Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 4849

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SA5 of the Publication Plan proposes a number of site allocations that, as detailed in the Green Belt Study (2019) (table 7.1), would result in ‘moderate-high’, ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of harm to the Green Belt.
Such sites include sites 224 Codsall, 523 Cheslyn Hay, 536a Great Wyrley and 582 West of Wolverhampton. The release of these sites will therefore result in a weakening of the Green Belt, for example by leaving a narrow
gap between towns, increasing its containment by urban areas or by isolating an area of Green Belt that makes a stronger contribution (as detailed in paragraph 6.23 of the Green Belt Study).
Given the above, it is considered that growth proposed on allocations that would result in significant levels of harm (moderate-high and above) to the Green Belt, should be directed to sites where a lesser degree of harm
would arise and where the level of growth would ensure that the Plan:
- plans positively for the provision of housing sites of less than one hectare through the allocation of land (in accordance with paragraph 69 of the NPPF), as detailed in the representor’s objection to policy DS5;
- meets housing needs of lower tier (tier 4) settlements (in accordance with paragraph 78 of the NPPF), as detailed in the representor’s objection
to policy DS5; and
- maintains and enhances the vitality of rural communities and their local services (in accordance with paragraph 79 of the NPPF), as detailed in the representor’s objection to policy DS5.

The Plan is therefore considered to be unsound as it not justified (is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives).

Object

Representation ID: 4850

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, there is significant reliance on the delivery of housing on four strategic sites where considerable uncertainty remains over the potential rates of housing delivery. In addition, these sites will result in ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of harm to the Green Belt that could potentially be avoided by allocating land in other areas, such as land in Tier 4 settlements.

As a consequence, the Plan is considered to be unsound as it is not justified (is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives) nor effective (deliverable over the Plan period).

Object

Representation ID: 4851

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, there is significant reliance on the delivery of housing on four strategic sites where considerable uncertainty remains over the potential rates of housing delivery. In addition, these sites will result in ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of harm to the Green Belt that could potentially be avoided by allocating land in other areas, such as land in Tier 4 settlements.
As a consequence, the Plan is considered to be unsound as it is not justified (is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives) nor effective (deliverable over the Plan period).

Object

Representation ID: 4852

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, there is significant reliance on the delivery of housing on four strategic sites where considerable uncertainty remains over the potential rates of housing delivery. In addition, these sites will result in ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of harm to the Green Belt that could potentially be avoided by allocating land in other areas, such as land in Tier 4 settlements.
As a consequence, the Plan is considered to be unsound as it is not justified (is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives) nor effective (deliverable over the Plan period).

Object

Representation ID: 4853

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, there is significant reliance on the delivery of housing on four strategic sites where considerable uncertainty remains over the potential rates of housing delivery. In addition, these sites will result in ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of harm to the Green Belt that could potentially be avoided by allocating land in other areas, such as land in Tier 4 settlements.
As a consequence, the Plan is considered to be unsound as it is not justified (is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives) nor effective (deliverable over the Plan period).

Object

Representation ID: 4854

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Association of Black Country Authorities
(ABCA) wrote to Shropshire Council on the 24 February 2021 (in responseto Shropshire Council’s Regulation 19 consultation), to highlight that there will continue to be a shortfall of land to meet the Black Country’s housing needs even in the light of Shropshire’s proposed contribution in its Regulation 19 Plan and the proposed contributions in other emerging neighbouring Local Plans, including South Staffordshire, Lichfield and
Cannock. ABCA anticipate that these contributions could accommodate in the region of up to 10,500-12,500 homes and, in the best-case scenario, would leave the Black Country with a significant shortfall.
Significantly, paragraph 5.15 of the Publication Plan highlights the significant housing shortfall likely to remain across the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) but states that its exact extent is not currently known. As a consequence, the Publication Plan proposes to retain a contribution of 4,000 dwellings to the GBHMA. This appears to be an arbitrary figure brought forward from the 2018 Issues and Options consultation, which was based on the findings of a 2018 Strategic Growth Study that did not extend up to 2039 (the end date of
the Publication Plan).
The Draft SoCG (provided in the
Duty to Cooperate Topic Paper) highlights, in section 6, a number of key issues, including that:
- there remains a shortfall of 6,302 homes between 2011 and 2031 based on April 2020 information; and
- there is evidence of a shortfall post-2031 that is unlikely to be met and which is likely to increase in the future.
Given the above, it is considered evident that, in order to meet housing needs in the period up to 2039, the contribution provided in the South Staffordshire Local Plan towards the unmet needs of the Greater
Birmingham Housing Market Area should be increased. This is additional justification for the release of land in South Staffordshire for housing development. As detailed in the representor’s objection to policy DS5, the
release of additional land for housing development should be focused on Tier 4 settlements to recognise the sustainability of those settlements, protect and enhance their sustainable village centres / services and
facilities and to meet housing needs including the requirement to provide 10% of housing growth on sites of less than 1 hectare.
The Plan is therefore considered to be unsound as it fails to meet housing development requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 4855

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS6 provides a longer-term growth aspiration for a new settlement that relates not to the current Plan period, but to future Plan periods. As such it is considered premature to include a policy which seeks to set out
the criteria for such a settlement when the justification for that settlement, in terms of housing and employment growth, has yet to be fully established and the potential options for accommodating that growth fully explored.

It is noted that the proposed policy recognises that a new settlement is only one key option amongst a number to be considered by the Council in future Plan making. Nonetheless, alternative options for accommodating
housing and employment growth in future plan periods include directing growth to lower tier settlements, such as Seisdon, where growth will meet the needs arising in those settlements and surrounding areas whilst also helping to maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities and their local services (in accordance with paragraph 79 of the NPPF).

The inclusion of policy DS6 is considered to be unsound as it is not justified (based on evidence and appropriate having taken into account all reasonable alternatives) or effective (deliverable over the Plan period).

Object

Representation ID: 4856

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, the Plan fails to ensure that housing development needs will be met and it is inconsistent with national planning policy. As a consequence, the Plan is considered to be unsound as it is not positively
prepared (meets the area’s objectively assessed needs), justified (is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives), effective (deliverable over the Plan period) or consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4857

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS1 identifies, in the 5th paragraph, that the “Green Belt boundary will be altered through this Plan to accommodate development allocations set out in Policies SA1, SA2, SA3, SA5 and SA7”.

However, as detailed in the representor’s objections to policies DS4 and DS5, the Green Belt should also be altered through the Plan to accommodate development allocations on sites in Tier 4 settlements, to recognise the sustainability of those settlements, to protect and enhance their sustainable village centres and to meet housing needs during the Plan period, including the needs of the settlement and the requirement to provide 10% of housing growth on sites of less than 1 hectare.

The Plan is therefore considered to be unsound as it fails to meet the development needs of Tier 4 settlements and is inconsistent with the national policy requirement (detailed in paragraph 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework) to promote the development of a good mix
of sites, including identifying land to accommodate at least 10% of the housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.

Object

Representation ID: 4858

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, the Plan is considered to be unsound as it fails to meet the development needs of Tier 4 settlements, make an appropriate contribution to the unmet housing needs of the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area and meet small site housing requirements identified in the NPPF.