Support

Representation ID: 10

Received: 23/11/2023

Respondent: Mr Roy Burgess

5: Spatial Strategy- Green Belt, Policy & Key Diagram- SUPPORT

Support

Representation ID: 26

Received: 22/11/2023

Respondent: John Polychronakis

I am writing to express my support for your proposal to preserve the status of Green Belt land in Stourbridge and the proposed SINC, AHHLV and LGS designations for Corbett Meadow in Amblecote. These sites are part of our heritage and both strategically and ecologically they are important. They should not be developed especially when there are so many brownfield sites available within the borough

Support

Representation ID: 27

Received: 30/11/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Teall

I support the council in their urban-led strategy. I strongly disagree with releasing green belt land and subsequently building on it.
Please keep to this policy and resist outside pressure to change it!

Support

Representation ID: 36

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Tompkins

1. The use of Brownfield Sites (and their general proximity to local centres is to be applauded) for housing in particular.

Comment

Representation ID: 39

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

Typological error between 1C and 1D.

Object

Representation ID: 83

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr David KIMBLEY

The increase in new properties should be reduced by addressing the issue of over 1000 empty homes in Dudley. The issues relating to infrastructure, health and education should receive a lot more attention.

Comment

Representation ID: 112

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Wall Heath & Kingswinford Green Belt Group

We do not intend to oppose the Dudley Plan, principally because it perpetuates the present position that the 2 green belt sites we are fighting for, are safe - for now.

We are extremely concerned about the effect of building an average of 708 new homes every year on local infrastructure.

Education - 1247 new homes will have been built when you take the ongoing development towards the top of Stallings Lane plus the Ketley Quarry site. Using ONS figures, these will house over 2000 children of school education age.

Health - These homes will increase the local population by almost 3000. Again using, ONS figures, this could generate nearly 12,000 GP visits. At 20 mins per consultation it would create sufficient work load for 2 extra GPs in this area.

Housing need - the planned number of homes appears to exceed that which could be justified by increase in population.

Comment

Representation ID: 181

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Yvonne Hands

I give my support to the policy to maintain a strong greenbelt to promote regeneration and development within the urban area

Support

Representation ID: 218

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker

>COMMENT A
Quote: "1.a. Deliver at least 10,876 net new homes and create sustainable mixed communities that are supported by adequate infrastructure."
The creation of "sustainable mxed Communities" is crucial.
Quote:- "2.a. Delivering development in the existing urban area supported by infrastructure to meet the needs of communities and businesses."
It is important that "needs" are determined by relevant communities and businesses and not by remote theoriticians.

Comment B.
Paragraph 3.
Quote:- "Table 5.1 shows how the full housing and employment land requirements for the Dudley
Borough will be met through identified sites, and through reliance on neighbouring and other local authorities who have a functional link with Dudley via the Duty to Cooperate. Those development needs that cannot be accommodated within the Dudley administrative area will be exported to sustainable locations in neighbouring local authority areas."
Comments:- Surely the Duty to Cooperate works both ways and other Local Authorities may wish to to export to Dudley. Therefore, exporting development needs may not be an option in practice and should not be relied upon as a solution to Dudley's problems.

Comment

Representation ID: 276

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Heyford Developments

Agent: Harris Lamb

In light of the Council's need and the shortfall that the Council is faced with, Heyford urge the Council to first consider how it can first meet its own needs with land within its own administrative area first before looking to go cross boundary. If it is confirmed that there is no other alternative other than to look to adjoining neighbours the Council are urged to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including South Staffordshire, to seek agreement on how and where this unmet housing need is going to be delivered. Meeting the housing needs of the HMA cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and that a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the HMA’s housing needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including affordable homes.

It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall in Dudley should be in Dudley first but then in the authorities closest to them such as South Staffordshire, who have a meaningful ability to address the shortfall with land available adjacent to the conurbation.

Object

Representation ID: 280

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Dr Baljit Bhandal

Agent: Harris Lamb

SS have significant concerns about the proposed development strategy and specifically around how the Council intends to meet its housing needs over the Plan Period. We also have similar concerns in respect of how its employment land needs will be met and we set out our detailed comments on these points below.

Comment

Representation ID: 281

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Housing Association Planning Consortium (WMHAPC)

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Draft Policy DP1 sets out that the new Local Plan will need to deliver at least 10,876 new homes between 2023 and 2041. However, paragraph 5.12 on page 57 of the Draft Local Plan identifies a standard method housing need for Dudley of 11,954 homes across the same period, resulting in a shortfall of 1,078 homes.
While the shortfall across the 18-year period may not be considered to be substantial at around 60 dpa (2023 to 2041), it still means that the housing needs of 60 households every year will fail to be met by Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. The WMHAPC is concerned that the Council is progressing its strategic housing and Green Belt policies without showing the ability of neighbouring authorities to suitably address this shortfall in the number of homes needed while also addressing their own housing needs.
It is acknowledged that ongoing work under the Duty-to-Cooperate is taking place between Councils: “The Duty to Cooperate position will be elaborated on in more detail in Statements of Common Ground at the Publication stage” (Paragraph 5.13). Nevertheless, the Council should take a cautious approach to strategic policies in relation to housing needs, supply and the Green Belt until discussions with neighbouring authorities have confirmed the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area’s (“HMA”) ability to accommodate Dudley’s housing need shortfall. The WMHAPC makes this point being mindful of the identified shortfall of 18,606 homes within the published Draft Local Plan for Sandwell, which is also expected to be met by authorities within the HMA.

