Lichfield Local Plan: Allocations Examination Hearing Statement

Lichfield Local Plan: Allocations Examination Hearing Statement submitted on behalf of Bovis Homes Ltd in relation to Matter 5 – How should the Plan deal with the housing shortfall in neighbouring authorities, such as Birmingham and Tamworth?

August 2018

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Response to Inspector’s Questions 2

Appendix 1: Site location plan 8

Appendix 2: South Staffordshire Site Allocations Document policy SAD1 Main Modification 9

Appendix 3: Tamworth officer’s report to Cabinet meeting of 5 July 2018 10

Appendix 4: North Warwickshire Local Plan examination – Note 3 11

Appendix 5: Tamworth constraints plan 12

Appendix 6: Vision document (enclosed separately) 13

Contact Tom Armfield [email protected]

August 2018 1. Introduction

1.1 This Hearing Statement has been prepared on behalf of Bovis Homes Ltd (Bovis) in response to Matter 5 of the Lichfield Local Plan: Allocations (eLPA) Examination.

1.2 Bovis is promoting approximately 14.85 hectares (36.7 acres) of land to the north of Gillway Lane, Tamworth, which represents a sustainable and deliverable residential opportunity for approximately 300 market and affordable dwellings and public open space. A Site Location Plan is enclosed at Appendix 1. The majority of the site is located within the boundaries of Lichfield District Council (LDC), with a small strip along the southern boundary located within Tamworth Borough Council’s (TBC) boundary. The site is not currently proposed for allocation at this stage.

1.3 There are no physical or other impediments to the delivery of the site. This is recognised by the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (June 2018), which assesses the site as suitable, available and deliverable.

1.4 This Hearing Statement provides written responses to Q. 5.1 to Q. 5.3 of Matter 5 inclusive, with appendices.

1.5 Bovis welcomes the opportunity to participate in the Matter 5 Hearing Sessions on 6 September 2018.

1 2. Response to Inspector’s Questions

2.1 This section sets out our response on behalf of Bovis to the questions that have been raised by the Inspector in his Matters, Issues and Questions Note issued on 20 July 2018. We provide written responses to Questions Q 5.1 to Q 5.3 inclusive, with appendices.

Matter 5 – How should the Plan deal with the housing shortfall in neighbouring authorities, such as Birmingham and Tamworth?

Q 5.1 In view of the urgency of making housing provision to meet the needs of Greater Birmingham, what are the arguments for delaying a positive response until the Local Plan Review? Does the GBHMA suggest a timeframe and quantum for contributions from Councils such as Lichfield? Is the estimated date for adopting such a review still December 2020? Should not this Plan be aiming to contribute towards these wider needs before December 2020, a date which may slip? [An MOU or SCG between the GBHMA and/ or Birmingham CC and Lichfield DC would be helpful.]

2.2 There are different ways of calculating the shortfall for the GBHMA.

2.3 There are established shortfalls for Cannock Chase (Local Plan adopted in June 2014), Tamworth (Local Plan adopted in February 2016) and Birmingham (Development Plan adopted in January 2017), all of which have been tested through Local Plan examinations. For the purpose of this hearing statement we focus on the Birmingham and Tamworth shortfalls.

2.4 The established shortfall arising from Birmingham City Council (BCC) is a minimum of 37,900 dwellings between 2011 and 2031, and at least 1,825 dwellings from TBC between 2006 and 2031.

2.5 Separately, more recently the GL Hearn Strategic Growth Study (the Growth Study), which was prepared on behalf of the 14 GBHMA authorities, was published in February 2018. It finds that on the basis of the current evidence provision, 256,000 – 310,000 homes are needed across the GBHMA to 2036 to meet the housing needs. When the existing supply of homes across the GBHMA is considered, this leaves a minimum shortfall of 60,855 dwellings up to 2036. The Growth Study has not yet been tested through any Local Plan examination.

2.6 Until the Growth Study has been tested in the context of strategic policies (in this case through the emerging Lichfield Local Plan Review), minimal weight can be attached to its findings in respect of the GBHMA shortfall. The established shortfalls, which have been tested through recent Local Plan examinations, therefore form the starting point for Lichfield assessing whether it is able to accommodate the needs of neighbouring authorities through the eLPA.

2.7 In respect to meeting neighbouring authorities unmet needs (a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as made explicit at paragraph 182), paragraph 4.6 of LDC’s adopted Local Plan: Strategy (LPS) states that:

2 “…Lichfield District Council will work collaboratively with Birmingham, Tamworth and other authorities and with the GBSLEP to establish, objectively, the level of long term growth through a joint commissioning of a further housing assessment and work to establish the scale and distribution of any emerging housing shortfall. In the event that the work identifies that further provision is needed in Lichfield District, an early review or partial review of the Lichfield District Local Plan will be brought forward to address this matter. Should the matter result in a small scale and more localised issue directly in relation to Tamworth then this will be dealt with through the Local Plan Allocations document” [Our emphasis].

2.8 1,000 dwellings towards Tamworth’s shortfall has already been accommodated through allocations in adopted plans (500 dwellings at Arkall Farm in Lichfield’s LPS and 500 dwellings in North Warwickshire’s adopted Local Plan). As such, there remains a minimum residual shortfall of 825 dwellings.

2.9 BCC’s established shortfall represents 43% of its overall housing needs to 2031. None of the other HMA authorities individually has a need larger than the shortfall. Given its scale, it is to be shared between and accommodated within 13 different authorities.

2.10 In contrast, the TBC residual shortfall of 825 homes is clearly small scale; it represents 19% of Tamworth’s total housing needs and only 8% of Lichfield’s housing needs. Furthermore, TBC’s shortfall is also to be addressed across a smaller number of authorities. As well as sitting within the GBHMA, LDC and TBC form part of the Southern Staffordshire Districts sub-regional HMA (which also includes Cannock). Although not within this sub-regional HMA, North Warwickshire Borough Council (NWBC) has clear links with Tamworth (as acknowledged at paragraph 12 of the adopted LPS Inspector’s Report) and therefore makes a contribution to meeting it’s shortfall. This is reflected in the Inspector’s Report to TBC’s Local Plan, which states at paragraph 25 that the “…appropriate area for considering Tamworth’s unmet housing needs includes the areas administered by LDC and NWBC” (paragraph 25).

2.11 BCC and TBC’s respective shortfalls are therefore clearly different scales, BCC’s being a regional matter whilst TBC’s localised to the sub-regional HMA and North Warwickshire.

2.12 The Inspector’s Report to the LPS grapples with the matter of whether Tamworth’s shortfall is a ‘strategic matter’ that should be dealt with in a Part 1 type Local Plan. It was concluded that Main Modification MM1 (which is now paragraph 4.6 of the LPS) was a pragmatic way of introducing sufficient flexibility into the LPS to address this matter.

2.13 On the basis of TBC’s shortfall being small scale and localised, paragraph 4.6 of Lichfield’s LPS is triggered and the eLPA should therefore be proposing allocations to meet the established shortfall. We discuss this further in response to Q 5.2 below.

2.14 In terms of Birmingham’s shortfall, given its scale and strategic nature, we agree with the Council’s proposed approach to deal with it as part of the Local Plan Review, work on which has already commenced. We consider it appropriate for the District to work towards having the reviewed Local Plan in place at the earliest opportunity. This is consistent with the LPS.

3 2.15 Policy TP48 ‘Monitoring and Promoting the Achievement of Growth Targets’ in the adopted Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) requires the GBHMA authorities to submit a revised Plan, providing an appropriate contribution towards Birmingham’s housing needs, for examination within three years of the adoption of the BDP (so before 10 January 2020). This was supported by the Inspector for the BDP Examination and none of the GBHMA authorities objected. Lichfield’s Local Development Scheme indicates the Council intends to meet this deadline, it is targeting January 2020 for submission of the Local Plan Review for examination.

2.16 Although the proposed submission version of the eLPA includes a commitment to undertaking the Local Plan Review and addressing Birmingham’s shortfall, this is not sufficiently robust and does not ensure that the plan is positively prepared.

