Publication Plan November 2022

Object

Representation ID: 5019

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), as it was in 2021 at the time of the Regulation 18 Plan publication, is still prepared on the basis of the unresolved uncertainty regarding the overall unmet housing requirement need.
addition, whilst there has been dialogue as part of the DTC, it is clear that the Regulation 19 sites have been allocated without regard (or little regard) to highway modelling – paragraphs 5.22-23 of the IDP refers. This is not only risky in terms of potential need for significant and costly improvements, but is also contrary to the PPG (paragraph 059).
As noted above in the PPG, the DTC extends to other infrastructure providers. The DTC Paper lists all the bodies that the Council has consulted/collaborated with. One glaring omission is Network Rail/Rail Operators. This is particularly important in the context of the delivery of Cross Green (in whole or in part), one of the strategic allocations – further detail and commentary on this is provided in paragraphs 3.10-3.16 below.
In short, the lack of a SOCG, whether that be in the context of the GBBCHMA housing need or in terms of infrastructure provision with key providers/service delivery organisations/etc raises questions about the delivery of some of the allocations either in their entirety, or in part within the plan period. This goes to the heart of the soundness or otherwise of the plan.
Vistry considers that the Plan is unsound in this context as it is not ‘positively prepared’ and it is not ‘justified’ (i.e., based on proportionate evidence base).

Object

Representation ID: 5020

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Land at Cross Green is proposed as an ‘employment led new settlement/site,’ rather than an urban extension. Such a classification is rather strange, given that the allocation does not actually include any employment provision within it. Vistry consider that the specific allocation at Cross Green, through the polies MA1 and SA2 is unsound.
The masterplan policy MA1 requires the submission and approval of a site wide masterplan, however, there is no clarity on the timing of this – whether this is in advance of any planning application or whether it can be submitted with any outline or full application. It also requires at (j) a strategy for a site wide design code, which will need to be consulted on and approved prior to any application permission, although the clause in the policy is less than clear and explicit about this, and at (l) a site-specific infrastructure delivery schedule setting out broad triggers for critical infrastructure delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 5021

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Land at Cross Green is proposed as an ‘employment led new settlement/site,’ rather than an urban extension. Such a classification is rather strange, given that the allocation does not actually include any employment provision within it. Vistry consider that the specific allocation at Cross Green, through the polies MA1 and SA2 is unsound. This is because there is no certainty of its delivery within the plan period arising from:
• The anticipated timescales of key transport infrastructure directly affecting, and required for the site, and the lack of transparent evidence around this,
• Uncertainty on the actual yield of the site, and
• Resulting design, layout and severance issues which lead to a less than sustainable development.
The aforementioned permission, and its Transport Assessment, inevitably because of the timing of the application submission, does not include any allowance or assumptions for a development of 1,200 houses and/or a 500 space rail based park and ride station now required by the Local Plan. The planning permission requires development to commence within the standard 3year timescale, and although this access was submitted in full, conditions still require considerable detailed submission to be agreed with the highway Authority, and presumably Network Rail in respect of the overbridge to the mainline railway.
From a Property perspective there is no evidence that (i) the costs associated with the ‘shared’ value (ransom) payment that will be needed to be agreed with Network Rail to cross the mainline, has been accounted for in any viability study, (ii) that the cost of the on-site infrastructure necessary to cross the railway (and underground existing power supplies) has been accounted for including (a) the payment of an ‘Easement Fee’ which has to be negotiated by the Developer (whilst Network Rail will not fetter the delivery of employment or housing, they are obliged, as a public entity, to get best value from granting rights over the railway), and (b) a ‘maintenance payment’ which is compensation for ongoing monitoring for future maintenance usually sought from the Developer for a considerable period of time – there will be a cost to the housing development notwithstanding the separate permission for the access road over the railway.
It is Vistry’s submission that these master planning requirements cannot start to be progressed at least until there is confirmation that the rail park and ride, and main access infrastructure has been confirmed. Without this, the delivery of , 1,200 dwellings through comprehensive and co-ordinated place making is compromised.