Comment

Representation ID: 285

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Redrow Homes Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Dudley Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation
Response by Redrow Homes Limited
Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy are instructed by Redrow Homes Limited (‘Redrow’) to submit representations to the Dudley Local Plan Preferred Options consultation. Redrow is currently promoting a site for residential development in South Staffordshire which is also in the same HMA and wish to submit comments in respect of the Dudley Plan. Whilst Redrow’s interests are not explicitly located within Dudley Borough the way the Dudley Plan is currently draft will have a number of repercussions on the delivery of housing across the wider HMA. It is within this context that Redrow’s representations are submitted and you should read our comments in this context.
A shortfall in meeting Dudley’s needs
The development strategy set out within the Dudley Local Plan is to meet the Borough’s housing needs on previously developed land within the urban area. The Standard Method housing requirement for Dudley is 11,954 dwellings however there is only currently capacity to accommodate 10,876 of these. There is, therefore, a shortfall of 1,076 dwellings which are needed but which the Council is unable to accommodate within its own administrative area. The Plan is not currently proposing to release land from the Green Belt and whilst the recently updated National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) removes the requirement to review the Green Belt, the fact that it has a shortfall in the amount of housing that is needed against which it can currently provide will mean that the shortfall of 1,076 dwellings will have to be accommodated elsewhere within the HMA in adjoining authorities if housing needs are to be met in full. Paragraph 11b) still states that strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for the objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring area. South Staffordshire as one of the closest adjoining authorities with a strong functional relationship to Dudley would be one such location where additional housing could be accommodated if needed.

Redrow consider this to be an unsound approach largely on the basis that if the 1,076 dwellings have to be provided elsewhere, this will reduce the availability of any alternative capacity to meet the needs of other authorities in the HMA that have much a greater unmet need, which will effectively be competing with Dudley for this capacity, when the Council has available Green Belt land within its own administrative area that it could use but which has chosen not to release. In looking to adjoining neighbouring authorities it is highly likely that if they were to agree to accommodate any of Dudley’s needs it would have to be on Green Belt
land. Clearly, if this is the case then it should be demonstrated first that Dudley has exhausted all sources of potential land within its administrative area first, including Green Belt land, before looking cross boundary. If there is no alternative then Dudley will need to work with adjoining authorities and agree with them to meet its needs. South Staffordshire, due to its close functional relationship with Dudley would be an ideal location for where new housing could be provided that would help meet Dudley’s needs.
A significant wider unmet need exists
The shortfall of land for housing is not unique to Dudley and is a long-established concern within the HMA.
Birmingham Development Plan
The Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”) was adopted in January 2017. Policy PG1 – Overall Levels of Growth, advised that 89,000 dwellings are required during the course of the plan period (2011 to 2031) to meet the growth requirements of the City. However, only 51,100 additional dwellings can be accommodated within the City’s administrative area. This leaves a shortfall of 37,900 homes including 14,400 affordable homes (that will need to be delivered elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area). The BDP stipulated that Birmingham’s unmet need was to be met by other authorities in the HMA as and when they produced individual Local Plans. This has not happened.
Birmingham City Council has now commenced a review of its Local Plan and consulted on Issues and Options for a draft Plan concluding in December 2022. The Issues and Options document advised that the Standard Method housing requirement for the period 2020 to 2042 is 149,286 dwellings. The Issues and Options consultation document suggests that the total capacity for development within the built up area of the City is 70,871 dwellings. This relies upon all SHLAA sites coming forward for development and the provision of a significant number of windfalls (the windfall sum is 11,675 dwellings). This would result in a housing shortfall in the City of 78,415 dwellings.
Black Country Core Strategy Review
Previously, the four Black Country authorities had been preparing a Joint Plan although this has now subsequently been abandoned in favour of the preparation of individual Plans for each authority. Notwithstanding the above, the Preferred Options Black Country Plan proposed a housing requirement based upon the Standard Method which was the sum of the four individual authority housing requirements. The housing requirement for the four authorities was 76,076 dwellings, however, there was only an identified capacity of 47,837 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be directed to other authorities. Now, each authority will calculate its own housing requirement using the standard method calculation. The requirement in Sandwell is 29,773 dwellings, however, Sandwell claim only to have capacity to deliver approximately 11,167 leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. The positions in Wolverhampton and Walsall have not yet been published although it is anticipated that there will be a further shortfall in what is required against the capacity within these two authorities.

