at Blackhalve Lane, would link the two sites well.

The site could deliver 100 homes (including 30 Affordable homes) as well as green infrastructure, biodiversity net gain and other public benefits.

The green infrastructure within the site would provide strategic public open space that was previously not available for local people. This represents a beneficial offset to the loss of Green Belt.

The site currently presents as a ‘blank canvas’ with very few constraints, bar the hedgerow and trees dotted within the site. The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1,

Comment

Representation ID: 5258

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

It is noted that the Vision remains broadly the same as that presented in the adopted Core Strategy with regard to the aspirations to protect and enhance the district’s rural character, communities, and landscape. It is considered that on this element it remains relevant and is
broadly supported.
Local Plan Review Vision does now include, however, the Council’s declared climate emergency (declared in 2019), with greater emphasis placed on providing homes which
accord with NPPF 8c which sets out that in order to achieve sustainable development, proposals should mitigate and adapt to climate change. It also seeks to 'protect and enhance' the District as it currently exists, rather than thinking forward and considering how
growth could better the District as a whole.

Comment

Representation ID: 5259

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

The Plan’s objectives should be amended to reflect the need to meet both the present and future housing requirements, including those pressures arising through the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. In this instance the well-known unmet housing needs of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) should be clearly considered.
The Local Plan lacks clarity at Strategic Objective 1 and does not define the exceptional circumstances for release of Green Belt land as part of its strategy. It should be made clear that the need to identify land for growth and development over the Plan period, and
beyond, means that there are exceptional circumstances arising which have required a full and detailed Green Belt boundary review, with a view to identifying land that it is proposed to be released from the Green Belt to meet the District’s growth requirements.
In relation to Strategic Objective 2, reference is made to meeting the housing and employment needs of the District. It is considered this could be strengthened to refer to meeting the needs of both existing and new residents of the District, but the overarching thrust that new housing should be focussed on sustainable locations in the District, including the key villages, is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 5260

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

St Philips do not accept the Council's proposition that the Green Belt may constitute an opportunity to ‘retain and enhance landscapes’. Green Belt is a development restraint policy set out at chapter 13 of the NPPF and is not a landscape or character policy. The NPPF outlines "the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence". Therefore, the Council should amend the text within Policy DS1 and its supporting text to represent national policy.
The 2018 Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA)
Strategic Growth Study presented a strategic review of the Green Belt across the ‘joint authorities’’ area. This review was undertaken in the light of the shortfall in housing need identified across the area. It was acknowledged that as a significant proportion of land within the HMA area is covered by Green Belt, ‘exceptional circumstances’ through Local Plan reviews would be required to alter the Green Belt boundaries.
to be sound, and accord with national policy the Plan must include a
consideration of Green Belt boundaries that will endure beyond the end of the Plan period in 2039. Para 140 of the NPPF states that “strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the
long term, so they can endure beyond the Plan period.” The Plan should identify opportunities for safeguarded land so that anticipated housing and development needs and opportunities beyond 2039. St Philips interests at Bratch Common Road, Wombourne could be safeguarded.

Object

Representation ID: 5261

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Document. St Philips supports the inclusion of a policy setting out the need for Green Belt compensation in relation to sites being removed from the Green Belt.
However, the policy still leaves elements of ambiguity, outlining that planning applications will not be granted until appropriate compensatory improvements have been secured through Section 106 Agreements. Whilst it is appreciated that the SSDC have outlined that
'applicants must demonstrate proportionate compensatory improvements', this does not provide a clear requirement for Green Belt compensation and further clarification should be provided.
The hierarchical approach to the Green Belt compensation policy is not supported. Neither
the NPPF nor the PPG refer to a hierarchy of preferred methods of Green Belt compensation.
Whilst it is accepted that having the GB compensation located close to the allocation is advantageous and should be pursued, ultimately it is the delivery of that improvement on land, which is in close proximity to the allocation, which is of greatest significance, and not
whether the developer owns the compensation land, which seems to be the inference of criterions a) and b) of the proposed policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5262

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The principle of the proposed 4,000 houses to support the GBBCHMA shortfall is broadly supported by St Philips however, as discussed above, the published unmet housing need for the GBBCHMA is significantly short of the actual need which is well in excess of 66,000
homes. In addition, South Staffordshire District Council have allocated the minimum figure of housing required by the Standard methodology and as such, St Philips raises concerns regarding a potential insufficient housing to meet the District’s housing needs.
As such, South Staffordshire should incorporate additional housing allocations within the Local Plan to address both the growing unmet housing needs of the GBBCHMA and the Council's own housing need. St Philips as previously discussed at paragraph 4.16, suggests the Council introduce a policy which safeguards land for future development to provide a long-term strategy should the housing need increase further.
The updated HMA at paragraph 5.13 suggests that the housing
requirement of 9,089 homes over the Plan period is sufficient to address the projected economic growth for the District. St Philips has concerns regarding the proposed housing figures due to the rising instability of the Black Country leading to greater unmet housing
needs across the GBBCHMA which they feel would result in a greater housing requirement Further evidence is necessary prior to the Plan being submitted for examination to consider the balance between jobs and the working age population and the rising unmet housing
needs of the GBBCHMA with reference to the recent changes in administration of the now ‘defunct’ Black Country Core Strategy Review.

