12 December 2019

Kelly Harris Strategic Planning Team Manager Strategic Planning Team Jessica Graham South Council E: [email protected] Council Offices DL: +44 (0) 121 634 8494 Road 55 Colmore Row WV8 1PX B3 2AA T: +44 (0) 121 200 4500 F: +44 (0) 121 633 3666

savills.com

Dear Kelly

Response to Local Plan Review Spatial Housing Strategy & Infrastructure Delivery Consultation Barratt – Land at Dunsley Road,

We are writing to you in response to the Local Plan Review Spatial Housing Strategy & Infrastructure Delivery (‘SHSID’) document consultation on behalf of Barratt West Midlands who are promoting two sites at Dunsley Road, Kinver for residential development.

This submission includes answers to the following questions set out in the consultation document:

 Question 1  Question 3  Question 5  Question 6  Question 7  Question 8  Question 9  Question 10

In support of these representations and the promotion of sites, we have attached a Vision Statement with this submission which sets out a Site Location Plan, summary of technical information, a Illustrative Masterplan and key benefits that the allocation of the sites for residential development could bring to the local community and wider district. The responses below should be read in conjunction with the Vision Statement.

Question 1 – Do you agree that the evidence base used to inform Spatial Housing Options is robust and proportionate? If not, what else should we consider?

We have made the following comments in regards to the evidence base documents listed in Section 3 of the ‘Spatial Housing Strategy & Infrastructure Delivery’ (‘SPSID’) consultation document and our client’s land interests to the north and south of Dunsley Road, Kinver. In addition to the documents listed in Section 3, we also consider that the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (July 2019) and an updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment should also inform the Spatial Housing Options.

Environmental Constraints

We acknowledge that the Council has considered high level constraints which may constrain the level of growth in broad locations. During the next stage of the Local Plan process where the Council will allocate potential development sites, we request that the Council utilise any additional technical evidence that has been submitted to them by landowners / promoters / developers. This will ensure that the Council allocate sites which they can demonstrate are suitable and deliverable to the Inspector at Examination.

In our representations to the Issues and Options consultation, we submitted a Highways and Access Statement, Heritage Appraisal and a Preliminary Landscape / Green Belt Advice Note which had been undertaken for our client’s land interests to the north and south of Dunsley Road. Since that consultation, our client has also obtained drainage, ecology and arboricultural advice. The recommendations that have been received from the

Offices and associates throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia Pacific, Africa and the Middle East..

Savills (UK) Limited. Chartered Surveyors. Regulated by RICS. A subsidiary of Savills plc. Registered in No. 2605138. Registered office: 33 Margaret Street, London, W1G 0JD

landscape, heritage, highways, drainage, ecology and tree specialists demonstrates that both parcels of land are suitable options for residential development and any development on the parcels could be designed to ensure that there would be a limited impact on the surrounding landscape and heritage assets. This information has been summarised within the submitted Vision Statement t and has been utilised to produce an illustrative masterplan for the two sites (page 22 of the Vision Statement).

Rural Services and Facilities Audit

In our previous representations to the Issues and Options consultation of the Local Plan Review, we objected to the proposed revised Rural Settlement Hierarchy and the categorisation of the village of Kinver as a proposed Tier 2 Settlement. In the adopted Core Strategy and Site Allocations Document, the settlements of Kinver, , and are identified as ‘Main Service Villages’. The Issues and Options document and this SPSID consultation document propose to re-categorise these settlements as Tier 2 Settlements. We still consider that no change should be made to the current adopted settlement hierarchy and that the sustainable settlements of Kinver, Wombourne, Brewood and Perton should continue to be identified as Main Service Village settlements.

The village of Kinver provides a range of shops, services and facilities required in order to support significant residential growth which includes a wide variety of shops and services (at least 43 non-convenience shops), two primary schools, a high school and sixth form, a day nursery, two GP surgeries, 5 public houses, a library, a post office and various communities centres. From a review of Appendix 4 ‘Services and Facilities Audit by Settlement’ of the Rural Services and Facilities Audit (‘RSFA’), Kinver provides a greater range of services than some of the Tier 1 settlements.