Overall Shortfall
If the housing shortfall figure identified in Policy PG1 of the BDP and the emerging shortfalls in both the Dudley and Sandwell Preferred Options are added together it totals 57,582 dwellings. If the shortfall arising in Dudley and Sandwell is added to the emerging shortfall identified in the Birmingham Issues and Options this increases to 98,097 dwellings. As noted above, this has the potential to increase even further when any shortfall arising in Wolverhampton and Walsall is added. This is a substantial number of homes and represents a substantial number of people and families that will go without homes should a definitive solution not be found.
Where will the housing shortfall arising from Dudley be met
Paragraph 24 of the Framework confirms that Local Planning Authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. Paragraph 26 goes on to state that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary and where development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular area could be met elsewhere. The level of unmet need arising within the HMA is one such area where the Duty to Cooperate should be employed in order to determine where this unmet need should be directed.
Having regard to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area there are 14 authorities within it which include Birmingham, the four Black Country authorities and 9 other surrounding authorities. In light of the shortfall arising in Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell this effectively leaves 11 remaining authorities where the need could be distributed.
Turning to each of the remaining authorities it is highlighted above that there is potentially a shortfall that will arise in both Wolverhampton and Walsall when they come to publish their Preferred Options Local Plan. Redditch Borough is effectively built up to its boundary and already has to look to its adjoining neighbour, Bromsgrove, in order to accommodate its housing need. It would be unable to accommodate any further unmet. Similarly, Tamworth had to look to its adjoining neighbours of Lichfield and North Warwickshire in order to meet its current housing requirement in its adopted Local Plan. It too would be unlikely to be able to accommodate any unmet need arising. Cannock Chase’s capacity is restricted due to environmental constraints including the Cannock Chase’s SAC and AONB. A small part of Stratford-upon-Avon District falls within the Housing Market Area whilst North Warwickshire have previously committed to delivering 3,790 dwellings to meeting Birmingham’s needs up to 2031 in its adopted Local Plan (2021). Solihull’s Local Plan is currently at examination and is on hold awaiting publication of the updated Framework and currently proposes approximately 2,000 dwellings to meet the needs of Birmingham. If the Plan progress towards adoption in its current form there would be no scope to seek any increase in the size of the contribution from Solihull until such time as they commenced a further review.
This effectively leaves Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove as the three remaining authorities that would be able to make any meaningful contribution to meeting housing needs arising in the wider HMA. However, a review of what these local authorities has been proposing to help meet the housing shortfall across the HMA falls woefully short of what is needed.
South Staffordshire have previously proposed to accommodate 4,000 dwellings to meet the needs arising in the Black Country. Lichfield were proposing around 2,000 homes before withdrawing their plan. Bromsgrove has yet to publish a draft plan and so it is yet to state how many dwellings it may be prepared to accommodate. Collectively this equates to less than 12,000 (plus the homes that Bromsgrove may provide) and on the face of it will fall woefully short of addressing the housing need of local people and families across the HMA.

The outcome of the above is that there is a significant unmet housing need arising principally from Birmingham and Sandwell, with Walsall and Wolverhampton likely to add to this, and at the current time there is no agreement or clear strategy between the 14 HMA authorities as to where or how this unmet need is to be met. Furthermore, in the few authorities that have the ability to assist in meeting the overspill, with land available around the conurbation to assist with meeting the housing overspill no agreement has yet been reached with them.
It is clear from the above that the emerging position across the HMA is one where there is a significant housing need that exists, but where certain authorities, such as Sandwell and Birmingham and to a lesser extent Dudley, cannot currently meet its needs in full. Redrow contend that these needs must be met by the HMA authorities in the next round of plans that are now being prepared. If this need is not met in full, it risks giving rise to a number of significant knock on effects on the delivery and provision of housing across the Greater Birmingham area. These impacts include:
•
worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
•
worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
•
increased homelessness
•
Worsening overcrowding and living conditions,
•
Increased pressure on private rental sector with associated issues of unsecure tenancies and susceptibility to rent increases,
•
Increasing ageing population with resultant increase in demand on social and health care services,
•
economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
•
the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.
Next Steps
In light of the Council's need and the shortfall that the Council is faced with, Redrow urge the Council to first consider how it can first meet its own needs with land within its own administrative area first before looking to go cross boundary. If it is confirmed that there is no other alternative other than to look to adjoining neighbours the Council are urged to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including South Staffordshire, to seek agreement on how and where this unmet housing need is going to be delivered. Meeting the housing needs of the HMA cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and that a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the HMA’s housing needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including affordable homes.
It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall in Dudley should be in Dudley first but then in the authorities closest to them such as South Staffordshire, who have a meaningful ability to address the shortfall with land available adjacent to the conurbation.
We trust you take our comments into consideration and we look forward to being notified of further stages of consultation on the Local Plan. If you have any questions or need to discuss please do not hesitate to contact me.

Object

Representation ID: 292

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Contrary to the requirements of the NPPF paragraph 66, Policy DLP1 does not set a housing requirement for the plan area. This is a fundamental failing of the DLP. Policy DLP1 instead makes reference to the quantum of housing that DMBC consider will be delivered in the plan period (at 10,876 net new homes). That figure that is disputed by WDH (see their response to Policy DLP10), but notwithstanding that, the DLP must clearly set out a housing requirement within Policy DLP1.
Housing Market Assessment does not provide a judgement as to whether there is justification to plan for a level of growth in excess of the SM-derived LHN. Therefore, an updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is required, and must account for the significant evidence that suggests that such an uplift is necessary. It is evident that the region will experience significant investment and economic activity in the coming years as a result of that aspirational strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 298

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Can be very complex and protracted involving landowner issues, relocating existing tenants, contamination of land. Build out rate is slower on brownfield sites compared to greenfield, as per Lichfields report.

There are a number of factors that are likely to reduce the capacity of each allocation site, if and when they come forward including site constraints, space for POS and BNG. It is imperative that DMBC take full consideration of the factors influencing the deliverability of each individual site.