Object

Representation ID: 5022

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This site is 51ha in size and sits to the north of Penkridge, which is a tier one town. Whilst a tier one town, there are limited facilities within Penkridge with just local convenience store.
The digestion plant was first approved in 2016 and revised in 2019. These facilities are subject to stringent safety precautions and large buffer areas (cordon sanitaire) due to their operations which can generate odour, noise and significant HGV movements. When permitted, the LPA noted the rural nature of the surrounding and this fed into the reason for approval.
It is also important to note, that Penkridge is almost entirely reliant on the A449 for access. This is a single carriageway road running north south through the centre of Penkridge. It is noted that the site is located in close proximity to the M6, however junctions 12 and 13 are both located in the region of 4km away to the south and north. This would result in all vehicles utilising the A449 single carriageway road for access.
Based on the above, and given the number of uncertainties, Vistry maintain that it is not possible to determine the level of housing and development that the allocation can provide and deliver by 2039. It is highly likely that the total capacity will be far below the 1,129 currently proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 5023

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There has been dialogue as part of the DTC, however it is clear that the Regulation 19 sites have been allocated without regard (or little regard) to highway modelling, as referenced in paragraphs 5.22-23 of the IDP.
Given the size of the site and the poor surrounding highways infrastructure, there is easily a possibility that mitigation will be required and that it may not be possible given the constraints of surrounding urban development.
The site is also located within the green belt and the submitted evidence prepared by Land Use Consultants Ltd confirmed that the harm of removing this site from green belt to be high.
Comments made in relation to MA1 above, are equally applicable to this allocation, raising questions over timing of the delivery of the site within the plan period.
With all of the above in mind, it is highly possible that the final capacity may be reduced and therefore the overall number of houses provided falls short of the allocation requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 5024

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

The site at Langley Road, (site reference 582), is proposed to accommodate 390 houses presumably as part of the GBBCHMA unmet need as it abuts the GBBCHMA boundary (specifically Dudley). A large portion of the site appears to contain surface water/ponds. There are also large areas of overgrown scrub. Furthermore, the site sits adjacent to an electric substation and it is highly likely that any housing development will be required to leave a buffer around the electric substation for safety purposes. When these constraints are considered, along with the WW2 gun battery, the developable area is likely to be significantly reduced, impacting on the overall site capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 5025

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

South Staffordshire also propose to direct 825 houses or 8% of the total housing delivery figure in Womborne. This is a tier 2 village with limited facilities, which are mainly small scale convenience stores, with no established centre. Access is reliant on bus services and the A449 Stourbridge Road. The new housing allocated (site ref 463), is also proposed to be removed from the green belt despite it having a moderate harm to the green belt. In addition, the housing sites 285/459, also contain three parallel high voltage electricity power lines running across the site meaning that significant mitigation would be required and again potentially affecting site capacities.
Vistry considers that Tier 2 (and below) settlements cannot sustainably accommodate such large increases in housing and that a proportion of this should be directed back to sustainable Tier 1 settlements, notably Bilbrook.

Object

Representation ID: 5026

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

South Staffs is not affected by National park designations, AONB designations, the Water Directive and phosphate nutrient issues, circa 80% of its administrative area lies within the West Midlands Green Belt – however, it is recognised that in order to accommodate a proportion of the GBBCHMA unmet need (even sensibly located close to the Black Country boundaries), South Staffs has no choice but to allocate sites (both for its own needs and those of the GBBCHMA) within the Green Belt.
In this context, whilst it is commendable that the Council is still proposing to accommodate some 4,000 houses of unmet need, and that, as the Council, says at paragraph 5.6 of the Topic Paper and paragraph 5.16 of the Local Plan, there has been broad support from the other authorities for this, it does not negate the fact that the 4,000 is based on earlier study assumptions, with no consensus on the overall shortfall of provision within the GBBCHMA. Vistry is supportive of the principle and sentiment, but not necessarily the level of provision. This is because there is no certainty that the quantum of housing for which the Council is planning is actually sufficient.
Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the level of collaboration with other GBBCHMA authorities to date, still falls short of the requirements of the DTC as set out in both the NPPF and PPG. The reality is that very little has actually changed since the publication of the Regulation 18 Plan in 2021. Paragraph 27 of the NPPF requires the SOCG to be agreed, to be produced and publicly made available. This is still outstanding and therefore, Vistry consider that the Plan is unsound on the basis that it is not ‘positively prepared.