It is considered that the only key difference between the proposed Tier 1 settlements and the village of Kinver is that the Tier 1 settlements have access to a Train Station and a supermarket. A Train Station is not the only means of public transport and bus transport is also a sustainable transport option which is provided in Kinver. Additionally, the village of Kinver does not have a large supermarket but it does have smaller convenience stores and provides a much greater range of non-convenience stores than some of the proposed Tier 1 villages such as , and Bilbrook. Supermarket providers are attracted to areas that will generate significant footfall. By directing the majority of growth to the proposed Tier 1 villages, the Council will be reducing the potential of settlements in Tier 2, such as Kinver, to generate the footfall required for certain services and facilities, such as a supermarket. Furthermore, the opportunity to provide additional facilities such as a small supermarket, will only be enhanced in locations such as Kinver, where additional residential development is supported, thereby adding to its sustainability.

Additionally, Appendix 5 ‘Settlement Hierarchy Scoring’ of the RSFA sets out that Kinver has ‘very low’ access to employment. The settlement of Kinver is located within a 30 minute bus journey from the employment provided within and from Stourbridge there are rail links to (10 minutes from Stourbridge), Worcester City Centre (30 minutes from Stourbridge) and Birmingham City Centre (33 minutes from Stourbridge). All of these major employment centres can therefore be accessed by public transport within 60 mins of travelling from Kinver. We therefore do not understand how Kinver has been assessed as having “very low access to employment” and consider that it should be reassessed to correctly acknowledge the existing public transport links that provide sustainable connections to a wide range of employment locations.

In summary, we still do not consider that the Council has sufficiently justified why there is a need for the adopted settlement hierarchy to be amended. It is considered that the modified Main Service Village settlements, which currently includes the settlement of Kinver, should remain as Main Service Villages as they are sustainable settlements which are capable of supporting significant residential growth. The approach being taken has the risk of constraining the growth of some Main Service Villages by not supporting growth, thereby constraining their potential to deliver more services.

2

The Availability of Sites

We support the Council’s proposal to consider the sites that are included in their SHELAA. However, we consider that the SHELAA should be updated to include information that has been submitted to the Council since 2018. In February 2019, our client submitted revised site boundaries for their sites to the Council in order to reduce the site area being promoted on the northern site from 19.46 hectares (48.09 acres) to approx. 13 hectares (32 acres) (SHELAA Site 549) and the southern site from 8.52ha (21.05 acres) to approx. 3.5 hectares (9acres) (SHELAA Site 550). This amendment was undertaken following additional technical work and it is considered that the scale of the revised sites is a more appropriate extension to the settlement of Kinver. We request that the amended site boundaries are included within the SHELAA 2019 that the Council should produce and use to inform their site selection process.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan

We support the use of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) 2019 to inform the broad locations of growth. The IDP sets out potential projects within Kinver. These include new signage along the canal network in Kinver and potential junction improvements.

The Appendix B of the IDP sets out infrastructure concerns. Within Kinver these include local road capacity concerns at Potters Cross Junction, parking concerns within the village centre and GP capacity concerns within the village. We consider that none of the infrastructure concerns are so significant that the village would not be able to accommodate further housing growth.

The infrastructure projects and concerns could be addressed through S106 contributions from additional housing growth in the village. Additionally, as part of our client’s promotion of their sites, they propose to offer land for a community use. The end community use can be decided by the Council and/or local community.

Sustainability Appraisal

The SPSID document states that outcomes of the Sustainability Appraisal (‘SA’) have helped the Council determine how housing growth should be distributed across the district. Growth Option G is marginally the highest rated option within Table 10.1 of the SA and Options D, E and F are the second highest rated options. Option G performs slightly better under the ‘economy and employment section’ but options D, E and F are still positively performing under that section. Paragraph 10.14.2 of the SA states that it is difficult to differentiate between the sustainability performance of Options D, E, F and G as the proposed development of all of these options would likely result in the same sustainability impacts.

