Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 4637

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Clowes objects to the policy HC10, because it is not in accordance with national policy. Part c of Policy HC10 states that all developments will be required to incorporate tree lined streets. We consider that the policy should be worded as set out in the NPPF. Paragraph 131 states that “planning policies…should ensure that new streets are tree lined” with footnote 50 adding “unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate”.

Policy HC9 should be amended to refer to situations where tree-lined streets may not be appropriate.
Consultations should also take place with Staffordshire highways authority in order to confirm their acceptance of tree lined streets in principle.

Part e states that proposals should use “bespoke house types to avoid a monotonous visual appearance”. It is unclear what is meant from that but on major development schemes delivered by national housebuilders, providing all bespoke house types is not
achievable or reasonable.

Object

Representation ID: 4638

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Object to policy HC12, because it is not in accordance with national policy. Where a need for NDSS is identified, the PPG (Reference ID: 56-020-20150327) requires Councils to take account of the need for the standards, the potential impact on viability and the timing of introducing the standards.

The Internal Space Standards Topic Paper (November 2022) fails to recognise that those considering renting or home ownership have different budgets and aspirations. An inflexible policy approach to NDSS for all new dwellings will impact on affordability and affect choice in the market. In this regard, the Council should focus on good design and usable space to ensure that dwellings are fit for purpose.

Object

Representation ID: 4639

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Object to policy HC17, because it is not effective or justified. The policy states that “smaller areas of incidental green infrastructure without a clear recreational purpose (e.g. landscape buffers, highways verges) and areas without public access will not count towards meeting the quantitative on-site open space standard”. No definition of what constitutes ‘small’ is provided nor how applicants can demonstrate that it serves a purpose.

SSDC has also not provided any information to justify why small areas of green infrastructure will not be regarded as part of the open space provision. Landscape buffers, highways verges and other small areas of green space, may not always be ‘useable’ from a recreation perspective but they can still provide visual benefits for residents and place-making as well connecting green infrastructure across sites with the wider network.

We request that Policy HC17 be amended to remove reference to smaller areas of incidental green infrastructure not forming part of the on-site open space standard. This blanket requirement is too restrictive and does not allow enough flexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 4640

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We object to the wording of Policy NB2 states that 10% Biodiversity Net Gain is required for all major developments.

The Environment Act (2021) requires a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10% to be achieved by new development. However until this requirement is formally enacted through secondary legislation, the chosen target would need to be appropriately evidenced. The consideration of any biodiversity targets adopted through the Local Plan process would need to be justified, including in relation to viability testing.

Object

Representation ID: 4644

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Clowes objects to the policy NB4, because it is not in accordance with national policy, or effective. This policy proposes to strengthen the protection of trees and hedgerows. The NPPF protects ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees (paragraph 180c), there is no national requirement to protect all trees.

Trees of course make an important contribution to well-being and provide biodiversity benefits. We do not consider that Category C or U trees should be afforded any specific protection within the policy. In order for Policy NB4 to be consistent with national policy (paragraph 35d), it should be amended to remove protection of trees which are not defined as ‘irreplaceable habitats’ (NPPF Annex 2).

Object

Representation ID: 4646

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Object to the policy NB6, because it is not in accordance with national policy,or justified. This Policy states that major developments must achieve a minimum 63%
reduction in carbon emissions for each dwelling by on-site measures compared to UK Building Regulations through fabric and energy efficiency measures as well as on-site renewable energy regeneration. These requirements are considered to be over and
above the requirements of PPG which states that Local Plans “can set energy performance standards for new housing or the adaptation of buildings to provide
dwellings, that are higher than the building regulations, but only up to the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes” (Reference ID: 6-012- 20190315).

The Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy Topic Paper (November 2022) makes assumptions on whether standards above the Part L Building regulations can been used and reference is made to other local authorities who have adopted policies above Level 4 standards (although the names of the authorities have not been quoted). plans are examined on a case by case basis. Therefore, other plans may have been found sound with policies requiring energy performance above the Part L standards but this should not mean that every local plan can proposed requirements which are contrary to national guidance.

The Viability Study 2022 has assumed a +7% increase on build costs for houses and +4% build cost for flats to meet these targets. Given Policy NB6 is proposing requirements much greater than existing regulations,
further clarity is sought on the assumptions made in the Viability Study and where the costs have been taken from.

Object

Representation ID: 4862

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Should the argument to allocate land north of the B4176 and west of the A449 not be accepted then the land should be identified as safeguarded land.It is clear that South Staffordshire, being on the edge of the Black Country conurbation, will have to accept a significant amount of overspill development, for both housing and employment, both in this plan period and beyond, particularity given lack of PDL land in the District. It is considered that the Council’s failure to identify safeguarded land to meet development needs beyond the plan period is contrary to the clear advice set out in the Framework (Para 140). Therefore, the plan fails the test of soundness set out at paragraph 35. Paragraph 143e also states that local authorities should demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. Quite clearly the Council is unable to demonstrate this matter.