Object

Representation ID: 305

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

DLP 1 Development Strategy
Policy DLP 1 sets out the Council's targets for the delivery of new homes and employment land. In respect of new dwellings 10,876 new homes are proposed along with the development of at least 25 hectares of employment land. Barberry have significant concerns about the proposed development strategy and specifically around how the Council intends to meet its housing needs over the Plan Period. We also have similar concerns in respect of how its employment land needs will be met and we set out our detailed comments on these points below.
In respect of the Borough’s housing target the policy sets out that the Council will deliver at least 10,876 net new homes over the Plan Period. Paragraph 5.12 confirms that the local housing need for the Borough is in fact 11,954 homes as calculated by the Standard Method. Paragraph 61 of the Framework confirms that Councils should use the standard method as the starting point for establishing a housing requirement for the area. It goes on to state that there may be exceptional circumstances that justify an alternative approach to assessing housing need. The Council are not claiming that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant divergence away from the use of the standard method. As such, it must be concluded that the housing requirement is 11,954 dwellings. However, the Plan identifies a shortfall of 1,078 homes that are required but where sufficient capacity within the Borough to accommodate has not yet been identified.
Having identified what the housing need is in the Borough, the Council undertook an assessment of different options for growth as described in Table 1 of the Dudley Local Plan Options to Preferred Strategy paper (October 2023). The three options tested looked at meeting all or the majority of the Borough’s needs on previously developed land, through urban uplift in regeneration corridors, on low quality open space or elsewhere through duty to cooperate contributions. None of the spatial options considered release land from the Green Belt to meet the Council’s needs. Whilst no doubt the publication of the updated Framework will be used to validate the Council’s approach, it will in Barberry’s view lead to significant housing need going unmet and the associated social and economic impacts that arise from this.
The spatial option that the Council have decided to pursue (Option 3) seeks to focus on meeting the development needs of the Council on previously developed sites within the urban area, use of low quality open space and through duty to cooperate discussions meaning that the Council will be looking to the other authorities in the HMA to accommodate its unmet need of 1,079 dwellings. Barberry object to this approach and do not consider it sound.
If the 1,078 dwellings are to be accommodated in adjoining authorities this would likely result in those authorities immediately adjoining Dudley, which also have significant areas of Green Belt, having to release land from their Green Belt in order to meet Dudley’s needs. If land has to be released from the Green Belt in order to meet the development needs it is Barberry’s view that Dudley should be looking at opportunities within its own administrative area first, including land in its Green in order to accommodate this, before looking to its adjoining neighbours. If adjoining authorities take the same viewpoint as Dudley and decide that they also do not need to release land from the Green Belt, housing needs arising from Dudley and across the HMA are not going to be met.
The Plan, nor the Dudley Local Plan Options Preferred Strategy paper, does not elaborate on the Council’s decision not to release land from the Green Belt to meet its needs particularly when the Plan highlights that there is a shortfall of what is needed against what land is available to accommodate this need. Barberry consider this to be a short-sighted approach particularly when land is available albeit it is in the Green Belt, which could help meet the Council's housing needs over the Plan Period. This point is particularly pertinent when under the Black Country Plan Preferred Options version, the Council had proposed to release land from the Green Belt to meet the Council's needs as well as the unmet needs arising in the wider Black Country authorities. Again, the Plan does not provide clear or sufficient justification for the decision of the Council not to release land from the Green Belt nor why this unmet need should be met elsewhere when there is sufficient suitable land available within the Borough to meet these needs. Furthermore, whilst the updated Framework does not require Green Belt to be reviewed, it does state that it can still be reviewed in exceptional circumstances. Barberry contend that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant a review of the Green Belt. These include:
•worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
•worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
•increased homelessness
•Worsening overcrowding and living conditions,
•Increased pressure on private rental sector with associated issues of unsecure tenancies and susceptibility to rent increases,
•Increasing ageing population with resultant increase in demand on social and health care services,
•economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
•the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.
The land at Swindon Road, Wall Health, Kingswinford was identified as a draft allocation in the Black Country Plan Preferred Options as a strategic housing site capable of accommodating 533 dwellings. Clearly at some point, the Council considered that the Site was suitable to accommodate residential development sufficient for it to be identified as a draft allocation. The Site was considered suitable and deliverable and Barberry remain of the view that it should be included as a draft allocation in the Plan. In allocating the land at Swindon Road, Wall Heath, it could potentially reduce the shortfall in housing that is required but unable to be currently accommodated in the Borough by approximately half. We set out below why we consider that the Site is suitable for development and why it should be allocated as a site for housing in the Borough Plan.
In addition to the shortfall in housing land that the Borough Council is currently unable to accommodate there is also a shortfall in the amount of employment land that is needed but which sufficient land has not been identified in order to accommodate the employment requirements going forward. Paragraph 5.12 confirms that the EDNA establishes a need for 72 hectares (98 hectares including replacement of employment land losses) of land for employment development although there is an anticipated supply of just 25 hectares resulting in a shortfall of 47 hectares (increasing to 73 hectares if including replacement of employment land losses). The Plan goes on at paragraph 5.13 to confirm that unmet employment land need will be provided across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA, the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and other areas with which the Borough has a physical or functional relationship. The Council is, therefore, looking to accommodate its housing and employment needs outside of its administrative area via agreeing with adjoining authorities for them to make land available to meet Dudley’s needs. Barberry do not consider this to be a sound approach for similar reasons as to those set out above in respect of meeting its housing needs. Barberry contend that Dudley has suitable land available within its own administrative area albeit it is in the Green Belt and that the Council should be considering the suitability of this land for development first rather than asking its neighbouring authorities to meet its needs and potentially to release land from its Green Belt in order to do so.
The issue of unmet housing need arising across the HMA and how this will be addressed is a key issue that the Plan will need to address. . Whilst the Dudley Local Plan identifies a relatively modest shortfall in housing land there are wider issues specifically arising in Sandwell that may compound the issue of where and how housing need is met. Sandwell Council is also currently consulting on its Preferred Option Local Plan which identifies a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings that the Council need but which are unable to accommodate within its own administrative area. The Council will also be looking to its adjoining neighbours, of which Dudley is one, in order to see whether their need can be met outside of its administrative area. Furthermore, the consultation on the Birmingham City Issues and Options that concluded in December 2022 also highlighted that it too has a housing shortfall of approximately 78,415 dwellings that will also need to be met elsewhere within the HMA. Dudley in seeking to meet part of its unmet need by reaching agreement with adjoining authorities in the HMA will to a degree be competing with other authorities that also have a much more significant shortfall to meet and which have less land, including Green Belt land to meet this. This reinforces Barberry’s view that the Council should be doing all it can to meet its needs in full in its administrative area even if it means releasing land from the Green Belt to do so. By meeting all its development needs within Dudley this would reduce the wider pressures within the HMA on other adjoining authorities to help meet the unmet needs arising principally in Sandwell and Birmingham but also potentially in Wolverhampton City as well.