2.17 In order for Lichfield’s Local Plan Review to accord with the adopted BDP and make a meaningful and timely contribution to meeting Birmingham’s shortfall, a policy should be included in the eLPA setting out a clear expectation of the scope for the Review and timescales.

2.18 The same matter was discussed as part of the recent South Staffordshire Site Allocations Document examination, which sat in November and December 2017. Following the hearing sessions a modification was proposed for this, a copy of the modification is enclosed at Appendix 2. We set out below a proposed modification to the eLPA, similar to that agreed at South Staffordshire:

“Lichfield District Council shall carry out an early review of the Local Plan that will be submitted by January 2020. This will be a comprehensive review of the Local Plan Strategy that will consider the need for additional growth and plan appropriately for this. This plan will review, as a minimum, the following matters, which are based upon known strategic issues affecting the District at this point in time:

• Lichfield’s own objectively assessed housing need and the potential for housing supply within the District to meet this need.

• The potential role of housing supply options within the District to meet unmet cross boundary needs from the wider Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA).

• Employment land requirements for Lichfield, as identified through a comprehensive Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA).

• Lichfield’s potential role in meeting wider unmet employment needs through the Duty to Co-operate.

• The appropriateness of the existing settlement hierarchy and the strategic distribution of growth in light of new housing and employment needs.

• Gypsy, traveller and travelling show people provision.

• A comprehensive Green Belt Review, to inform any further Green Belt release to accommodate new development within the District.

4 The Council will continue to work positively towards a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) with all local planning authorities across the GBHMA. However, it may be the case that the GBHMA authorities fail to agree a MoU or SoCG setting out the apportionment of housing growth across the HMA in advance of the publication draft of the Local Plan Review, which is anticipated to be published in September 2019. If this is the case, the Council will consider providing a proportionate contribution to unmet cross boundary development needs as informed by all available evidence at that point in time. This will ensure the timely preparation of the Local Plan Review”.

Q 5.2 Should the Plan deal with Tamworth’s housing shortfall during the same review process, or is the need sufficiently urgent for it to be addressed in this Plan? What role would the development at Arkall Farm play in this, and if planning permission is not forthcoming, what should be included in the Plan to address the shortfall? [An MOU or SCG between the Tamworth BC and Lichfield DC would be helpful.]

2.19 The status of TBC’s shortfall was set out at a recent meeting on the Council’s Cabinet on 5 July 2018. The officer’s report to the Cabinet (enclosed at Appendix 3) confirms Tamworth’s unmet housing need remains at 825 dwellings and that there is currently no more capacity within Tamworth to accommodate development that could offset the wider shortfall. There are no allocated sites in adopted plans which contribute to this residual shortfall. Arkall Farm’s contribution to Tamworth’s unmet needs is already accounted for; it does not count towards the residual shortfall of 825 dwellings.

2.20 In effect, paragraph 4.6 of the adopted LPS is a requirement for Lichfield to consider dealing with Tamworth’s shortfall as part of the eLPA if it is small scale and a localised issue.

2.21 In comparison to Birmingham’s shortfall of 37,900 dwellings, we demonstrate in response to Q5.1 above that Tamworth’s residual shortfall of 825 dwellings is small scale and a localised issue.

2.22 In the context of paragraph 4.6, the eLPA should therefore be seeking to make a contribution towards Tamworth’s shortfall. By not doing so, the eLPA is not positively prepared. It is not dealing with unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities, despite it being reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.

2.23 The Inspector to the LPS had a clear expectation the eLPA would accommodate some, if not all of Tamworth’s residual shortfall within the current plan period, otherwise paragraph 4.6 would not have included in the adopted plan. This is recognition of the urgency to deliver this shortfall. It is perverse to delay dealing with the matter of Tamworth’s established residual shortfall until a later Local Plan Review.

2.24 In respect to other opportunities to reduce the shortfall in the short term, NWBC’S Local Plan Review is at an advanced stage. It has been submitted for examination. It includes a contribution of 3,790 towards the ‘GBHMA’ shortfall. NWBC’s Duty to Co- operate Statement (March 2018) indicates at paragraph 4.24 that it has met Tamworth’s residual shortfall through the Local Plan Review, which will be reflected in an updated SoCG (which is still to be published). A draft SoCG is enclosed at Appendix 5

5 of the SoCG Duty to Co-operate Statement. It indicates at paragraph 3.4 that, as Tamworth sits within the GBHMA, part of NWBC’s 3,790 dwelling contribution to the wider HMA shortfall “…can be directly attributed to delivering for Tamworth’s needs, addressed the North Warwickshire element of the additional 825 dwellings requirement”. It is not clarified how much contributes to Tamworth’s shortfall.

2.25 This contribution has however been challenged by the Inspector to the NWBC Local Plan Review examination. In response to the Inspector’s preliminary questions, NWBC state in their Note 3 (copy enclosed at Appendix 4) that:

“3.3 With the need to progress the Local Plan to address our own OAHN and 5 year supply, to defend against pressure from applications and planning appeals, and without an agreed approach with other Birmingham HMA authorities to accommodate levels of Birmingham’s shortfall the Borough felt it had little alternative but to be pragmatic and realistic and accommodate a figure of 10% from Birmingham’s 37,900 shortfall. This was felt to be fair, justifiable and reasonable, while at the same time being pro-active and positive in addressing the National and Local Housing needs and the Governments Growth”.

2.26 It is clear from the Council’s response that its contribution to the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities is towards Birmingham’s established shortfall. No allowance is made for Tamworth’s established shortfall and it therefore remains in full.

2.27 As set out in the Tamworth’s Cabinet report enclosed at Appendix 3, a review of its adopted Local Plan will not be submitted for examination until 2020 at the earliest. Tamworth therefore cannot reconsider whether it can accommodate any of the shortfall in the short term. In any case, the report to TBC’s Cabinet confirms that “there is currently no more capacity within Tamworth to accommodate development that could offset the wider shortfall”. This is clear from the heavily constrained nature of Tamworth, as demonstrated by the constraints plan enclosed at Appendix 5.

2.28 To the east, south and west of Tamworth lies broad areas of Flood Zone 3 (land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding, or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea in any year. The Government’s Technical Guidance to the NPPF states that only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zones 1 or 2 should the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3 be considered, taking in account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and applying the exception test if required.

2.29 The south west of Tamworth is constrained by Green Belt. The Inspector’s Report for Tamworth’s Local Plan (paragraph 113) states that exceptional circumstances do not exist to alter the Green Belt boundary in Tamworth.

2.30 As a result, the only area of Tamworth which provides a realistic and sustainable opportunity for strategic growth now or in the future is to the north of the town, which is predominantly located in Lichfield District (including Bovis’ site to the north of Gillway Lane, Tamworth). This is recognised by the GL Hearn Strategic Growth Study, which identifies the area as being free from nationally significant constraints and in close proximity to two railway corridors, connecting the area to the wider conurbation and beyond.

6 2.31 Delaying dealing with the established shortfall will not change this situation; only exacerbate the amount of housing to be met as Tamworth will have additional housing needs to consider as the plan period will be extended.

2.32 Waiting to address Tamworth’s residual shortfall to a later date, in a plan which is only at a very early stage (i.e. the Lichfield Local Plan Review), does not represent seeking to boost significantly the supply of housing (as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF) and will not help the country meet the government’s intention to deliver 300,000 new homes a year by the mid 2020s. The eLPA, as drafted, therefore is not consistent with national planning policy.

2.33 The eLPA should therefore be seeking to make a significant contribution towards Tamworth’s established shortfall of at least 825 dwellings. Bovis’ site to the north of Gillway Lane can make a meaningful contribution towards the residual shortfall. It could deliver circa 300 dwellings in a sustainable location, as demonstrated by the Vision Document enclosed at Appendix 6.

2.34 The eLPA cannot be found sound until it makes a significant contribution towards Tamworth’s established residual shortfall of at least 825 dwellings and allocates Bovis’ site to the north of Gillway Lane.

Q 5.3 If the review of the Plan is more than an aspiration, should there be a specific policy committing the review process to start by a specific date?