Under our response to Question 6, we set out how additional growth than currently proposed under Option G should be directed to sustainable settlements such as Kinver. We do not consider that there is such a margin of sustainability performance between Options D, E, F and G that Option G should be the only option preferred at this stage. Option E could provide the additional growth that we consider is appropriate in Kinver and is an equally sustainable growth option to Option G. Appendix 4 ‘Indicative Growth Tables’ of the SPSID document shows that approximately 150 dwellings could be delivered in Kinver under Option E which we consider is a more appropriate growth option for the sustainable settlement of Kinver than is currently proposed under Option G.

Green Belt Study

The submitted Vision Statement sets out a review of the Green Belt Study 2019 in regards to our client’s land interests (pages 15 - 17). In summary, the red line boundary of our client’s site north of Dunsley Road is included within the Assessment (SHELAA reference 549) however the land to the south of Dunsley Road has not been included (SHELAA reference 550). Both sites are located within Green Belt Parcel S81. Parcel S81 scores moderate (Purpose 1), moderate (Purpose 2), strong (Purpose 3) and no contribution (Purpose 4) against the

3

purposes of the Green Belt. The whole district, apart from a few small parcels, score strong against purpose 3 and no contribution against purpose 4 therefore it is considered that Parcel S81 is a moderately performing Green Belt Parcel.

Parcel S81 is divided into sub parcels for the assessment of harm. Site 549 is partially within an area of ‘moderate’ harm and the eastern part of the site is in an area of ‘high’ harm. In the indicative masterplan that is shown on page 22 of our submitted Vision Statement, it is proposed that the majority of built development in Site 549 will be within the area of land shown as ‘moderate’, however, it is also proposed that there will be some built development within the area of ‘high’ harm. There is still a significant area of open space adjacent to the canal and between the built development and Dunsley Road. The design proposals for both of our client’s sites have been landscape and heritage led (as set out in the submitted Vision Statement) therefore we consider that the whole of Sites 549 should be released from the Green Belt. Dunsley Hall to the east of the site, the Canal to the north and Dunsley Road to the south are permanent physical boundaries that would make an appropriate revised Green Belt boundary (paragraph 139 of the NPPF).

Our client’s land to the south of Dunsley Road (site 550) is located within an area of ‘moderate’ harm. Our client proposes approximately 6 dwellings on this site with a significant level of open space and will utilise the existing access off Dunsley Road. This development could be located adjacent to the existing settlement and not result in the unrestricted sprawl of the Green Belt. Additional planting could be provided along the existing site boundary to create a stronger revised Green Belt Boundary.

Landscape Assessment

The Landscape Assessment 2019 has not been referred to in Section 3 however we consider that it is an evidence base document that should be taken into consideration when determining where housing growth should be directed to in the District.

Both of our client’s sites are located within parcel ‘SL2’ within the Landscape Assessment 2019 which scored a ‘moderate-high’ sensitivity rating. This rating is in relation to a considerably larger area than our client’s sites. The assessment commentary for this option states that ‘gently undulating areas with a good level of containment (due to topography or vegetation) and that relate well to the existing settlement edge of Dunsley north and south of Dunsley Road, have moderate sensitivity to development’. This directly relates to both our client’s sites, where the reduced judgement of ‘Moderate’ sensitivity is appropriate; both sites relate well to the existing residential edge of Kinver and development considerations avoiding the upper contours will reduce the overall impact on the local landscape.

Visually, the northern site (Site 549) is already enclosed to the north by existing boundary vegetation with the area of land and woodland corridor adjacent to the River Stour and Staffordshire and Canal, in addition to the existing residential edge to the west. The southern site (Site 550) is well-contained both physically and visually, with existing properties to the south of Dunsley Road screening views from the north, existing properties off Dunsley Drive to the west and mature tree belt to the south.

A series of recommendations were made by our client’s landscape consultant which have been incorporated into the Illustrative Masterplan within the Submitted Vision Statement. The recommendations for Site 549 include; the retention of the existing mature trees along Dunsley Road, restricting development on the higher ground in the south eastern part of the site and a landscape buffer towards the northern part of the site. Recommendations for site 550 include; retaining existing vegetation where possible between the site and existing dwellings and providing a robust landscape buffer at the eastern edge of the site to provide a new defensible and permanent edge to the proposed built development.