Comment

Representation ID: 324

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Concerned for same reasons as DLP10.

Object

Representation ID: 330

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

To meet development needs there is a requirement for a more balanced strategy and one which also includes for more deliverable and needed greenfield sites and assess and review the Green Belt to help identify potential areas of growth in the real context of a significant deficit in the supply of brownfield land within the urban area. The position whereby no Green Belt release is proposed has been arrived at for political rather than planning reasons. There is scant evidence that proper consideration has been given or judgement exercised from a planning perspective as to whether there might be opportunities within the Green Belt better to meet the Borough’s needs. Evidence as to why the full need cannot be met is lacking. This shortcoming is amplified by a lack of any clear evidence at this stage as to the extent to which the Council have, or are likely to, engage with neighbours under the Duty to Cooperate, or how fruitful any such engagement might be. Greenfield and Green Belt sites should be allocated to help meet the need. Policy DLP1 should acknowledge and accommodate this, and consequential changes should be made throughout the DLP (e.g., to Table 5.1, Policy DLP2, Policy DLP10, and elsewhere) to reflect it and allow for a contribution to be made by such sites, rather than excluding them
entirely.

Object

Representation ID: 342

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Wood Abbey

Agent: NCL Development

We consider that the Plan is not consistent with national planning policy and fails to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It fails to provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses. It also fails to plan for any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas.
The Local Plan is unjustified in restricting the amendment to Green Belt land and therefore limiting the supply of land for homes. We consider that amendments to the Green Belt can be made and deliver sustainable patterns of development.
We consider that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the alteration of the Green Belt boundary to allocate land including our client’s Site for residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 351

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

2.1. Policy DLP1 of the emerging DLP establishes that the Council intends to plan for the delivery of at least 10,876 new homes. The Policy states that the full housing and employment requirements for the Borough will be met through identified sites and through reliance on neighbouring and other local authorities with a functional link to Dudley, via the Duty to Co-operate. The supporting text provides that this figure is below the identified local housing need for 11,954 new homes as calculated by the Standard Method, which creates a shortfall of 1,078 homes. It goes on to state that the Council is working constructively with neighbouring authorities to help provide certainty as to how and where the borough’s full housing and employment land needs will be delivered, and that this will be elaborated on at the Publication stage of plan-making.
2.2. On behalf of Haworth Group, Claremont Planning considers that this approach is misguided, and critically does not represent a positive approach to the delivery of new development within the Borough. The proposed strategy provides no assurance that the emerging DLP will be capable of meeting the identified housing needs of the Borough, which the Framework advises should be planned for as a minimum. Chapter 3 of the Framework provides the national policy on plan-making, with Paragraph 20 confirming that strategic policy should set an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for housing, alongside other elements such as infrastructure, community facilities and conservation. Crucially, Paragraph 35 goes on to identify the criteria for ensuring Plans are ‘sound’, which requires that as a minimum, Local Plans provide a strategy which ‘seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs’, with Footnote 21 establishing need should be assessed using a clear and justified method.
2.3. Within the supporting text to Policy DLP1, the Council recognise the objectively assessed housing need as calculated using the Government’s standard method, as being 11,954. In accordance with national policy expectations set out in Paragraph 61 of the Framework, it is unclear why the Council has published a draft Plan that does not establish how this identified housing need is to be met in full. If there is to be reliance on neighbouring authorities to achieve this, then this should be evidenced by formal agreements with those authorities.
2.4. The need to pursue a Plan which provides for an appropriate level of housing is critical in order to ensure that the Borough is able to meet its local housing needs, including provision of affordable housing. Data published by the Department for Levelling Up Housing & Communities in December 2023 illustrates how affordable housing need has increased in the Borough in recent years, with the total number of households on the waiting list as of 31 March 2023 at 3,627; increased from 1,901 households in 2017. It is considered that this will only be addressed through the Council recognising this issue and proposing a Plan that will enable the delivery of an appropriate level of housing.
2.5.It should be recognised that the Levelling Up & Regeneration Act 2023 formally abolished the Duty to Co-Operate, with no confirmation as to what, if anything, will replace it. There remains significant uncertainty about the willingness of authorities to work together. Furthermore, the neighbouring authorities to Dudley include the other Black Country Authorities, Birmingham, South Staffordshire, and Bromsgrove, which all face challenges to meet their own needs and are constrained by the
Green Belt. Whilst neighbouring authorities are at various stages of plan-making, Sandwell Council recently published a draft Plan for consultation which specifically identified that the Borough will be unable to meet its own housing needs and was actively seeking agreement from neighbouring authorities. Furthermore, the Birmingham Issues & Options draft Plan published in autumn 2022, identified a shortfall of 78,415 dwellings when comparing sources of housing supply, including a windfall allowance, with the housing need identified for the emerging plan period to 2040. Based upon the constraints faced by adjacent authorities in meeting their housing needs, it should be recognised by the Council that it cannot be assured that it will be able to rely on neighbouring authorities to assist in meeting its housing needs.
2.6.
Claremont Planning are however broadly supportive of the approach proposed through Policy DLP1 which seeks to concentrate new development within the existing urban Centres and within the Regeneration Corridors, at locations such as Thorns Road. To ensure the DLP can be found sound at Examination and subsequently adopted, it is advised that the Council should however reconsider the housing target identified in draft Policy DLP1, and instead propose that the Plan will deliver at least 11,954 new homes, such that it will be planning to at least meet the objectively assessed needs for the Borough, for the emerging Plan period. It is contended that the Council should seek to ensure that the most effective use of sites located within the established urban area which are suitable and available for development.
2.7.
This is particularly important with respect to sites which already benefit from allocations through the adopted Local Plan, but have not yet been delivered. The land off Thorns Road, Brierley Hill is allocated for residential development under site allocation reference H13.17 by the adopted Local Plan, however the extent of site allocation proposed through the DLP under site allocation reference H017 has been reduced and with the land comprising the existing car park and industrial unit occupied by Sunrise Medical omitted from the allocated site extent. The Council have not provided any justification for this amendment to the allocated site extent, and it remains the intention of Harworth to bring the full extent of the adopted allocated site H13.17 forward for development. This represents an oversight on the Council’s part such that the Council are unduly constraining the contribution that existing allocations of sustainable sites can make towards meeting housing needs. It is imperative that this is addressed through subsequent iterations of the Local Plan review, to ensure that the Local Plan is positively prepared and provides a strategy to meet the Borough’s housing needs in full, in accordance with Paragraph 35 of the Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 364