2.35 Yes, please see our response to Q5.1 above.

7 Appendix 1: Site location plan

8 Opp and Con

79.2m Wiggington Lane

Wigginton Lane Syerscote

79.6m

Close Walrand

A513

Rail

64.3m

line

71.6m

Derby

64.6m

Birmingham

Road

Main

77.7m

69.0m

86.4m Gillway Lane 85.8m 0m 50 100 150 200 250 83.5m

71.2m

80.9m

78.2m 70.6m 73.5m client

Browns Bovis Homes Ltd.

71.8m Tamworth Lane project title Gillway Lane, Tamworth Hill Top Ave

71.3m drawing title Comberford Redline Plan 87.9m

70.9m

[email protected] www.edp-uk.co.uk Cirencester 01285 740427 Cardiff 029 21671900 Shrewsbury 01939 211190 © The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd. © Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 0100031673 Appendix 2: South Staffordshire Site Allocations Document policy SAD1 Main Modification

9 The Local Plan Strategy

The Local Plan for South Staffordshire

6.1 The Local Plan for South Staffordshire comprises two documents. An adopted Core Strategy which sets out the vision, objectives and planning framework for development in South Staffordshire; and the Site Allocations Document (SAD) which seeks to deliver the adopted Core Strategy.

6.2 The Core Strategy was adopted in December 2012, post NPPF; and one year after the adoption of the neighbouring Black Country Core Strategy. The Black Country Core Strategy, the fundamental aim of which is to deliver urban regeneration, has a close inter-relationship with South Staffordshire’s Core Strategy. The SAD is a ‘Tier 2’ plan, and therefore seeks to deliver the Core Strategy. A Monitoring Framework for the SAD is also included in Appendix 4, which is in addition to the Core Strategy Monitoring Framework.

6.3 South Staffordshire’s Core Strategy is based on delivering new homes to meet local needs only, using a settlement hierarchy approach. It was developed to deliver small scale local growth for our communities and rural regeneration, in a sustainable way, and to do so in a way that would minimise out migration from the Black Country Major Urban Area (MUA).

Core Strategy Delivery and Plan Flexibility

6.4 The SAD is not considered to be the appropriate point at which to revise the housing target established in the adopted Core Strategy. The SAD is seeking to deliver the Core Strategy, and Policy SAD1: Local Plan Review offers certainty that this matter will be addressed when the Plan is reviewed. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to revise the District’s housing or Gypsy and Traveller pitch requirements within the SAD, the scope of which is simply to give effect to the existing adopted policies in the Core Strategy.

6.5 Housing requirements in the adopted Core Strategy are minimum figures. In certain circumstances, for example where community benefit is being delivered, or to recognise defensible boundaries, and maximise the efficient use of land, some allocated sites in the SAD exceed minimum figures. Sites may also deliver slightly higher levels of development on the ground dependent on layout, open spaces and housing mix.

6.6 The Core Strategy also requires the SAD to identify sufficient additional land to meet longer term development needs in future Local Plan documents – this is known as ‘Safeguarded Land’. The SAD identifies safeguarded land in our Main and Local Services Villages in the settlement hierarchy, in accordance with the Core Strategy. As part of a Local Plan review the sites identified as safeguarded land in this SAD will be considered for release for housing development in the next plan period.

Local Plan Review

6.7 The Localism Act 2011, and specifically Section 110, introduced a legal requirement known as Duty to Co-operate (DtC). The DtC is important when issues arise that cross the boundaries of local authority areas. Dialogue between neighbouring local authorities should be constructive, active and on-going to ensure that it can be demonstrated that plans have been positively prepared, having regard to cross boundary issues of strategic importance. Further information on the Duty to Co-operate can be found in paragraphs 4.4-4.8.

6.8 Through a Local Plan review, changes to the spatial strategy in the adopted Core Strategy may be necessary in response to emerging evidence, or to reflect cross boundary issues of strategic importance under the DtC. Whilst the SAD is not considered to be the appropriate place at which to revise the strategic approach established in the adopted Core Strategy, it is considered necessary now, to provide a narrative on significant cross boundary issues that have arisen since the Core Strategy was adopted in December 2012.

Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA)

6.9 There is a primary Housing Market Area (HMA) comprising Birmingham, the Black Country and nine neighbouring local authorities defined in a Strategic Housing Needs Study (SHNS); commissioned by the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (GBSLEP) and the Black Country Authorities. South Staffordshire is one of the nine local authorities within the HMA, together with Cannock Chase, Lichfield, Tamworth, North Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-Avon, Solihull, Bromsgrove and Redditch.

6.10 The SHNS Stage 3 Report (2015) identified a demographic need for 207,100 additional homes across the whole HMA between 2011 and 2031 with a shortfall in supply of approximately 37,500 homes (18% of the need). The GBHMA shortfall is being recalculated in the light of more up to date informationThe adopted Birmingham Development Plan (Policy PG1) identifies an unmet housing need of 37,900 dwellings up to 2031, for which provision is to be made elsewhere within the GBHMA. Furthermore, since this shortfall was identified, a further additional 22,000 dwelling unmet need has been identified through early stages of the review of the Black Country Core Strategy. For this reason, the distribution of the unmet housing need across the HMA is yet to be agreed. South Staffordshire Council is working positively towards a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) with all local planning authorities within the GBHMA.

6.11 To assist discussions between the HMA authorities with regard to the apportionment of housing needs, a Strategic Growth Study is being prepared across all fourteen GBHMA authorities. This examines strategic locations for housing growth which could assist in meeting the identified HMA unmet needs across the GBHMA, having regard to a high-level Green Belt Review, assessment of infrastructure capacity, sustainability criteria and deliverability assessments. The study re-examines the potential urban capacity of GBHMA authorities and options for strategic development past the Green Belt, and ultimately sets out options for strategic growth locations to be tested through the Local Plan Review. This provides a consistent evidence base upon which a future MoU/SoCG apportioning housing growth can be based.

6.12 In addition to this, South Staffordshire Council and the Black Country authorities have agreed to prepare a joint Green Belt Review to assess, in further detail, the capacity of the Green Belt across the five authorities. This may provide a basis for identifying future housing and employment sites, where exceptional circumstances demonstrate these are required. Given the changing nature of cross-boundary housing growth pressures, additional evidence may be required to review the District’s housing capacity. For example, an update of the evidence base in respect of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC), including mitigation measures and assessment of existing rural settlement’s’ infrastructure capacity, and services and facilities. This evidence will inform the framework for a new spatial strategy. which seeks to meet the District’s own objectively assessed housing needs and, subject to discussion with other local authorities,s could potentially meet a proportionate contribution towards unmet housing needs from the wider housing market area.

Core Strategy delivery and plan flexibility

6.13 It is because of this issue, of evidenced unmet housing needs across the GBHMA, that an early Local Plan Review is being triggered by Policy SAD1 – Local Plan Review. The aim is to adopt prepare a new Local Plan for South Staffordshire to be submitted for examination by the end of 2021by 2022 – and this will mean that South Staffordshire’s contribution towards unmet housing needs across the GBHMA can be addressed in a timely manner in order to secure the delivery of these new homes by 2031.

6.14 It is difficult to arrive at a precise figure now within the context of this Tier 2 Plan (the SAD). There is not the flexibility to enable the allocation of additional homes, now, to meet a proportion of the unmet need arising in the GBHMA. However, we recognise that continued uncertainty may not be helpful to BCC in seeking to monitor the provision of unmet housing needs across the GBHMA by 2031. Safeguarded land identifies sites that can be considered ‘reserve sites’ – that could come forward through the Local Plan review process in order to meet housing shortfalls across the GBHMA, including South Staffordshire’s own housing needs.