Object

Representation ID: 5027

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Vistry has no issue with the proposed plan period for growth (2018-2039). Planning for the twenty-one-year period to 2039 is appropriate. The plan is sound in this respect.
Vistry support the general level of housing for its own needs to be provided within the plan period in the context that it is a reflection of the latest Standard Methodology requirements of 4,097 dwellings per annum, albeit this should be seen as the minimum to be provided to allow for slippage or sites not coming forward.
Vistry note that the Council has maintained its commitment to providing some 4,000 houses to accommodate the unmet need arising from the GBBCHMA. Whilst Vistry is generally supportive of this principle of the Council providing for neighbouring unmet need, as set out above, it has concerns in respect of the level of that provision. Furthermore, it is not clear which allocated sites or locations (beyond two obvious ones Linthouse Lane and Langley Road) are making this provision. Vistry consider in the interests of transparency, that this should be made clear in the Plan.
The 2039 Plan proposes to focus the majority of its housing requirement within four new strategic sites, ‘strategic’ because of the level of specific infrastructure identified to support them.
It is recognised by Vistry that there is an inherent finite capacity for development within smaller settlements before other options have to be considered to accommodate the growth required, although Vistry maintain that further expansion of Bilbrook/Codsall, given its sustainable credentials (two stations, a high level of facilities and proximity and ease of access to I54) that further expansion of Bilbrook is considered possible and sustainable. The housing requirements for future plans are likely such that this can realistically only be accommodated through the development of new settlements. The Plan puts down a marker in this regard, with the inclusion of a policy for the identification of a new settlement for a future plan review.
However, the crux of these Vistry representations in respect of Development Strategy is that the allocation of a number of the sites (particularly the strategic ones) have considerable constraints that affect their housing capacities that have not been fully recognised. As a result, they are not fully deliverable and therefore not the most appropriate locations for the development. The 2039 Plan is unsound in this respect.
In summary, given all of the uncertainties identified above in relation to a number of the allocated housing sites, Vistry maintain it is impossible to determine the level of housing and development that the allocations can provide per se, let alone delivery in the plan period to 2039. It would appear that additional land is likely to be required to deliver the overall housing requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 5028

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In contrast to the situation with Cross Green and the other identified sites, the Vistry site at Pendeford Hall Lane is both viable and deliverable within the 2039 Plan period.
The following key points prevail –
• It is not dependent financially on the delivery of major road or rail infrastructure
• Consequently, the site can start to deliver housing earlier in the plan period, and will therefore be able to deliver the full requirement of 1,200 dwellings by 2039,
• It fits perfectly with the development strategy of the local plan, providing a sustainable new settlement adjacent to Bilbrook/Codsall, which is the key service centre of South Staffordshire,
• All of the land required to enable the development of a new settlement is in the control of a national housebuilder/master developer who is used to bringing development of this scale forward,
• It is unconstrained environmentally,
• It is unconstrained by any need to divert utilities or services,
• Its unconstrained nature means that it can be designed with certainty that the full complement of housing as well as all associated services, access road, education, recreation and community requirements can be achieved,
• Its viability means that it can deliver policy compliant levels of affordable housing, and
• It has no access constraints and is predicated on a clear access and mobility strategy which enshrines the principles of safe, sustainable travel.
Vistry consider that the joint settlements of Bilbrook/Codsall can accommodate additional housing over and above the proposed allocations. Therefore, the site at Pendeford Hall Lane would be an ideal candidate to supplement the current sites allocated and make up for the shortfall arising from capacity concerns on the other identified sites as referenced in section 3 above.