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Folkes Properties

Agent: Harris Lamb

In light of the Council's need and the shortfall that the Council is faced with, Folkes urge the Council to first consider how it can first meet its own needs with land within its own administrative area first before looking to go cross boundary. If it is confirmed that there is no other alternative other than to look to adjoining neighbours the Council are urged to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including South Staffordshire, to seek agreement on how and where this unmet housing need is going to be delivered. Meeting the housing needs of the HMA cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and that a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the HMA’s housing needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including affordable homes.

It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall in Dudley should be in Dudley first but then in the authorities closest to them such as South Staffordshire, who have a meaningful ability to address the shortfall with land available adjacent to the conurbation.

Object

Representation ID: 374

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

DLP 1 Development Strategy
Policy DLP 1 sets out the Council's targets for the delivery of new homes and employment land. In respect of new dwellings 10,876 new homes are proposed along with the development of at least 25 hectares of employment land. WL have significant concerns about the proposed development strategy and specifically around how the Council intends to meet its housing needs over the Plan Period. We also have similar concerns in respect of how its employment land needs will be met and we set out our detailed comments on these points below. In respect of the Borough’s housing target the policy sets out that the Council will deliver at least 10,876 net new homes over the Plan Period. Paragraph 5.12 confirms that the local housing need for the Borough is in fact 11,954 homes as calculated by the Standard Method. Paragraph 61 of the Framework confirms that Councils should use the standard method as the starting point for establishing a housing requirement for the area. It goes on to state that there may be exceptional circumstances that justify an alternative approach to assessing housing need. The Council are not claiming that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant divergence away from the use of the standard method. As such, it must be concluded that the housing requirement is 11,954 dwellings. However, the Plan identifies a shortfall of 1,078 homes that are required but where sufficient capacity within the Borough to accommodate has not yet been identified.
Having identified what the housing need is in the Borough, the Council undertook an assessment of different options for growth as described in Table 1 of the Dudley Local Plan Options to Preferred Strategy paper (October 2023). The three options tested looked at meeting all or the majority of the Borough’s needs on previously developed land, through urban uplift in regeneration corridors, on low quality open space or elsewhere through duty to cooperate contributions. None of the spatial options considered release land from the Green Belt to meet the Council’s needs. Whilst no doubt the publication of the updated Framework will be used to validate the Council’s approach it will in Barberry’s view lead to significant housing need going unmet and the associated social and economic impacts that arise from this.
The spatial option that the Council have decided to pursue (Option 3) seeks to focus on meeting the development needs of the Council on previously developed sites within the urban area, use of low quality open space and through duty to cooperate discussions meaning that the Council will be looking to the other authorities in the HMA to accommodate its unmet need of 1,078 dwellings. WL object to this approach and do not consider it sound.
If the 1,078 dwellings are to be accommodated in adjoining authorities this would likely result in those authorities immediately adjoining Dudley, which also have significant areas of Green Belt, having to release land from their Green Belt in order to meet Dudley’s needs. If land has to be released from the Green Belt in order to meet the development needs it is WL’s view that Dudley should be looking at opportunities within its own administrative area first, including land in its Green Belt, before looking to its adjoining neighbours. If adjoining authorities take the same viewpoint as Dudley and decide that they also do not need to release land from the Green Belt, housing needs arising from Dudley and across the HMA are not going to be met.
The Plan, nor the Dudley Local Plan Options Preferred Strategy paper, does not elaborate on the Council’s decision not to release land from the Green Belt to meet its needs particularly when the Plan highlights that there is a shortfall of what is needed against what land is available to accommodate this need. WL consider this to be a short-sighted approach particularly when land is available albeit it is in the Green Belt, which could help meet the Council's housing needs over the Plan Period. This point is particularly pertinent when under the Black Country Plan Preferred Options version the Council had proposed to release land from the Green Belt to meet the Council's needs as well as the unmet needs arising in the wider Black Country authorities. Again, the Plan does not provide clear or sufficient justification for the decision of the Council not to release land from the Green Belt nor why this unmet need should be met elsewhere when there is sufficient suitable land available within the Borough to meet these needs. Furthermore, whilst the updated Framework does not require Green Belt to be reviewed, it does state that it can still be reviewed in exceptional circumstances. Barberry contend that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant a review of the Green Belt. These include:
•worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
•worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
•
increased homelessness
•
Worsening overcrowding and living conditions,
•
Increased pressure on private rental sector with associated issues of unsecure tenancies and susceptibility to rent increases,
•
Increasing ageing population with resultant increase in demand on social and health care services,
•
economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
•
the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.
The land at Worcester Lane was identified as a draft allocation in the Black Country Plan Preferred Options as a housing site capable of accommodating 115 dwellings. Clearly at some point, the Council considered that the Site was suitable to accommodate residential development sufficient for it to be identified as a draft allocation. The Site was considered suitable and deliverable and WL remain of the view that it should be included as a draft allocation in the Plan. In allocating the land at Worcester Lane, it could potentially reduce the shortfall in housing that is required but unable to be currently accommodated in the Boroug. We set out above why we consider that the Site is suitable for development and why it should be allocated as a site for housing in the Borough Plan.
The issue of unmet housing need arising across the HMA and how this will be addressed is a key issue that the Plan will need to address. Whilst the Dudley Local Plan identifies a relatively modest shortfall in housing land there are wider issues specifically arising in Sandwell that may compound the issue of where and how housing need is met. Sandwell Council is also currently consulting on its Preferred Option Local Plan which identifies a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings that the Council need but which are unable to accommodate within its own administrative area. The Council will also be looking to its adjoining neighbours, of which Dudley is one, in order to see whether their need can be met outside of its administrative area. Furthermore, the consultation on the Birmingham City Issues and Options that concluded in December 2022 also highlighted that it too has a housing shortfall of approximately 78,415 dwellings that will also need to be met elsewhere within the HMA. Dudley in seeking to meet part of its unmet need by agreeing with adjoining authorities in the HMA will to a degree be competing with other authorities that also have a much more significant shortfall to meet and which have less land, including Green Belt land to meet this. This reinforces WL’s view that the Council should be doing all it can to meet its needs in full in its administrative area even if it means releasing land from the Green Belt to do so. By meeting all its development needs within Dudley this would reduce the wider pressures within the HMA on other adjoining authorities to help meet the unmet needs arising principally in Sandwell and Birmingham but also potentially in Wolverhampton City as well.