6.15 Similarly, regard will need to be had in the South Staffordshire Local Plan review to the economic needs of South Staffordshire, and regard to the cross boundary Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA)Similarly, the South Staffordshire Local Plan review will need to have regard to the economic needs of South Staffordshire. These will be taken into account by means of a comprehensive Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) which will review employment land need and supply. South Staffordshire has also historically worked positively with neighbouring authorities to understand, and plan for, justified economic needs; and will continue to do so in the plan review. For example, the Black Country authorities’ 2017 Economic Development Needs Assessment Stage 1 Report identifies South Staffordshire as an area with strong economic links to the Black Country Functional Economic Market Area. Where required, and justified by robust evidence, South Staffordshire will continue to work constructively and pro-actively with the Black Country authorities to consider the District’s role in meeting wider employment needs through the Duty to Co-operate. For further information on economic development, see Chapter 9.

Local Plan Reviews – South Staffordshire and the Black Country

6.16 Our inter-relationship with the Black Country is important – and this is explained in detail in the adopted Core Strategy. Our timetable for local plan preparation will continue to be aligned closely with local plan preparation in the Black Country. Policy SAD1 Local Plan Review will assist in cementing the continued close alignment between our emerging local plan reviews.

6.17 The early review of the South Staffordshire Local Plan will require scoping reports to establish the extent of the review, and the required evidence base. This commenced in 2016 with a joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and there will also be a Strategic Green Belt Review in 2018 (as set out above). SHMAs are an important part of the evidence base that will underpin the emerging local plan reviews for South Staffordshire and the Black Country. SHMAs require detailed analysis that would not be appropriate for the geography of the wider GBHMA. For this reason the Black Country and South Staffordshire Sub Housing Market Area is chosen as the geography for this important piece of evidence. The Joint SHMA will has considered what our full objectively assessed housing needs are, including Ggypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showperson pitches/plots, and identifiesy the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need in the future. Housing and employment needs will be reviewed as part of the local plan review scoping and evidence gathering which commenced in 2016, and will be subject to consultation as part of the new plan preparation process.

South Staffordshire’s Local Plan Review

Policy SAD1: Local Plan Review

South Staffordshire Council shall carry out an early review of the Local Plan that will be submitted by the end of 2021. This will be a comprehensive review of the Local Plan for South Staffordshire that will consider the need for additional growth and plan appropriately for this. This plan will review, as a minimum, the following matters, which are based upon known strategic issues affecting the District at this point in time;

South Staffordshire’s own objectively assessed housing need and  the potential for housing supply within the District (including

existing safeguarded land identified through the Site Allocations

Document) to meet this need.

The potential role of housing supply options within the District to  meet unmet cross boundary needs from the wider Greater

Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA).

Employment land requirements for South Staffordshire, as identified  through a comprehensive Economic Development Needs

Assessment (EDNA)

South Staffordshire’s potential role in meeting wider unmet  employment needs through the Duty to Co-operate. New SAD policies The appropriateness of the existing settlement hierarchy and the  strategic distribution of growth in light of new housing and

employment needs.

The need for further additional safeguarded housing and  employment land for longer term development needs.

Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision.  A comprehensive Green Belt Review undertaken jointly with the  Black Country authorities, to inform any further Green Belt release

to accommodate new development within the District.

6.18 EvidencePolicy SAD1 exists as ofset unmet out above housing responds needs toacross the known the Greater cross boundaryBirmingham Housingevidence Market of unmet Area development (GBHMA) – needsthat includes, including the unmetBlack Countryhousing andneeds 9 otheracross neighbouring the Greater authoritiBirminghames (including Housing MarketSouth Staffordshire). Area (GBHMA) – which includes the Black Country and 9 other neighbouring authorities (including UnderSouth theStaffordshire). Duty to Co- operate (DtC) South Staffordshire Council will work collaboratively with other authorities in the Functional Economic Market 6.19 AreaThe Council(FEMA) willand continue the Housing to work Market positively Area (HMA) towards to establish,a Memorandum how issues of ofUnderstanding strategic significance (MoU) or can Statement be addressed. of Common Ground (SoCG) with all local planning authorities across the GBHMA. However, it may be the case Inthat response the GBHMA to evidence authorities of unmet fail to housingagree a needs,MoU or South SoCG Staffordshiresetting the Councilapportionment shall carry of housingout an early growth review across of the HMALocal inPlan. advance In developing of the this newpublication local plan draft the of Council the Local will Plan examine Review, the whichrole that is anticipated ‘Safeguarded before Land’ the canend playof 2020 in the. If allocationsthis is the case,of new the ho Councilmes. The will reviewed consider Local providing Plan willa be inproportionate place by 2022. contribution The Council to unmetshall continue cross boundary to work positivelydevelopment towards needs a as Memoranduminformed by all of available Understanding evidence (MoU) at that with point all local in time planning. This willauthorities ensure acrossthe timely the GBHMA.preparation Employment of the Local needs Plan will Review. also be assessed through the review of the Local Plan.

6.20 The SAD proposes to update a number of Core Strategy policies in order to incorporate Site Allocations proposals. All proposed policies will continue the strategic approach set out in the adopted Core Strategy, and must be in accordance with those policies. It is important that development proposals should be consistent with other local planning policies. A Monitoring Framework is also included in Appendix 4, which is in addition to the Core Strategy Monitoring Framework. SAD Policy Core Strategy Policy Proposal Why? Links SAD1: Local Plan N/A Local Plan Review To recognise the cross Review agreement. boundary issues emerging within the GBHMA and FEMA and any other needs identified through the Duty to Co-operate, and alongside the potential for additional housing and employment land to meet the needs of within South Staffordshire

SAD2: The Housing Core Policy CP6: A policy setting out all To allocate land for Allocations Housing Delivery the housing sites housing to meet the proposed for allocation. Core Strategy plan requirements.

SAD3: Safeguarded GB2: Land A policy setting out all Safeguard land for Land for Longer Safeguarded for the housing sites longer term Term Development Longer Term Needs proposed for development needs to Needs safeguarding. meet the Core Strategy plan requirements.

SAD4: Gypsy and H6: Gypsies, Travellers A policy setting out all Allocate land for Gypsy Traveller Pitch and Travelling the Gypsy and and Traveller pitches to Provision Showpeople Traveller pitches meet the Core Strategy proposed for allocation. plan requirements. SAD5: Employment Core Policy (CP)7: A policy setting out all Allocate land for Land Allocations Employment and the employment land employment to meet Economic Development proposed for allocation. the evidenced requirements.

SAD6: Green Belt, GB1: Development in A policy setting out the Amend the Open Countryside the Green Belt; and proposed Green Belt, development and Development OC1: Development in Open Countryside and boundaries to Boundary the Open Countryside Development boundary accommodate the Amendments Beyond the amendments. housing and West Midlands Green employment sites Belt proposed for allocation, and to recognise revised development boundaries.

SAD7: Open Space Core Policy (CP) 14: A policy setting out the Updated evidence in Standards Open Space, Sport and proposed Open Space the Open Space Audit Recreation. Standards for new and Strategy 2014 set Delete unimplemented development. out new requirements. Public Open Space proposals former SSLP 1996 Policy R6

SAD8: Hatherton EV3: Canals and A policy seeking to To assist in the Canal Restoration Canalside Development protect the restoration restoration initiative. Project route of the Hatherton Branch Canal.

SAD9: Key All policies A policy setting out the To assist in timely Development general detailed decision making. Requirements requirements that will be needed to support planning applications.

