Support

Representation ID: 983

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker

Seems sensible.

Object

Representation ID: 1085

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Barberry have a number of concerns with the policy particularly where there are overlapping forms of control such as Part 1D which refers to Secured by Design, which is now covered by Part Q of the Building Regulations. As both are covered in other legislation we query why it is necessary to include it within a policy in the Plan.

Part 4 of the policy states that all new residential development will be required to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (“NDSS”). The PPG is quite clear that Councils need to gather evidence first to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area and justify setting up appropriate policies in their Local Plan. No evidence appears to have been published alongside the Pre-Submission Draft Plan that sets out why all new properties are required to meet NDSS.

Notwithstanding whether there is evidence to require the provision of all new dwellings to accord with NDSS if the requirement were to be applied this would have a number of significant implications for the Council. Firstly, NDSS means larger houses have to be built in order to comply with the standards. This would mean the density of development would decrease and the number of houses that can be delivered on land identified on housing will decrease. The decrease will result in fewer homes being delivered within the Borough and thereby decreasing the supply of housing and potentially resulting in housing need going unmet. A further consequence is this could place additional pressure on adjoining authorities in order to have to make up an even larger shortfall of housing that is needed in Dudley but which cannot be accommodated within the area.

Delivering NDSS could also potentially have implications on scheme viability particularly when this is taken into account along with remediation costs, design quality, provision of open space, achieving biodiversity net gain and achieving energy efficiency targets. In seeking to achieve all of these policy objectives could have an adverse impact on scheme viability that would restrict the delivery of new homes in the Borough.

Barberry object to Policy DLP39 on the basis that the policy is not justified in that the Council has not produced proportionate evidence to demonstrate why all new housing should accord with NDSS.

Object

Representation ID: 1124

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Having a strong level of green infrastructure network connected to wildlife corridors, in line with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, will contribute to meeting the duties and aims of the Revised NPPF (December 2023), the Environment Act 2021, and the adopted Black Country Core Strategy (2011) Policy CSP3 ‘Environmental Infrastructure’. In accordance with the National Policy Framework and Guidance, all public authorities have a duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity and must “have regard” to relevant local nature recovery strategies in the process. See full implications in the full comment given.

Comment

Representation ID: 1232

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: West Midlands Housing Association Planning Consortium (WMHAPC)

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Criteria 3 draft Policy DLP39 references water efficiency measures of 110 litres per person per day in line with Part G of the Building Regulations for new developments. The WMHAPC suggests revising this requirement to focus on complying with the most up to date building regulations instead of specifying exact measures. This is because water efficiency standards are already addressed and enforced through Building Regulations, and planning policies should avoid replicating these standards to prevent becoming outdated due to potential changes in building regulations.
At criteria 4 of the draft policy requires a blanket application of Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) for all new residential developments and will apply to all tenures. The WMHAPC is concerned that the blanket application of the NDSS across all residential development, including affordable tenures, will undermine the viability of many development schemes. This will potentially result in fewer affordable homes being delivered as optional technical standards have implications for build costs and sales values, with implications in turn for development viability.
We highlight that the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) requires local authorities to justify the need for NDSS through considering:
•“need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
•viability – the impact of adopting the space standard supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a
space standard is to be adopted.
•
timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions.”
(Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 56-020-20150327)
In light of the above, it is not clear that the Council has provided evidence demonstrating the need for NDSS across all new developments in Dudley. If the Council continues to seek the NDSS requirement, then it must do so in line with the PPG to ensure the policy is justified and found sound at examination. It is noted that the NDSS is not a building regulation and remains solely within the planning system as a form of technical planning standard. It is not essential for all dwellings to achieve these standards in order to provide good quality living.
It is also relevant that Homes England only requires affordable homes to meet 85% of the NDSS to receive funding. For affordable housing in particular, there may be instances where achieving NDSS is impractical and unnecessary, as it may result in for example, higher rental and heating costs. Homes delivered in the current market by housebuilders are often lower than the 85% requirement. As such, the WMHAPC recommends that other quality standards should be used to determine housing quality, unless the Council can properly evidence the need for NDSS.
On sites that deliver 100% affordable housing, NDSS presents issues in that it increases the risk of financial impairment. The WMHAPC members raise that if a property costs more that it is worth, which is often the case on design and build sites that are 100% affordable and in a low value area such as Dudley, then it can cause a financial impairment, or in some cases, a loss. It is therefore imperative that schemes are able to continue to provide good quality housing but at 85% NDSS (which is the accepted position from Homes England) on sites that are delivering 100% affordable housing due to build costs.
As such, NDSS can have substantial impacts on viability. If there is an increased risk of impairment, developers will be more unlikely to deliver new affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1316

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

National policy establishes the importance of good design for achieving sustainable development. It is considered that the Council’s proposed design policy however is not considered to be consistent with national policy, and is overly lengthy as currently drafted. The policy seeks to cover a range of topics and references a range of different forms of policy and guidance, resulting in a protracted policy. The policy would be more effective should the Council focus on what the key expectations are in respect of design locally, with supporting text referencing where appropriate other supplementary policy or guidance that the authority expect developers to take into account.