It is considered that the actual area of land being promoted for built development within both sites along with the significant green infrastructure proposed will result in less impact on the wider landscape than has been assessed as part of the wider parcel SL2.

4

Strategic Housing Market Assessment

As set out in the SPSID document, there is a significant housing shortfall within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (‘GBHMA’). As part of the GBHMA, South Staffordshire are expected to accommodate some of the shortfall. The SPSID proposes to contribute up to 4,000 dwellings towards the unmet GBHMA needs (paragraph 2.2). As of yet, the housing shortfall has not been distributed across the GBHMA authorities nor is it known when it will be. We therefore consider that the Council needs to work with the GBHMA authorities to agree a figure before setting a housing need figure within its Local Plan Review.

Question 3 – Do you agree that all safeguarded land identified in the SAD should be released as a priority and should be delivered at an average density of 35 dwellings per hectare?

In regards to whether the safeguarded land identified in the SAD should be released, we consider that this would be a logical approach to the review however, all of the safeguarded sites should still be reviewed as part of this Local Plan Review. Paragraph 120 of the NPPF requires that planning policies should reflect changes in the demand for land and should be informed by regular reviews of allocated sites and their availability. The Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) provides guidance on what factors a Local Planning Authority (‘LPA’) should take into account when considering whether there is a realistic prospect of an allocated site being developed for its intended use. The factors include whether there is evidence that the site has been actively marketed for its intended use (PPG reference: 66-001-20190722). We therefore consider that there is a legal requirement for the LPA to provide evidence as part of this Local Plan Review which demonstrates that all of the safeguarded land within the SAD is still available and deliverable.

In regards to the proposed average density of 35 dwellings per hectare being applied across all of the safeguarded sites, although we support the LPA’s attempts to encourage the most efficient use of land, we consider that a blanket approach to density across the whole district is not appropriate. The density of each allocated site, including the SAD safeguarded land and any future allocation within the Local Plan Review, should be determined on a site by site basis. Paragraph 122 of the NPPF states that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for different types of housing, local market conditions and viability, availability and capacity of infrastructure and services, desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting and the importance of securing well- designed, attractive and healthy places. The PPG also sets out that when establishing densities for a site the following should be taken into consideration:

 its accessibility to key facilities,  characterisation studies; and  design strategies and environmental and infrastructure assessments (PPG reference: 66-004- 20190722).

We therefore consider that a blanket average density of 35 dwellings per hectare should not be applied across the district and we suggest that density should be determined on a site by site basis.

Question 5 – Do you agree that the 7 Spatial Housing Options are appropriate options to consider? Are there any alternative options we have not considered?

We consider that a greater focus should be placed on the most sustainable Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements. As one of the most sustainable settlements in the District, only Options B, C, E and G show any additional growth within Kinver and only Option C shows a level of growth that we consider is most suitable for a settlement which is as sustainable as Kinver. Although we appreciate that the figures are indicative at this stage, Appendix 4 ‘Indicative Growth Tables’ shows that with Options B and E 150 additional dwellings are proposed in Kinver, Option C would result in 575 additional dwellings and Option G just 35 additional dwellings. We consider that an option which focusses the majority of additional development around the Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlement in areas of High or less Green Belt harm should be pursued.

5

Question 6 – Do you agree that Spatial Housing Option G is a robust approach to meet needs in the district and to make a contribution towards unmet needs in the GBHMA?

We support Spatial Housing Option G however in order to make it the most robust approach to meet the needs of the district and the GBHMA, we consider that further development should be directed to the Tier 2 settlements such as Kinver.

In regards to Kinver, under this option only 35 additional dwellings are proposed and the settlement will deliver just 2.6% of the District’s housing need. As a ‘Tier 2’ settlement which provides a wide range of shops, services and facilities, we consider that Option G is not in accordance with the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and a requirement for plan making to positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area (Paragraph 11). Comparably to Kinver, Perton and Wombourne are both Tier 2 settlements and they are expected to deliver 221 additional dwellings as part of the Local Plan Review (set out in Appendix 4) and will contribute a total of 6.6% and 9% respectively to the overall district housing need. Perton is also considered to be less sustainable to Kinver in Appendix 5 ‘Settlement Hierarchy Scoring’ of the Rural Services and Facilities Audit 2019 so it is unclear why more development is being focused in Perton rather than Kinver. Additionally, in comparison to Kinver’s total 2.6% contribution, , which is a Tier 3 settlement and therefore less sustainable than Kinver, will provide 2.7% of the District’s total growth (set out in Appendix 4).