Appendix 3: Tamworth officer’s report to Cabinet meeting of 5 July 2018

10 CABINET

THURSDAY, 5 JULY 2018

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR HERITAGE AND GROWTH

TAMWORTH LOCAL PLAN REVIEW UPDATE

EXEMPT INFORMATION None

PURPOSE To update Cabinet on the progress of the Tamworth Borough Council Local Plan 2006-2031 and the application of policies SS1 The Spatial Strategy for Tamworth and EN2 Green Belt. To seek approval not to proceed with the requirement of policies SS1 and EN2 to undertake an early review of the Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS  That Cabinet notes the information in the report  That Cabinet resolves that an early review of the Local Plan is not required for the reasons set out in the report.  That Cabinet resolves that a Green Belt Review is not required at present.  That Cabinet approves commencement of a review of the Local Plan in 2018/19 in readiness for a potential examination in 2020 with a view to adopting a new local plan in 2020/21 to run for the period 2020-2036.  That a future report is presented to Cabinet detailing the arrangements and agreements to meeting Tamworth’s unmet housing and employment needs.  That the current Local Development Scheme 9 (LDS) be revised in view of the decisions outlined in this report and that a LDS 10 be presented to a future Cabinet meeting for approval.  That the Statement of Community Involvement be revised in accordance with new government guidance and a draft document is submitted to Cabinet at a future meeting for approval prior to consultation being undertaken.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Tamworth Borough Council Local Plan 2006-2031 Policy SS1 The Spatial Strategy for Tamworth within the adopted Local Plan 2006- 2031 sets out Tamworth’s employment and housing needs:  4,425 dwellings to be built in Tamworth at a rate of 177 dwellings per year  1,825 new homes to be delivered outside of the Borough within locations which assist the delivery of Tamworth’s strategy and those of its neighbours  Allocations within Tamworth to support at least 18 hectares of B1, B2 and B8 employment land to meet an overall minimum need of 32 hectares. A further minimum 14 hectares of employment land will be required outside of the Borough within locations which assist the delivery of Tamworth’s strategy and those of its neighbours.

Policy SS1 also references ongoing work with Lichfield District Council and North Warwickshire Borough Council acknowledging commitments by both authorities to provide 500 units each towards Tamworth’s unmet need:  The three local authorities have committed to continue this co-operation on strategic planning issues to deliver the remaining unmet need of 825 units and a minimum 14 hectares of employment land. However if it has not been possible to propose sites for allocation through a statutory development plan for Lichfield District or North Warwickshire Borough or through the granting of planning permissions in either district by the end of the year 2017/18 an early review of the Tamworth Plan will seek to address any outstanding issues. This will ensure that the appropriate housing and employment land provision is allocated within the relevant Local Plans, in sustainable locations in relation to Tamworth’s needs, and that the appropriate infrastructure is identified within agreed programmes.

Policy EN2 Green Belt provides further detail on the potential review of the plan:  In the event that land has not been brought forward to meet the balance of Tamworth’s housing and employment needs sustainably by the end of 2017/18 as set out in policy SS1, the Council will consider undertaking another review of its Green Belt boundaries to reassess whether there is potential land to meet these local needs in the second half of the plan period.

A Green Belt Review (2014) forms part of the Local Plan evidence base alongside the Sustainability Appraisal. A number of spatial options were considered within the SA that would maximise the amount of housing development.

Duty to Co-operate Lichfield District Council and North Warwickshire Borough Council have worked alongside Tamworth Borough Council to align their respective Local Plans. Under the Duty to Co-operate a number of key agreements have been reached:  North Warwickshire Core Strategy, adopted in 2014, contains a commitment to deliver 500 units to contribute to Tamworth’s unmet need and the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy 2008-2029, adopted 2015, also commits to providing 500 units towards Tamworth’s unmet need. A Memorandum of Understanding was agreed in October 2014 relating to these 1,000 units and that agreement contains a commitment between all parties to work together to seek solutions to deliver Tamworth’s remaining unmet housing and employment need.  North Warwickshire’s Regulation 19 Submission Local Plan includes a commitment to allocate 8.5ha of employment land towards Tamworth’s unmet need. Lichfield’s Local Plan Allocations Submission identifies 6.5ha employment land towards Tamworth’s unmet need.

Draft Revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework Proposals within the DCLG consultations ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’ and the Housing White Paper ‘Fixing our broken housing market’ have been incorporated into the proposed revised NPPF, in particular a proposed new standardised method for assessing Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN). The proposals are designed to simplify and speed up the plan making process and provide transparency to an element of the process that generates greatest dispute. The final standardised methodology has not yet been published, however it is likely that the OAN for Tamworth arising from the new methodology will reduce the amount of housing that needs to be provided in Tamworth and will similarly impact upon neighbouring authorities.

Local Plan Reviews The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 introduced a new requirement on Local Authorities to review a local plan every 5 years starting from the date of adoption of the local plan in accordance with Section 23 of the Act. The Local Plan was adopted in February 2016 and therefore a review will be required by 2021.

Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) Strategic Growth Study The 14 Local Authorities within the GBHMA, including Tamworth Borough Council commissioned a study to consider the extent of the housing shortfall and land supply constraints within the HMA (Appendix 1). The study considered adopted and emerging Local Plans in the HMA to determine the anticipated shortfall. The study sought to identify potential areas of search for strategic development outside of the Green Belt, previously developed sites in the Green Belt and a Strategic Review of the Green Belt.

Considering the need for a review of the Tamworth Local Plan Tamworth’s unmet housing need remains at 825 dwellings. Discussions are progressing with both Lichfield District Council and North Warwickshire Borough Council with a view to agreeing a Statement of Common Ground that would potentially address the unmet need. Both authorities have indicated that they are able to assist but have made clear that since the Tamworth unmet need is identified within the wider HMA shortfall, Tamworth’s need will be met through the mechanism to deal with the HMA shortfall. The HMA level shortfall has become an issue since the Tamworth Local Plan was adopted and has therefore added another barrier to Lichfield and North Warwickshire being able to individually commit to meeting Tamworth’s remaining unmet need.

When the Tamworth Inspector added in the review clauses, the timescales were based on Lichfield and North Warwickshire’s assertion that they would have adopted their allocations documents by now. They have unfortunately taken longer than they had envisaged. In Lichfield’s case, they had a number of legal challenges to their plan and a planning application for a large site near Lichfield that they had refused permission for was appealed and recovered by the secretary of state, and then was subject to further legal challenges, which delayed the progression of their Plan. They have now submitted their plan for consideration. It includes allocations, commitments and completed schemes around Tamworth totalling over 1,400 homes. North Warwickshire decided to abandon their allocations document and prepare a new Local Plan instead. This has been submitted for examination as well and includes allocations, commitments and completed schemes around Tamworth totalling nearly 4,000 homes (including 2,000 at Polesworth and Dordon). Whilst not all of these homes will be meeting a direct need arising from Tamworth, it is considered a fair assumption that the majority, if not all of the unmet housing need of Tamworth will be addressed through these completions, commitments and planned allocations.

With respect to employment needs, a planning application was granted consent by North Warwickshire adjacent to Tamworth at Centurion Park for 8.5 ha which is now built and partly occupied. A further application in North Warwickshire adjacent to the A5/M42 junction was granted consent following appeal for 25.4ha of employment land. Their submitted plan commits to providing 8.5 ha of employment land towards Tamworth’s needs to replace the provision at Centurion Park which is affected by HS2. Lichfield’s submitted allocations plan commits to providing 6.5ha of employment land towards Tamworth’s needs.

Officers therefore consider that there are sufficient consents in place and proposed allocations that give considerable comfort that the unmet needs arising from Tamworth will be met.

A Green Belt review would facilitate the review of the plan. Again, the HMA shortfall will override the need for a Green Belt review and this is detailed later in the report. In any case, the existing Green Belt Review recommendations that justified the exclusion of land within the Green Belt to accommodate development are still very relevant. The Green Belt still performs a valuable strategic function and the previously identified constraints still apply but the review will test the previous findings.

The proposed new standard methodology to determine the objectively assessed housing need will have a significant effect within Tamworth. The proposed standardised OAN would identify housing need based on demographic change adjusted by market signals (house prices) and affordability ratios. In effect this would potentially reduce Tamworth’s housing requirement and the contribution sought from neighbouring authorities to assist in meeting Tamworth’s need. While this may negate the need to agree a new Statement of Common Ground to resolve Tamworth’s unmet housing need within neighbouring authorities, the HMA shortfall will still need to be addressed and it is likely that any housing released from a commitment will go forward to assist the wider HMA shortfall. In that context, the additional dwellings would still be required and Tamworth may be in a position to assist the HMA if its own need reduces. A plan review is necessary to extend the period of the local plan to 2036 in order to ensure that the plan aligns with the GBHMA timescales.

