Councils will move forward individually after abandonment of Black Country Plan

The plan was an important document that united Wolverhampton, Walsall, Sandwell and Dudley councils, until Dudley – who spearheaded the original project – pulled out in October, which met with an angry response from the other local authorities.

Leader of Dudley Council Councillor Patrick Harley cited concerns about developing thousands of homes on green belt sites.

A meeting of Wolverhampton Council’s cabinet this week agreed with the other remaining local authorities to move forward with their own individual local plans.

Deputy leader of the council Councillor Stephen Simkins, cabinet member for city economy, said: “The reason we are here is because the Black Country Plan (BCP) is no more, so we’ve got a statutory duty to formulate our own plan and cooperate with neighbouring authorities South Staffordshire, Stafford and Birmingham.

“We can talk about why Dudley broke the plan, but this authority is now marching on to get our own plan done within the legal parameters set out by the government. We’ve heard a lot about the government ticking off housing numbers – quite right too. It was what we were all asking for when it was being hotly debated in this chamber.

“We want to have as much protection for our green belt as possible. This can only be done in the current process where we have a duty to cooperate and manage the housing numbers that are still there until the government get it through the House of Commons and it becomes law.

“So this is a responsible authority that is moving forward and doing exactly what we set out to do with regard to the Black Country Plan. So what I want to do is for us to approve the principals in the report on the basis that the council responds to the Staffordshire local statutory plan consultation, with regard to common ground where we give consent to use our housing numbers and how we then get to where we need to be in moving forward. We also need to do the same for the Birmingham plan,” he added.

The proposal was seconded by council leader Councillor Ian Brookfield, who said: “As we know, there has been certain factions in government who want to change how this whole plan is operated. All we’ve had is a ministerial announcement and we believe some MPs have had letters outlining the things that will change.

“Until we see the action that the government will propose, we have a legal duty to continue as we are. As soon as we see that proposed announcement that talks about reducing the housing targets and how the use of green belt is managed going forward, we still need to go through that legal process.

“We will potentially build new schools, new GP surgeries and other facilities when we have the right open space. That’s what our responses are saying. Birmingham has got a place that has got 78,000 homes that they require, so they won’t be able to help the Black Country at all. Stafford and South Staffs have already offered to help fulfil our housing targets,” he added.

Councillor Steve Evans said: “For the avoidance of any doubt, we’ve still got a statutory duty to cooperate. That’s a fact. We know from our experience that certain governments in situ, particularly the one we have now, can come out with a statement that’s x but can often turn out to be y and then end up as z.

“So we really don’t know what is going to happen. But one thing that has frustrated me about the South Staffs plan is the way it has been mis-sold, because we don’t get a vote on it. I’m sick of opposition councillors telling local residents who live on the boundary that Wolverhampton Council want to build on their green land.

“It was never our green land. It was never anything that we could vote on. I do believe that if a developer came forward and those plans were passed – we’re talking perhaps 2027 – maybe 100 homes a year more than 12 years would be built. The only thing we could have affected would be the infrastructure because it’s on our boundary.”