Comment

Representation ID: 942

Received: 21/11/2024

Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker

I will decide my support or opposition on a site by site basis. Ideally, a zoning approach should be taken - I think that is done in Germany (?)

Support

Representation ID: 1037

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Sandwell Council

The Local Plan has identified 22.6ha employment land compared to a need of 72ha (98ha including replacement of employment land losses). This leaves a shortfall of 50ha (76ha including replacement of employment land losses).
Sandwell MBC considers the policy to be sound and supports the use of the jointly produced evidence base. Sandwell MBC supports ongoing joint working to address the employment land needs of the Black Country Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA). Sandwell MBC also welcomes continued joint working to produce an up-to-date shared evidence base for the employment land supply across the FEMA.

Object

Representation ID: 1144

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This policy seeks to ensure a sufficient quantum of development opportunities are provided to meet the demand for economic growth and support the diversification of the Dudley economy. It does not do this.
The need for employment land is assessed at 72ha, yet only 22ha of land for employment is identified.
The Plan should make provision for this full need for employment land in Dudley. This is important for sustainable planning and to support economic growth within Dudley. Housing needs must align to the strategy for economic growth and the Plan provides no evidence of this.
There is no justification in the Plan to export 50ha or some 69% of the employment land requirement to other locations out with of the Borough. The Plan should provide for the full employment need. The consideration of employment needs and housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1185

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Pegasus Grab Hire Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Failing to meet the identified need for employment land will cause significant harm to the local economy. Businesses will not be able to invest and grow in the borough, and jobs growth will be curtailed to the
detriment of residents. This is precisely the situation our client is facing with the uncertainty surrounding
the current temporary use and it is frustrating the growth and development of a successful, forward
thinking and highly valued local business.

The council should be allocating additional employment sites and protecting existing employment sites,
such as our client’s site, allocating them as Local Employment Areas providing landowners with the
certainty they need to invest in sites to deliver the intensification and enhancement to existing
employment sites which is required to meet the borough’s employment land needs over the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 1211

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Clowes Development LTD

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Of the 21ha of land within Dudley, 11ha of it is proposed to be delivered through existing allocations. The soundness of those allocations is questioned, particularly as some date back to 2011 and the Black Country Plan. If existing allocations have not come forward in the current Plan period, it is considered they are likely to be subject to constraints that will prevent their development. They must therefore be carefully scrutinised at examination if they are to be found sound.
The Council’s Duty to Co-Operate (DtC) Statement identifies that (whilst related to the then Black Country Plan), Shropshire were planning on delivering 30ha of employment land to meet the Black Country needs, but it is noted at para 4.4 that the apportionment of such delivery for Dudley’s needs will now need to be clarified.
14ha of land within South Staffordshire also appears to have been identified to deliver part of Dudley’s unmet need as set out in the Plan, but this is not mentioned in the Duty to Co-Operate paper specifically, rather the only reference is to a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) with South Staffordshire, which has not yet been published. Furthermore, that land is related to the West Midlands Strategic Rail Freight Interchange and it is a specific type of employment land, for logistics/distribution and that does not address the broad range of required employment land.
Similarly, the DtC notes that discussions with neighbouring authorities (which are seemingly still being undertaken jointly across the Black Country Authorities have identified land to meet the employment needs shortfall. Buit the location of that land is not set out and no agreed DtC or SoCG is apparent on this point.
Notwithstanding, such allocations should take place as close as possible to the Black Country boundary in order to help support the expansion of existing businesses in that area and land off A491/Wolverhampton Road Wall Heath, whilst in South Staffordshire, is well placed to fulfil the needs of local businesses for future floorspace Should review green belt boundaries to allocate employment land.

Comment

Representation ID: 1217

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Walsall Council

Policy DLP18 would have greater clarity if the text at the end was placed after clause 1
rather than being referred to in a footnote. It should state “Further land additional to the
above figures will be required to replace any existing employment land that is lost to
alternative uses. It is anticipated that this will include 26ha which is expected to be
redeveloped for housing and other uses.”

Comment

Representation ID: 1218

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Walsall Council

It is not clear what is meant by the reference in clause 4e of policy DLP18 to “opportunities
to enable those areas to be more open to, and inclusive of, the local communities which
they serve”. It is understood that the two policies are intended to be used to allocate
specific employment areas that are close to centres as locations suitable for local
community-owned enterprises that cannot be accommodated within centres, and to
improve links between those areas and the nearby centre. The supporting text gives an
example of a tap house associated with a brewery. However, it would be difficult to restrict
the use of premises to particular communities where the proposed use might otherwise be
contrary to policies relating to acceptable uses on employment land. For the policy to be
effective, it should only refer to specific industrial areas – i.e. those close to and well linked
in with existing centres – that are identified as being appropriate for these uses on the
policies map.

Comment

Representation ID: 1241

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Walsall Council

The issues and options report also proposed 25ha of additional employment land compared with the 22ha proposed in the BCP. Both these figures are well below the net need of 72ha. This meant that 47ha of employment land to serve Dudley would need to be 'exported'. The supply of suitable land for employment development in Dudley is physically constrained however, so it was recommended that no concerns are raised on this topic.