A new requirement to complete a review of the local plan within five years came into force on the 15th January 2018. The Statement of Community Involvement is also required to be reviewed within the same timeframe. At the time the Tamworth Local Plan was adopted, there was no defined timeframe for a review hence the clauses included within policies SS1 and EN2. The amended regulations will require a review of the Local Plan by 2021 and it is envisaged that a review of the evidence base will commence in 2018 in readiness for an anticipated examination in 2020 and adoption shortly after. This will review the objectively assessed housing need utilising the standardised methodology which is anticipated to be in place by the autumn of 2018 all of which are likely to override policies SS1 and EN2 and the need for an early review. Policy EC2 Supporting investment in Tamworth Town Centre also sets out a need for an early review “If substantial progress not been made towards securing the Gungate scheme by 2020/21, the Council will review its retail requirement and will consider the potential for retail developments on other sites in accordance with the ‘town centre first’ hierarchy’ set out in policy EC1”. LDS 10 will be revised to reflect the timetable going forward for a Local Plan review.

The Greater Birmingham Housing Market Strategic Growth Study (Appendix 1) concluded that there was currently no more capacity within Tamworth to accommodate development that could offset the wider shortfall. Part of the Growth Study commission involved a strategic review of the Green Belt which was used to identify future areas of search for new development that would be assessed through plan making. It could be argued that this activity has at least partly satisfied policy EN2 Green Belt with the outcome being that the Green Belt in Tamworth is not identified as an area of search on the basis that there are more sustainable options for potential development elsewhere within the HMA to provide for the shortfall.

OPTIONS CONSIDERED a) An immediate review of the plan: This could be undertaken but officers consider this would be premature as there are still unresolved issues over how Tamworth’s unmet need will be allocated within Lichfield and North Warwickshire Local Plan documents. However, this may become much clearer over the next 6 months i.e. the outcome of the respective Examinations. The pending changes to the NPPF will impact on Tamworth’s housing and employment numbers and in all likelihood will negate the need for a review at this time. b) Do not review the plan: This would be very risky as the further the plan gets from adoption the greater likelihood that policies become out of date and ineffective. This situation would be exacerbated should the new NPPF be implemented and elements of the plan would not be on accordance with the framework. The plan also would be less able to direct development and could be deemed to be unsound.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Reviewing the plan takes officer time and resources and also resources from external, expert consultants. A policy change request was submitted in late 2017 to facilitate the review and examination and the request was subsequently approved. Funds have been allocated to enable a review and update of the Local Plan evidence base during 2018/19 and 2019/20 with a potential examination in 2020.

The review of the plan and update will be required to comply with new regulations as well as to take account of strategic work at the Housing Market Area level where plans will need to run to 2036. The local plan evidence base will need to be extended to cover this additional period and will therefore entail a more comprehensive review and update. It is likely that further funding will be required to complete the production of a new plan into 2020/21 to cover the cost of submission and implementation. At this time, costs are unclear but will be subject to consideration through the budget setting process later this year.

LEGAL/RISK IMPLICATIONS BACKGROUND This report sets out the reasons for not carrying out an early review of the Local Plan as required by policies within the plan. The decision could be challenged but the current circumstances and pending changes to planning guidance and legislation will render an early review meaningless and provide justification for carrying out a full review of the plan as set out in new regulations.

Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 has been amended to require a local plan review within 5 years from the date of adoption of the plan. The same amendments require the statement of community involvement to be reviewed every five years starting also from the date of adoption. A review of the Local Plan will need to be completed by 2021 and a review will commence later this year starting with updates to the Local Plan evidence library. A revised statement of community involvement will be submitted to Cabinet for consideration at a future meeting before the expiration of 5 years since the SCI was adopted.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the need for sustainable economic growth on which local plans are to be based and includes clear policies that guide how the presumption should be applied locally.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Southern Staffordshire Districts Housing Needs Study (May 2012) which covered Tamworth, Cannock and Lichfield considered a range of housing, economic and demographic factors, trends and forecasts to profile future growth and demands. A range of growth options were identified for Tamworth in the context of a number of known constraints to arrive at a range of between 240-265 dwellings per annum. The mid-point was selected and annualised over the plan period to show a need for 5,500 dwellings over the plan period of the Pre-Submission version of the Local Plan 2006- 2028. A further analysis taking into account historic trends and site specific constraints to determine the numbers that could be delivered within Tamworth provided a figure of 4,500 units which was considered to be realistic and achievable and the remaining 1,000 units would be provided outside of Tamworth. A Memorandum of Understanding was agreed between Tamworth, NWBC and LDC to provide 500 units each in North Warwickshire and Lichfield to meet Tamworth’s need. The plan was withdrawn from examination to enable further analysis and evidence to be prepared due the examiners concerns over the capacity within the urban area to deliver the quantity of housing.

The later Tamworth Local Plan 2006-2031 underwent examination to reach adoption in February 2016. In reaching this milestone consideration of Tamworth’s objectively assessed needs for housing and employment land were set through a revised South Staffordshire Housing Needs Study (2014). These needs are reflected in Policy SS1, The Spatial Strategy for Tamworth which states a revised minimum requirement of 6250 dwellings over the longer plan period, 4250 of these would be delivered within the Tamworth administrative boundary and 2,000 would need to be delivered within Lichfield and North Warwickshire. A revised Memorandum of Understanding was agreed in October 2014 relating to the original 1,000 units and a commitment between all parties to work together to seek solutions to deliver the remaining unmet housing and employment need. No further revisions have been made to these MOU’s although discussions through the Duty to Co-operate have continued in the meantime.

The housing requirement was further refined at the examination when further capacity was identified bringing the unmet need down to 1,825 dwellings. The examiner in considering representations to the plan recommended modifications that are included within policy SS1, The Spatial Strategy for Tamworth: “…if it has not been possible to propose sites for allocation through a statutory development plan for Lichfield District or North Warwickshire Borough or through the granting of planning permissions in either district by the end of the year 2017/18 an early review of the Tamworth Plan will seek to address any outstanding issues. This will ensure that the appropriate housing and employment land provision is allocated within the relevant Local Plans, in sustainable locations in relation to Tamworth’s needs, and that the appropriate infrastructure is identified within agreed programmes”.

Policy EN2 Green Belt provides more detail in the second of three paragraphs; “…In the event that land has not been brought forward to meet the balance of Tamworth’s housing and employment needs sustainably by the end of 2017/18 as set out in policy SS1, the Council will consider undertaking another review of its Green Belt boundaries to reassess whether there is potential land to meet these local needs in the second half of the plan period”.

A Green Belt Review (2014) forms part of the Local Plan evidence base and sets out the contribution of the Green Belt in fulfilling the functions set out in national planning policy. The review recommended some minor changes to the boundary of the Green Belt but did not identify any areas suitable for development and therefore the Green Belt boundary would be maintained. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) confirmed this view in considering seven spatial options for Tamworth that included the Green Belt (Option 6) that would maximise the amount of housing development. The SA raised several issues with this option that were not applicable or as severe in the other six options considered. These included: negative impacts to landscape and biodiversity, the further deterioration of air quality in Dosthill, risks to the capacity and pumping of the sewerage network which would require major investment and traffic implications to the A51 which may require a new road. None of the seven options considered delivered all of Tamworth’s objectively assessed needs. The Green Belt Review (2014) and Site Selection Paper (2014) supported the decision not to take Option 6 forward.

REPORT AUTHORS Corinne O’Hare, Planning Policy and Delivery Officer, x278 Sushil Birdi, Senior Planning Policy and Delivery Officer, x279

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS Tamworth Borough Council Local Plan 2006-2031 adopted February 2016. Inspector’s Report into Tamworth Local Plan 2006-2031.

APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study

Appendix 4: North Warwickshire Local Plan examination – Note 3

11 Note 3

North Warwickshire Borough Council Response Note to Inspectors Preliminary Note Question 8

Q8. To aid my understanding of the amount of housing development that the LP intends to provide, the Council is requested to provide the following: ii. A note setting out the evidence that supports the aspiration of delivering 3,790 additional homes, and which explains how that aspiration is intended to guide decision-taking.