Object

Representation ID: 4864

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The suggested housing requirement included in the Plan, of 9,089 dwellings, is fundamentally flawed. It is not supported by robust evidence and will not result in a sufficient quantum of development being delivered to support the growth requirements of South Staffordshire and the conurbation. It is suggested that the housing
requirements since the start of the 21 year plan period is 5,089 dwellings, which in not in line with the SHMA guidance which suggests the Standard Method Figure over this period should be 5322, The reason the target does not match the Standard Method requirement is that completions to date from the start of the plan period are used as a proxy for housing need for the period 2018 to 2022. Therefore the housing requirement in the Plan is less than the Standard Method housing target for the Plan period.

In addition, there is a requirement for a significant uplift to the Standard Method housing requirement in any event. The South Staffordshire Standard Method housing requirement is 254dpa according to the SHMA. As a consequence, the affordable housing requirement of 128dpa (as per para 8.7 of the SHMA) is approximately 50% of South Staffordshire’s minimum Standard Method housing requirement. The figure in paragraph 8.7 of the SHMA is skewed, as the total housing requirement proposed by the Plan is used (9,068 dwellings) that includes the 4000 contribution to unmet needs. Any affordable housing provided as part of the delivery of these 4,000 units will be to support the affordable housing needs arising from the conurbation, not South Staffordshire. Therefore an uplift to the Standard Method is required to ensure that 128 affordable dwelling per year are delivered.

No consideration has been given to uplifting the minimum Standard Method housing figure to take into account economic growth aspirations and the fact that
the age profile of South Staffordshire is increasing resulting in a decrease in residents of a working age.

The 4000 home contribution to the HMA is based on the Strategic Growth Study that is out of date and the housing requirement in it is not based upon the Standard Method. If the housing shortfall figures identified in policy PG1 of the Birmingham Development Plan and the emerging Black Country Plan Preferred Options document are added together, there is a total housing shortfall of 66,139 dwellings. The 4,000 dwellings proposed by South Staffordshire Local Plan to meet the growth requirements of the conurbation is approximately 6% of the total shortfall. Even if the full extent of the current shortfall is distributed evenly amongst the now remaining 9 authorities, each authority should be providing approximately 7,370 dwellings. South Staffordshire, given its functional relationship to the Black Country should be accommodating a significantly greater amount of development than this in order to support the growth requirements of the conurbation. As such, the housing requirement for the plan is not sound and should be increased significantly.

Object

Representation ID: 4865

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Land North of B4176 and East of A449, Himley should be allocated for housing and added as a site at in Policy SA5/Appendix C. The representation sets out a number of site specific factors to show that the site is suitable and deliverable.

The site is in a sustainable location and is very well located to meet housing requirements for the plan area and the overspill needs of the Black Country being in close proximity to the conurbation and wider range of higher order employment, services and facilities. The site is a medium size site with minimal infrastructure required, ensuring hosing will be delivered early in the plan period.

Exceptional circumstances exist to release the site from the Green Belt which is in a sustainable location close to the Black Country, particularly as South Staffordshire is failing to meet its Standard Method housing requirement and the 4000 home contribution represents a insufficient contribution towards unmet needs, and fails to have regard to the proper provision for affordable housing.The Duty to cooperate has therefore not been addressed in any meaningful way.

There will be no “unrestricted sprawl” of a large built up area from the site or a material impact on coalescence. There are no reasonable options for meeting the identified needs other than the release of greenfield sites in the Green Belt in South Staffordshire and therefore the
policy tests of paragraph 141 of the Framework is met. For these reasons it is considered that exceptional circumstances exist and that the omission site is well placed to help to meet some of the overspill requirements from the Black Country and also South Staffordshire’s own needs. As drafted the plan fails the tests of soundness.

Object

Representation ID: 4871

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation demonstrates that there is no significant impact caused by the release of land to the north of the B4176 at Himley for residential development in terms of Green Belt objectives and it is clear that Green Belt land has to be released to meet development needs for both South Staffordshire and the Black Country conurbation.

The site is located such that it provides opportunities to use local facilities in Himley as well as the local public transport services. The site is in very close proximity to the Dudley urban area and as such there will be a high degree of connectivity and ability to higher level services in the settlement. In line with paragraph 143e of the Framework, the Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period and, in accordance with 143f, the boundaries use physical features that are readily recognisable and will be permanent. To confirm, the boundaries comprise, to the south the B4176, to the east the A449 and to the north and west the settlement form of Himley. These boundaries will be identifiable and enduring.

The Objector considers that the failure of the Council to allocate the site for residential development is not in accordance with the principles of the Duty to Cooperate process and also renders the plan unsound. The plan fails the tests of soundness and is not consistent with national policy.

The proposals map needs to be amended by the removal of the objection site from the Green Belt. Green Belt boundaries will be redrawn to the extent of the site.