In regards to Kinver, under Option G, Appendix 3 ‘Options for Growth & Rationale’ states that “constraints balanced against the need to provide a fixed proportion of small sites of less than 1ha each in the overall plan requirement, which growth in the village could assist with”. As set out in our response to Question 1, we consider that Kinver is a sustainable settlement as it provides a range of shops, services and facilities and only rates less positively than the proposed ‘Tier 1’ settlements due to a lack of a large supermarket and access to employment locations (Rural Services and Facilities Audit 2019 Appendix 5 ‘Settlement Hierarchy Scoring’). We therefore do not agree with the summary in Appendix 3 that small sites of less than 1ha are appropriate within Kinver, we consider that larger sites adjacent to the settlement boundary should be considered as the settlement can support additional growth.

Option G also proposes areas of search for urban extensions to neighbouring authorities which will address a total of 37.6% of the proposed housing requirement (approximately 3,326 dwellings - Appendix 4 Indicative Growth Tables). Although the NPPF states that the supply of a large number of homes can often be best achieved through new settlements and significant extensions (paragraph 72), we consider that there is an over reliance on strategic extensions bordering neighbouring authorities under Option G when there are appropriate sustainable extension options available using existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements within the District. Option G does not make sufficient use of sustainable Tier 2 settlements such as Kinver which offer existing shops, services, facilities and infrastructure to support additional development. New settlements and large urban extensions often take a significant time to deliver housing due to the scale of new infrastructure that is required to support them whereas sites adjacent to existing sustainable settlements, such as Land off Dunsley Road, can start delivering housing within the next 5 years to meet the needs of the District and the HMA. We therefore consider more growth should be spread across the Tier 1 and 2 settlements, such as Kinver, to ensure that housing is delivered within the District at the earliest opportunity.

As a result of less development being directed to the sustainable Tier 2 settlements, there is a lack of distribution of growth under Option G as the majority of growth is directed to the north of the District. We consider that additional growth should be proposed in the south of the District in the settlement of Kinver in order to reduce the impact on infrastructure capacity and potential for significant traffic congestion in the northern part of the district.

In summary, as Option G is a ‘infrastructure-led’ approach, more development should be directed to areas adjacent to existing sustainable settlements, such as Kinver, where there is existing infrastructure which can cope with additional growth. A significant proportion of growth under this option is being directed to neighbouring urban area extensions and the Tier 1 settlements. We consider that this could lead to

6

infrastructure capacity issues and significant congestion, therefore, we suggest that more growth should be directed to sustainable Tier 2 settlements, such as Kinver, which can support additional housing. Additionally, the final housing requirement that is determined within the Local Plan Review should be a ‘minimum’ requirement to ensure flexibility to respond to changing market circumstances.

Question 7 – Do you agree that we should continue to explore options for a new settlement?

We do not support the approach to explore options for a new settlement. As set out in our response to question 6, we consider that there is existing infrastructure capacity for additional growth to be directed to existing sustainable settlements such as Kinver which will enable the Council to be able to meet the District’s housing needs as well as the needs of the wider GBHMA. Additionally, focusing development on sites of approximately 50 – 300 dwellings adjacent to existing settlements, such as our client’s land to the north and south of Dunsley Road, should result in more dwellings being delivered at an earlier opportunity compared to a new settlement.

Question 8 – What other information (if any) should we consider before concluding that Green Belt release is justified?