1. Assessing Birmingham’s housing need shortfall impact on North Warwickshire

1.1 Housing studies covering the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) and work on the Birmingham Local Plan indicated that the amount of housing would exceed the capacity of Birmingham to deliver its housing requirement At the time of the adoption of the Core Strategy (CS) the amount of shortfall was not known. Due to the close relationship of North Warwickshire to Birmingham it was expected that North Warwickshire may be required to assist. The CS committed to deliver 500 units for Tamworth BC, which also lies within the GB HMA.

1.2 NWBC had started work on both a Site Allocations Plan and a Development Management Plan before and just after the adoption of the Core Strategy. The Birmingham Local Plan was adopted in January 2017. The overall shortfall was identified as 37900 dwellings. Due to the review mechanism in the Core Strategy the Borough Council did not feel it could continue work on separate documents but needed to bring them together and if required update the Core Strategy. This meant that any housing shortfall could be delivered in North Warwickshire in the short to medium term instead of the longer term.

1.3 North Warwickshire is one of 14 local authorities within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA). It would be expected that any of the shortfall should be addressed within the GBHMA first and then beyond this area if required. There are a number of authorities within the GBHMA, such as Tamworth, which were already identified as being constrained in terms of their housing land availability and ability to accommodate further housing. The Borough Council had to consider how and what level of housing it should accommodate from Birmingham’s 37900 housing unit shortfall under the Duty to Co-Operate.

1.4 The Borough Council was keen to progress its Local Plan. Other Birmingham HMA authorities were at different stages of Plan production and delivery, which was having a delaying effect on Birmingham’s ability to deliver a joint HMA wide agreement to how the shortfall would be addressed. Additional work (GL Hearn study) had been commissioned but was unlikely to be completed and agreed or available in sufficient time to inform (or progress) either the Borough’s Local Plan or a Joint HMA MOU that would address the Borough Council’s concerns over increasing planning pressure, applications and appeals being fought by the Borough.

1.5 It was considered a more pragmatic and pro-active approach was needed through undertaking an individual MOU between the two authorities (NWBC and BCC), to both address the Duty to Co-Operate regarding the shortfall and to progress the Local Plan. This would place the authority in a more sound and robust situation in terms of addressing our housing need, development needs overall and the Governments urging to deliver up-to-date Local Plan coverage, our 5 year housing supply and employment

Note 3

land supply to address the economic and growth needs on a local and wider than local scale.

1.6 In terms of estimating the potential level of housing from Birmingham’s 37900 housing unit shortfall that North Warwickshire needed to consider, and potentially look to accommodate within the Borough, we looked at both the basic census data and the commuting and travel to work levels between Birmingham and North Warwickshire.

1.7 In terms of basic census population figures the total population for the Greater Birmingham HMA areas, covering the 14 constituent local authorities was 3162910 (Census 2011 figures ONS*), of which North Warwickshire’s population of 62014 constitutes approximately 1.96% of that total figure. The assumption could therefore be made that North Warwickshire should/could accommodate 1.96% of the Birmingham shortfall, i.e. 743 dwellings. However, this basic level of calculation would not take into account the sustainability and relationship of authorities with Birmingham, or the available capacity given that a number of Local Authorities were already identified as at capacity in terms of their housing land availability and ability to accommodate further housing sites. This approach was not felt to be robust enough or supportable. (*See table 1 below).

1.8 In terms of North Warwickshire’s relationship with Birmingham the commuting and travel to work levels between Birmingham and North Warwickshire are fairly significant and highlighted in the Warwickshire Observatory’s information on Commuting patterns into and out of Warwickshire ; (see Appendix 1 and http://www.warwickshireobservatory.org/who-goes-where-commuting-patterns-into-and- out-of-warwickshire-2/ - ) using data from the 2011 Census and analysis of commuting and travel to work patterns for the West Midlands Functional Economic Market Area Study by Metro Dynamics ; (see Appendix 2 and - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/s34932/WestMidlandsFEMAStudy26June 2015.pdf )

1.9 Using the Warwickshire Observatory data some 10,500 commuters travel from Birmingham into Warwickshire County. Around half of these work in North Warwickshire. The Warwickshire Observatory data indicates a 20.4% (5151 trips) volume of commuters from Birmingham into North Warwickshire (higher than both Nuneaton and Tamworth’s levels).

1.10 In addition the highest out-commuting rates (proportion of the resident population in work who out-commute) are also experienced by North Warwickshire (54%) with the key location again being Birmingham, with 25.1% (4238 trips) as the location for out commuting trips.

1.11 Using the Metro Dynamics Study indicates that of the travel to work flows into and out of Birmingham, those from North Warwickshire into Birmingham are large, just below Tamworth and Coventry’s levels. Outflows from Birmingham into North Warwickshire are also large, comparable to Bromsgrove’s flows but less than Solihull, Walsall or Sandwell’s levels. At 5151 trips (2011 Census) this indicated flows from Birmingham into North Warwickshire are less than the 10th largest flows (from Wolverhampton to Birmingham) at 5842 trips. This could suggest that of the 14 authority’s in the HMA the Borough’s proportion of additional housing needed to address the Birmingham shortfall should be less than the authority with the 10th largest flows, notwithstanding the potential and ability of other authorities within the HMA to accommodate an element of the shortfall.

Note 3

1.12 For North Warwickshire the largest travel to work inflows and outflows are first to Birmingham and then to Tamworth and Nuneaton and Bedworth, with an overall net population increase of 8350 (persons aged 16 or over) in the Borough as a result. At an average of 2.39 persons per dwelling (ONS Ward Census 2011) this figure would equate to approximately 3494 dwellings.

1.13 However, migration levels show a completely different scenario. Looking at net migration flows into and out of North Warwickshire there is a net loss. Overall, migration resulted in 82 fewer persons (aged 1 or over) in North Warwickshire. The largest outflows were first to Nuneaton and Bedworth, then Tamworth and Birmingham.

1.14 Care will however need to be taken in using this migration statistics/information as the availability of a larger, more affordable housing market and employment opportunities in the adjoining urban areas is likely to have had a significant effect on these migration flows.

2. Assessing/Calculating level of shortfall to be accommodated

2.1 These trip figures can be considered in a number of ways in terms of equating them to a potential housing figure.

2.2 Using the 5151 trips from Birmingham into North Warwickshire as a simple, basic indicator of the number of dwellings needed to address the demand and pressure from Birmingham (and thereby addressing the shortfall) we could consider a figure of 5151 dwellings. This would be addressing 20% of all commuter flows into North Warwickshire and taken specifically as addressing Birmingham’s shortfall equates to approximately 14% (5151 divided by 1% of the 37900 shortfall i.e. 5151/379 = 13.6% of Birmingham’s shortfall, rounded up to 14% effectively).

2.3 However, this is considered too simplistic and does not reflect the average number of persons per dwelling. Furthermore, when considering the levels of commuting outflow and inflow figures for Birmingham (treating each trip as an individual dwelling unit) the figures involved are significantly larger than the 37900 shortfall. Using the 5151 figure not as a dwelling indicator but a “persons” indicator then dividing it by 2.39 people per dwelling, based on the ONS Ward Census 2011, gives a figure of 2155 dwellings, which is considered more realistic.

2.4 This equates to 5.7% (rounded up to 6%) of the Birmingham shortfall (2155 divided by 379).

3. Approach taken

3.1 It was felt that given the large level of shortfall from Birmingham and the acceptance already made by the Borough to accommodate elements of housing need from both Coventry’s and Tamworth’s shortfalls, simply resisting accepting any of Birmingham’s shortfall based on the negative Migration figures alone was indefensible and unrealistic.

3.2 A reasonable, pro-active and pragmatic approach was taken. Based on the travel to work levels noted above, North Warwickshire was considered unlikely to be able to defend only accommodating the lowest 6% noted above (either in Appeals or through Local Plan examination). But given the constraints applying to the Borough from both Green Belt and our available infrastructure and a comparison of scale with our own OAHN of 5280 (which includes the Coventry shortfall element), then accommodating up to 14% of Birmingham’s shortfall (at 5306 units) or more was also felt to be too large in 3

Note 3

scale in comparison to our own identified needs and likely to be too significant an impact on infrastructure capacity to adequately accommodate the infrastructure needs and services likely to be required and generated. Hence a mid-point figure of 10% was considered the most appropriate, pragmatic, justifiable and defensible approach as a working assumption that North Warwickshire may need to consider testing (accommodating 10% of the 37900 shortfall), falling mid-way between the two assessed assumptions of 6% and 14%.