Comment

Representation ID: 392

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF notes that the issue of fully meeting housing needs within Dudley remains, despite the ending of the work on Black Country Plan. Dudley therefore needs to undertake its own calculations for the housing need and requirement, robustly test how much of this can be met within Dudley and how much (if any) is an unmet need. The Council then need to work with neighbouring authorities to identify how that unmet need will be redistributed and prepare a Statement of Common Ground on this issue. This issue is both a soundness and a Duty to Cooperate issue.

Comment

Representation ID: 417

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Prior to addressing issues relating to DtC and the Councils spatial development strategy specifically concerning housing provision, it is appropriate to first ensure the Council is taking an appropriate approach to establishing its overall housing requirement. Then it is necessary to understand what approach the Council is taking to addressing that requirement.To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.The approach of the Council in establishing its 11,954 local housing need figure has been as indicated above based simply on Standard Method (SM). However, this is not its local housing need figure. SM is simply the starting point for establishing its local need requirement. Additionally there is no indication that the Local Plan is looking to provide an uplift to reflect the employment growth
aspirations of the borough compliant with NPPF paragraph 81 and the PPG which advises on SMH that:
It does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or
other factors might have on demographic behaviour. Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate
to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.
As indicated above, it is clear there will be a significant shortfall in the boroughs’ local housing need above the 1,078
homes which it currently is indicating it cannot accommodate. Additionally, it is clear that adjoining authorities in the
Black Country including Wolverhampton which based on SMH needs to account for the cities and urban centres 35%
uplift are unable to account for their own housing needs. The DtC process, however, must follow Dudley firstly
considering appropriate Green Belt release within its own administrative boundaries.
In contrast to what the Plan states at paragraph 5.13, there is no evidence presented whatsoever that the two
Council’s of Dudley and Bromsgrove have cooperated.
This is a clear failure of the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 419

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Pegasus Grab Hire Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning

Policy DLP1 Development Strategy

3.1 Policy DLP1 states that to deliver sustainable growth the plan will need to deliver the development of at
least 25ha employment land. The policy states the strategy seeks to deliver sustainable patterns of
development with growth focused on the borough’s centres and regeneration corridors.

3.2 The focus of further growth and development within the borough’s centres and regeneration corridors is
supported. However, the proposed level of delivery of employment land within the borough is considered
insufficient. This is considered further below, within the context of policy DLP18.

Object

Representation ID: 428

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Consortium of Housebuilders

Agent: Turley

We write on behalf of a consortium of housebuilders and land promoters (listed below) to submit the enclosed Turley 'Falling Even Shorter: as updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area' report (December 2023).
Bellway Strategic Land
Catesby Estates Plc
Gladman Developments Ltd
Hallam Land Management
Haworth Group Plc
Taylor Wimpey
Vistry Group Plc
Wain Estates
William Davis Homes
The report has assessed the conclusions of the most recent Greater Birmingham and Black Country dates April 2023 but not published until October 2023. To reflect the Addendum, the report also assesses the housing need and supply for the plan period 2011-2031.