Comment

Representation ID: 1257

Received: 06/12/2024

Respondent: South Staffordshire Council

DMBC has identified a shortfall of 50 hectares in the supply of employment land to meet the needs of the Borough during the plan period. SSC has identified a potential surplus of 45.2 Ha. of employment land, which includes a new proposed allocation at Junction 13 of the M6. This land has been identified as being available to contribute towards addressing the employment land shortfall within South Staffordshire Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) which includes DMBC. As stated in our signed Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) with DMBC, the role this surplus land will play in helping to address employment land shortfalls will be the subject of two separate SOCG covering the entire South Staffordshire FEMA and also the Black Country FEMA.
SSC will also allocate the consented strategic rail freight interchange (WMI). Though situated in South Staffordshire the WMI serves a wider market area (including Dudley). Through our 2022 EDNA & 2024 update SSDC identified a requirement of 18.8 ha of the WMI land to meet our labour demand requirements up to 2041. SSDC has acknowledged that there is surplus employment land at WMI that is currently ‘unclaimed’ and that could be utilised to meet the unmet needs of the wider market area. Whilst we have taken a more in-depth approach to calculating our share of WMI (18.8ha) through our local evidence, we still consider that the 2021 Stantec report1, that considered potential apportionment across the sites market areas based upon population change within each LPA area, is a reasonable basis for determining wider authorities’ potential share of the site given its wider role and in the absence of sub-regional details of labour demand. The Stantec report apportions 14ha of the site towards the B8 employment land needs of Dudley, and it is noted that this figure has been identified as a commitment in the Plan towards the employment land supply.

Comment

Representation ID: 1267

Received: 06/12/2024

Respondent: Stratford District Council

Regarding employment land, policy DLP18 ‘Economic growth and job creation’ states that Dudley Council will seek to deliver at least 72 hectares of new employment land between 2020 to 2041 through the allocation of new sites, the redevelopment/intensification of existing sites and through the Duty to Cooperate process – by the development of employment sites outside of the borough which have an evidenced functional link to Dudley Borough. Figure 9.2 illustrates the extent of the Black Country FEMA (Functional Economic Market Area) and extends to show the surrounding authorities with strong or moderate transactions with the Black Country. Neither Stratford nor Warwick Districts fall into these categories. It is therefore understood that Stratford District and Warwick District are not candidate authorities to assist with meeting Dudley’s shortfall in employment land due to the lack of an evidenced functional link.

Comment

Representation ID: 1280

Received: 06/12/2024

Respondent: Birmingham City Council

Similarly, Policy DLP18 sets out up-to-date employment land needs for Dudley calculated to be 72 hectares (or 98 hectares if you include the need to replace sites lost to residential uses as part of the housing supply). However, this leaves a significant shortfall of nearly 50 hectares within Dudley to be met from redevelopment and intensification of existing sites and the development of sites outside of Dudley which have an evidenced functional link to the Borough through the Duty to Cooperate. This figure increases to just under 76 hectares shortfall if you include the need to replace sites lost to residential uses as part of the housing supply which are to be monitored over the Plan period. However, even taking into account these potential other employment land sources, it is anticipated that there will still be a significant employment land shortfall during the Plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 1310

Received: 06/12/2024

Respondent: Lichfield District Council

It is noted at paragraph 5.12 of the Dudley Local Plan that there is an employment land shortfall of 50 hectares that is to be
exported to authorities within the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) through the ongoing Duty to Co-operate process
and Statements of Common Ground. This employment land shortfall represents 65% of the overall employment land need
for Dudley (total 72ha). It is noted that Lichfield district is not within the same FEMA as Dudley.
It is noted that the total target figure of 72ha is increased to 98ha by adding in 26ha associated with those sites comprising
existing operational employment land which are proposed to be re-allocated for housing. Such an approach places an even
greater reliance on the unmet need for employment land to be accommodated by other authorities within the FEMA. Figure
9.2 provides details of the FEMA and it is noted that Lichfield District is assessed as having only moderate economic
transactions with Dudley. It should be noted that work on the now withdrawn Local Plan 2040 identified that there is a
limited supply of employment sites within Lichfield District and as such LDC was not able to assist in meeting unmet
employment land needs.

Object

Representation ID: 1464

Received: 21/11/2024

Respondent: Nurton Developments Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

**Summary:**

Policy DLP18 aims to deliver at least 72ha of new employment land over the plan period through three methods: developing employment opportunity sites, utilizing windfall sites, and collaborating with neighbouring authorities to meet unmet needs. While Nurton Developments Ltd (NDL) does not oppose this strategy, it raises concerns about the underestimation of the need for employment land in the Borough and the wider Black Country. NDL argues that the evidence base, particularly the Black Country EDNA 2023, is flawed and the projected need for land is too low.

NDL critiques the methodology of the EDNA 2023, highlighting issues such as inconsistent application, lack of allowance for suppressed demand, and insufficient consideration of flexibility and market churn. They suggest that the true need for employment land in the Black Country should be 672ha, with Dudley’s share increasing to 149ha. This is based on a base need of 142ha and an additional 6.82ha for flexibility.

Additionally, NDL questions the supply projections, particularly regarding windfall sites, and concludes that the actual supply of land is significantly lower than stated. They also note a qualitative shortage of large strategic sites, which the EDNA 2023 fails to address. In light of these issues, NDL calls for an increase in the employment land allocation to at least 149ha for Dudley and urges a more ambitious approach to meet the region's economic goals. They also note that the EDNA is being updated, and the latest revisions should take into account the concerns raised.

Comment

Representation ID: 1476

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Reiterates previous Regulation 18 comments.

Content that canal-specific implications arising from the draft Employment policies and allocated sites can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy DLP36 - Canals. This includes the assessment of implications arising for existing boating businesses which adjoin development sites, or opportunities arising for the creation of compatible business boating activity. The inclusion of the canal network within relevant allocation maps helpfully enables developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly. Request on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre application advice directly.

Comment

Representation ID: 1547

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Policy DLP18 Page 165

Could reference the need to consider mitigation/enhancement measures from the Heritage Impact Assessment for employment allocation sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 1548

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Employment Section on Page 170

There is no reference under evidence base to the Heritage Impact Assessment that has been prepared to inform the site allocations.