3.3 With the need to progress the Local Plan to address our own OAHN and 5 year supply, to defend against pressure from applications and planning appeals, and without an agreed approach with other Birmingham HMA authorities to accommodate levels of Birmingham’s shortfall the Borough felt it had little alternative but to be pragmatic and realistic and accommodate a figure of 10% from Birmingham’s 37900 shortfall. This was felt to be fair, justifiable and reasonable, while at the same time being pro-active and positive in addressing the National and Local Housing needs and the Governments Growth.

3.4 The 10% element was taken to Members for consideration as part of the Growth Options indicated in the Summary of Growth Figures for North Warwickshire April/July 2016 and noted in the Growth Options Report discussed at LDF Sub-Committee 26th April 2016 and the approach agreed. This approach and figure was agreed in discussion with Birmingham City Council and enshrined in the MOU between the two authorities.

3.5 It is considered that this approach, view and situation has supported and reinforced by the February 2018 GL Hearn study, Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study which notes that: “9.67 The analysis in Table 63 shows that there are particular constraints to introducing further residential land supply in North Warwickshire, which is already planning in its emerging Local Plan to deliver housing growth of 1.8% pa. Given moderate house prices in the District and the very strong rate of housing delivery proposed, our analysis indicates no effective potential for additional supply to be brought forward in North Warwickshire.” And; “9.84 GL Hearn’s findings, as set out above, are of no effective market capacity to introduce deliver further housing provision over-and-above what is being planned for already in North Warwickshire.”

3.6 The Study clearly indicates that there is no further capacity in North Warwickshire’s housing market to accommodate a larger percentage of Birmingham’s needs and shortfall.

*Table 1 GB HMA LA's Population %tage of total Area Birmingham 1 1073045 33.92% 26778.82 Bromsgrove 2 93637 2.96% 21696.91

Cannock Chase 3 97462 3.08% 7888.09 Dudley 4 312925 9.89% 9795.66 Lichfield 5 100654 3.18% 33129.71 North Warwickshire 6 62014 1.96% 28426.69 Redditch 7 84214 2.66% 5424.98 Sandwell 8 308063 9.74% 8556.73 4

Note 3

Solihull 9 206674 6.53% 17828.78 South Staffordshire 10 108131 3.42% 40731.52 Stratford on Avon 11 120485 3.81% 97786.63 Tamworth 12 76813 2.43% 3084.62 Walsall 13 269323 8.52% 10395.49 Wolverhampton 14 249470 7.89% 6943.95 Total 3162910 100% 31629.1 1%

4. Policy Approach

4.1 The approach taken in addressing the Birmingham shortfall was translated into Policy in the Plan through site allocations of sufficient land to accommodate/cater for the full Borough OAHN and the 10% shortfall. Policy LP6 provides for a minimum of (5280 + 528) 5808 dwellings (net) to be built by 2033 and an ‘aspiration’ to deliver a further 3790 dwellings. LP6 also notes and requires that “The actual amount of development delivered over the Plan period will be governed by the provision of infrastructure to ensure developments are sustainable.”

4.2 The overarching Plan Policy LP1 sets out this approach clearly, noting ‘All development proposals must provide the required infrastructure’ and on Implementation and Infrastructure highlighting that; ‘policies and proposals will be implemented by working in constructive partnership with funding agencies and service providers; by the grant or refusal of planning permission, and by the use of planning conditions and obligations, in order to secure the required infrastructure to ensure all developments are sustainable’, before setting out the key priorities in the plan including; Provision of necessary services, facilities and infrastructure to meet the demands of new development and communities to include health facilities, education facilities, emergency services facilities Green Infrastructure, open space, sports and recreation and transport.

4.3 Infrastructure provision and delivery is the key issue being addressed to enable delivery of the increased housing growth and clear direction is being provided by the Policies for decision making. This also means clear direction is provided by the Policies and Site Allocations to infrastructure delivery programmes and funding for external service and infrastructure agencies/providers, to give them confidence in development expectations and levels. Similarly this gives confidence to our neighbouring partner authorities and LEPs that the wider housing and economic needs are being addressed and enables them to provide the Borough with support either through grant funding or political direction for the delivery of both infrastructure on the ground and for the Government to be confident in their decisions over significant infrastructure funding bids that it will deliver the growth and development needs sought.

4.4 This cautious approach was taken as the Borough is a relatively small, rural authority with some limited infrastructure and services and this approach was a major step change for the authority to that taken previously, which has seen and resulted in relatively small growth over a number of years, highlighted by the minimal population growth of only 100 over the period 2001 to 2011.

4.5 This is highlighted by past housing requirement was a maximum housing requirement up to the adoption of the CS. It is now a minimum requirement.

Note 3

Table 4 – Completions 1996 - 2016 Year Gross Net Housing Requirement per annum completions completions 1996/97 142 122 1997/98 263 261 1998/99 209 207 1999/2000 86 84 2000/01 91 89 2001/02 180 171 2002/03 105 100 2003/04 126 120 2004/05 117 104 2005/06 107 106 2006/07 174 167 2007/08 143 142 2008/09 130 106 2009/10 95 79 2010/11 105 98 2011/12 88 75 2012/13 50 38 2013/14 124 119 2014/15 233 223 203 (CS) 2015/16 275 251 203 (CS) 2016/17 378 363 237 using OAN 264 (CW SHMA 2015 + CW shortfall)

4.6 The subsequent Infrastructure and Services/Facilities Policies therefore focus on the provision and delivery of infrastructure by development proposals as demonstrated in Policy LP24 on Recreation provision, Policy 25 on Transport Assessments’ and requirements, Policy LP28 dealing with Strategic Road Improvements and Policy LP31 dealing with Development Considerations. Finally, Policy LP39 translates that physically into sufficient site allocations that would deliver that whole amount with each major site specific site allocation Policy (such as Policies H2 and H7) identifying major infrastructure requirements to be delivered as an integral part of that Policy and requiring Master Planning for the site proposals and development, without which any subsequent application would potentially face refusal. Policy and planning decisions will therefore be predicated on the delivery of the required infrastructure to enable and service the development.

4.7 Without being prepared to accommodate significant development levels would not enable the opportunity to access funding opportunities (external funding as well as via direct Developer provision and contributions) to address existing infrastructure deficiencies within the Borough, which would continue to worsen as pressure for development outside the Borough impacts on the Borough, its capacity to service its residents, enable economic growth and the ability to defend against speculative development that would be unlikely to sufficiently contribute to, provide for the levels of improved services and infrastructure that the Borough badly needs.

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 The Borough wanted to take a cautious approach while nevertheless being pro-active and positive in allocating for the full amount of development identified, seeking a 6

Note 3 sustainable growth in infrastructure and services for the Borough that would have a dual benefit of supporting both the new development, wider sub-regional needs and existing settlements and residents.

Appendix 5: Tamworth constraints plan

12 1

Site Boundary

Sites in Planning System

1 Arkall Farm, Ashby Road - Application Consented

2 Phase 1 - Land North of Browns Lane - Under Construction Phase 2 - Land North of Browns 3 Lane - Application Submitted

Allocated Residential Sites

Conservation Areas

Green Belt

Open Space

Flood Zone

0 500m

date 16 AUGUST 2018 client

drawing number edp3397_d017 Bovis Homes Limited

scale Refer to scale bar project title drawn by JGo Gillway Lane, Tamworth [email protected] www.edp-uk.co.uk checked PW drawing title Cirencester 01285 740427 Cardiff 02921 671900 Shrewsbury 01939 211190 QA GY Tamworth District-Wide Constraints Plan

Turley Office 9 Colmore Row Birmingham B3 2BJ

T 0121 233 0902