We consider that there are exceptional circumstances which justify the release of Green Belt in the District. Before releasing Green Belt, paragraph 137 of the NPPF requires LPAs to first look at making use of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land, optimising density of development and discuss accommodating development with other authorities. The GBHMA housing shortfall as well as meeting the District’s housing need, lack of brownfield sites in the District and HMA and the NPPF’s requirement to locate housing in sustainable locations are considered to be exceptional circumstances. The Council is also seeking to increase densities across its SAD sites. We therefore consider that the LPA has looked at all options and therefore the release of Green Belt land is clearly justified.

Question 9 – Have we identified the key criteria for the identification of sites (as set out in Appendix 6)? Are there any other factors we should consider?

The Council proposes to utilise the sites that have been submitted to the Council as part of their Call for Sites process. We agree with this approach but request the SHELAA be updated to take account of any changes since 2018, such as the smaller area of land to the north (Site 549) and south (Site 550) of Dunsley Road that is not being promoted by our client (as set out in our response to Question 1). Appendix 6 states that sites identified as either S1, S2, S3, NDC1 or NDC2 will be considered for an allocation but sites identified as NS will not be. Site 549 is identified in the SHELAA as ‘NCD1 - Sites potentially suitable for housing but not currently developable because of a policy designation’ whereas Site 550 is ‘NS - sites which are unsuitable because of constraints which cannot be overcome’. We do not support the exclusion of Site 550 from the site assessment process. The SHELAA has incorrectly identified that Site 550 is not suitable as it is detached from the settlement but we strongly dispute the conclusion that it is detached. Therefore the site should be assessed for development. Additionally, a smaller parcel within Site 550 is now being promoted therefore the scale of development will be more in line with the existing settlement. We would welcome this change in area of promotion and the associated supporting evidence being taken into account by the Council as part of the ongoing review of site considerations.

We do not support the current proposed approach to site selection as paragraph 2.2 of Appendix 6, the Council intend to consider a site’s development potential in line with the preferred level of growth for that broad location. As set out in our response to Question 6, the Council’s preferred infrastructure-led strategy will lead to an uneven distribution of development as the majority of growth is being directed to the north of the District and only a small amount of growth is proposed within the settlement of Kinver even though the Council’s evidence base demonstrates that it is one of the most sustainable settlements in the District. Before the Council begins its assessment of sites, additional housing growth should be proposed in Kinver.

Section 8 of Appendix 6 states that a site’s constraints will be taken into account, for example its current land use, environmental designations, flood risk, access and any known physical constraints. We support this approach and request that the Council utilises any additional technical information that landowners / promoters

7

/ developers have submitted to support the promotion of their sites. As set out in our response to Question 1, we have already submitted a range of technical information to the Council and have summarised the work in the submitted Vision Statement. All of the technical information produced for our client’s sites show that there will be no loss of an existing important land use, no environmental designations within or adjacent to the sites, no at risk of flooding, no access issues, no coal mining or mineral safeguarding areas and no known physical constraints. Therefore, we consider that there are no site specific constraints that would impact on the sites being suitable for residential development.

We support the Council’s proposal under section 9 of Appendix 6 to look at site specific opportunities as well as their constraints. This approach accords with NPPF paragraph 92 planning policies should plan positively for the provision of shared spaces, community facilities and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments and “ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services”.

NPPF paragraph 118 also adds that planning policies should “encourage multiple benefits from both urban and rural land, including through mixed use schemes and taking opportunities to achieve net environmental gains – such as developments that would enable new habitat creation or improve public access to the countryside”. The submitted Vision Statement sets out that as part of the residential development of my client’s sites, they also propose to provide affordable housing, open space and a community use within the site. We consider that the development of their sites for housing provide community benefits as well as assisting the Council in delivering the housing it requires in a sustainable location.

Question 10 – Do you agree that, when selecting sites to deliver the preferred spatial housing strategy, the council should seek to avoid allocating housing sites that would result in very high Green Belt harm wherever possible?

We consider that this is a logical approach however this just only apply to areas of ‘very high’ Green Belt harm and not areas of high or moderate harm.

We trust the above is helpful and we look forward to discussing our client’s sites with you in further detail in due course. If you have any queries please contact myself or my colleague, Michael Davies ([email protected] or 0121 634 8436).

Yours sincerely

Jessica Graham Senior Planner

Inc. Vision Statement

8