In particular, the requirement for proposals to be compliant with national space standards, should be justified, if the Council consider that the evidence has identified that this is necessary. Footnote 52 of the Framework confirms that policies can make use of nationally described space standards, where the need is justified, and it is not considered that the Council has done so through the draft Plan or accompanying evidence base. Whilst the supporting text references that it is not expected that this requirement would impact on development viability, it is not considered that the Plan provides adequate justification for this to form a policy requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 1328

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP39: Design Quality is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to issues of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Building for a Healthy Life: HBF supports the use of Building for a Healthy Life as best practice but believes it should remain a voluntary guideline rather than a mandatory requirement. They argue it is a toolkit for considering design, not a standard to be enforced.

Borough-Wide Design Code: HBF seeks clarification on whether the Council intends to produce a Borough-Wide Design Code in light of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) revision.

Energy Efficiency Standards: HBF supports national energy efficiency standards (such as the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard 2025) but argues that individual local plans should not set local energy efficiency standards. They caution that local standards would undermine economies of scale and create inconsistencies with national regulations.

Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS): HBF opposes the introduction of optional NDSS through local plans, stating that the Council needs robust, justified evidence to adopt such policies. The NPPF allows the introduction of NDSS only when there is a proven need, and HBF highlights the importance of considering evidence on need, viability, and the impact on affordability. They argue that inflexible policies mandating NDSS may reduce affordability, especially for smaller homes, which are crucial for lower-income households.

Impact on Affordability: HBF emphasizes that imposing NDSS could increase housing costs, potentially reducing affordability for lower-income households. Smaller, well-designed homes below the NDSS can meet housing needs effectively. HBF also highlights a risk that larger homes built to NDSS might not suit customers' needs, potentially leading to overcrowding and lower quality of life.

Transitional Arrangements: If NDSS is included in the policy, HBF recommends transitional arrangements for sites where land deals have already been made, allowing these sites to proceed under existing standards before the NDSS is enforced.

SPDs in Local Plan: HBF notes that the policy's reference to Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) in the Local Plan is inappropriate, as SPDs should only provide supporting guidance, not be a formal part of the policy.

In summary, HBF believes that the policy is not justified and could negatively impact housing affordability and development flexibility. They suggest a more balanced approach that focuses on design quality without mandating the NDSS or local energy standards.

Object

Representation ID: 1386

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

National policy establishes the importance of good design for achieving sustainable development. It is considered that the Council’s proposed design policy however is not considered to be consistent with national policy, and is overly lengthy as currently drafted. The policy seeks to cover a range of topics and references a range of different forms of policy and guidance, resulting in a protracted policy. The policy would be more effective should the Council focus on what the key expectations are in respect of design locally, with supporting text referencing where appropriate other supplementary policy or guidance that the authority expect developers to take into account.

In particular, the requirement for proposals to be compliant with national space standards, should be justified, if the Council consider that the evidence has identified that this is necessary. Footnote 52 of the Framework confirms that policies can make use of nationally described space standards, where the need is justified, and it is not considered that the Council has done so through the draft Plan or accompanying evidence base. Whilst the supporting text references that it is not expected that this requirement would impact on development viability, it is not considered that the Plan provides adequate justification for this to form a policy requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 1450

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

**Summary:**

National policy emphasizes the importance of good design for sustainable development. While the Council’s proposed design policy aligns with national policy, it is overly lengthy and covers a broad range of topics, making it more complicated than necessary. The policy could be more effective if it focused on the key local design expectations, with supporting text referencing relevant supplementary guidance.

Specifically, the requirement for proposals to comply with national space standards needs further justification. According to Footnote 52 of the Framework, such policies can be used if justified by evidence, but the Council has not provided sufficient justification for this requirement in the draft Plan. Although the supporting text suggests the policy would not impact development viability, this does not provide adequate rationale for making it a policy requirement.

Support

Representation ID: 1463

Received: 10/12/2024

Respondent: Police Crime Commissioner for West Midlands (PCCWM)

Agent: Tyler Parkes

The PCCWM welcomes and supports the references to consideration of crime prevention measures and Secured by Design and Park Mark principles, in addition to the requirements of Part Q of the Building Regulations 2010 or any successor legislation within this policy.

The PCCWM objects in relation to the further guidance in paragraph 11.95. The PCCWM reiterates a point made at Regulation 18 stage and suggests that this paragraph should be further strengthened by adding the following sentence, ‘Developers are encouraged to undertake pre-application discussions with West Midlands Police's Design Out Crime Officers.’ (Suggested changes in bold and underlined)

Comment

Representation ID: 1489

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Reiterate previous comments from Regulation 18.

Request incorporation of cross-reference to Policy DLP36 Canals within the justification text. Request consultation on any local design codes to be developed. Recommend early consultation with the Trust on any stakeholder-led master planning approaches or through individual pre-application engagements. Request on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries and encourage developers to seek pre-application advice directly.