Object

Representation ID: 5263

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

St Philips do not support the identified location for such longer-term growth as it has not been justified at the present time when considered against reasonable alternative options.
The Plan, as drafted, purports the idea of a potential New Settlement in the longer term, but there is no specific location for the settlement, it has not formed part of the reasonable alternatives considerations as a result of there being no specific location identified. It has therefore not been fully justified so cannot be found sound as written.

Object

Representation ID: 5335

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to land at Billy Buns Lane and Gilbert Lane (allocation refs: 463 and 284)

The principle of additional development in Wombourne being pursued to deliver housing need requirements is supported. However, the allocation of land at Billy Buns Lane and Gilbert Lane (allocation refs: 463 and 284) is not considered sound when considered against appropriate site selection criteria and the evidence base. The release of such land from the Green Belt would cause harm that could be avoided through the allocation of alternative sites, such as that in which St Philips has interest, at Bratch Common Road.
The Housing Site Selection Paper (2021) sets out detailed commentary on the Proposed Housing Site Allocations set out at Policy SA5. The ‘moderate-high’ landscape sensitivity of the proposed allocation is a result of the Site’s visual prominence as identified in the
Landscape Sensitivity Study, but the Site is considered suitable for development based on its sustainability characteristics, being in proximity of local schools and also significantly close to the village’s centre than other sites around the village.
There are other sites around Wombourne which could deliver development whilst causing less environmental harm. The site at Bratch Common Road has been identified as having a low-moderate landscape sensitivity to development and the Vision Document (Appendix 1)
confirms that the site is well related to the existing settlement of Wombourne.

Object

Representation ID: 5336

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Omission site: Bratch Common Road
There are other sites around Wombourne which could deliver development whilst causing less environmental harm. The site at Bratch Common Road has been identified as having a low-moderate landscape sensitivity to development and the Vision Document (Appendix 1)
confirms that the site is well related to the existing settlement of Wombourne.
Further, contrary to the comments at Appendix 25 of the Housing Site Selection Topic
Paper, the Bratch Common Road site is able to provide suitable highways access. There is
an opportunity to widen Bratch Common Road, which would improve highway safety,
facilitate pedestrian movement and could unlock future development potential within the
Wombourne Area. The proposed development of the site would also provide a pedestrian footway on Bratch Common Road, which currently doesn’t exist. Access improvements to local amenities can be delivered through improvements to the local Public Rights of Way
Network and via the proposed pedestrian/cycle infrastructure, which facilitates movement between the site and local amenities.
The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (SA) identified that the site would have a major
negative impact on climate change adaptation as it is in part in an area at high risk of
surface water flooding, However, the existing surface water flows can be accommodated on the site and ground re-profiling would mitigate surface water flooding concerns and ensure that the drainage design for the proposed development provides betterment in terms of surface water management.
With those points in mind, the land at Bratch Common Road would perform better than the proposed allocation at Billy Buns Lane and Gilbert Lane when considered against the Objectives of the SA and should be a preferred site for development.
The site is deliverable and immediately available and subject to allocation, could deliver homes and associated community benefits within the next 5 years.

Object

Representation ID: 5337

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Housing mix should be guided by market signals as reflected in the most up to date assessment needs. Such assessments will need to be updated over the course of the plan period.
The requirement that 70% of properties comprise of 3 bedrooms or less is restrictive and does not afford the flexibility expected by NPPF para 62 to meet the need to provide for a range of size, type and tenure for different groups.
The use of the phrase ‘disproportionate’ in the penultimate paragraph, when describing the quantum of 4+ bedroom houses, lacks the precision and clarity needed for a Plan policy.
The policy should also comment that all is subject to viability assessment, thus allowing for flexibility in its application.
Clarification should also be made defining 'major' development. It is noted that the
Publication Plan has removed footnote 11 from the Issues and Options Plan which defined major development in accordance with the NPPF definition stating major development is "development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more". Whilst a definition is contained within the NPPF, the statutory definition is contained within the Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure Order, which defines major development as where:
(Ci) the number of dwellinghouses to be provided is 10 or more; or
(Cii) the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub-paragraph (c)(i)
The text emphasised above is an important qualifier when considering whether or not a proposal constitutes major development. This qualifying text has not been carried through into the definition contained within the NPPF. St Philips suggest a definition of major
development should be reintroduced into the Plan, with the DMPO definition referred to for the avoidance of doubt.
In light of the above, the policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.