The addendum claims the GBBCHMA'S shortfall arising between 2011 to 2031 has now reduced to 2,053 homes. This is however predicated on a base date of 31 March 2021, nearly three years ago. In that time, there is now additional monitoring data, and updated supply positions, which is not reflected in the addemndum's findings

Furthermore, the Addendum continues to reference a need for 205,099 homes between 2011 and 2031, based on the GBBCHMA Strategic Growth Study (2018) that is increasingly dated having been produced almost eight years ago. The standard method has since been introduced, offering the consistency the study itself sought to provide. While this cannot be backdated to 2011, it can be reasonably used in place of the Strategic Growth Study scenario as an indicator of future needs.

Applying this from the 31 March 2023 base date and using the current outcome of the standard method which allows for worsening affordability and removal of the cap for Birmingham, the total housing need is 237,788 homes.
This approach best reflects national planning policy.

Against the need, based on the 14 authorities' claimed supply position, this would leave a shortfall of 34,742 homes up to 2031. This rises to 40,676 homes when applying the Turley supply position, which is based on the most up-to-date evidence.

Beyond 2031, the report calculates the unmet need as rising to 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040, when extrapolating the available supply data. With the end of this plan period up to 2031 just over seven years away, this unmet need represents real people who are in real need of a home, now.

National Planning Policy Framework (December 2023) paragraph 35a) continues to make clear that for a plan to be considered positively prepared it should provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs. This should be informed by agreement with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring authorities is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.

There is no agreed strategy between the 14 GBBCHMA authorities as to how the unmet need up to 2031 will be accommodated, notwithstanding the significant scale of unmet need emerging beyond 2031. This is clear from Dudley's representation to Sandwell's Local Plan, objecting to their approach to addressing unmet needs.

In the absence of this strategic level agreement, all 14 GBBCHMA authorities should be exploring all growth options in order to meet its own objectively assessed needs and those of the wider GBBCHMA, if their plan is to be considered positively prepared.

In Dudley's case, it is clear that not all growth options have been explored to meet its own objectively assessed needs, let alone those of the wider HMA. The plan own housing needs, exacerbating the shortfall of the wider HMA. In the context of NPPF paragraph 145 the borough's inability to meet its own needs, as well as the substantial scale of unmet need across the GBBCHMA,

In summary, the 14 GBBCHMA authorities should be seeking to agree a strategy now for how the unmet needs up to 2031 and beyond will be comprehensively met in full. As part of this all authorities should be exploring all options for growth, including the release of Green Belt land, given the unmet need represents exceptional circumstances for reviewing Green Belt boundaries.

Object

Representation ID: 435

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: CWC Group- Clowes Development

Agent: Savills

Having reviewed and considered the evidence base made available in relation to the Duty to Cooperate, we
assert that the following key points should be taken forward for Dudley to consider:
• Aside from Shropshire, there are no confirmed contributions from neighbouring authorities. This should
be reviewed, and specific contributions towards Dudley’s unmet need confirmed in statements of
common ground.
• Specific engagement should be made with South Staffordshire, due to its strong administrative and
functional relationship with Dudley.
• SoCGs should be drafted and regularly updated now, as recommended by the PPG.

Comment

Representation ID: 444

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

DLP 1 Development Strategy
Policy DLP 1 sets out the Council's targets for the delivery of new homes and employment land. In respect of new dwellings 10,876 new homes are proposed along with the development of at least 25 hectares of employment land. Revelan have some concerns with the proposed development strategy and specifically around how the Council intends to meet its housing needs over the Plan Period. Policy DLP 1 advises that the Council will deliver at least 10,876 net new homes over the Plan Period. Paragraph 5.12 confirms that the local housing need for the Borough is 11,954 homes as calculated by the Standard Method. There is an identifies a shortfall of 1,078 homes due to a lack of suitable housing sites. Having identified what the housing need is in the Borough, the Council undertook an assessment of different options for growth as described in Table 1 of the Dudley Local Plan
Options to Preferred Strategy Paper (October 2023). The three options tested meeting the Borough’s housing needs on previously developed land through urban uplift in regeneration corridors, on low quality open space and elsewhere through duty to cooperate.
Revelan support the approach of focusing development on previously developed land.
However, the draft Plan suggests that there will be a housing shortfall with this approach. It is, therefore, essential that the Plan seeks to make the best use of previously developed sites supporting higher density development proposals in sustainable locations. Such schemes should not be over burdened with planning obligations to make sure they are deliverable. A flexible approach should be applied to spacing standards and the use of NDDS.

Object

Representation ID: 460

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Draft Policy DLP1 (Development Strategy)
2.1 Taylor Wimpey objects to draft Policy DLP1 on the basis that it seeks to provide 10,876
dwellings in the plan period against a Local Housing Need (“LHN”) of 11,954, leaving a
minimum shortfall of 1,078 dwellings. The DLP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet
the minimum housing need, as per National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”)
paragraph 11(b). Paragraph 68 requires that the Council will need to ensure that additional
housing land should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their
availability, suitability and likely economic viability to deliver specific deliverable site for
the first five years of the plan period and deliverable sites of broad locations to meet needs
for year 6-10 and 11-15 of the plan period.
2.2 The Council has not done this and consequently Policy DLP1 in relation to housing land
supply are not sound.
2.3 Not only is this approach fundamentally flawed and entirely contrary to the requirement of
NPPF paragraph 35(c), but it is completely misaligned with “the Government’s objective of
significantly boosting the supply of homes” (NPPF paragraph 60).
2.4 Principally, Taylor Wimpey considers that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the
redrawing of Green Belt boundaries around the urban edge to release land to meet housing
needs. In this context, case law within Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council
& Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) (21 April 2015) confirms that the acuteness and
intensity of housing need constitutes a matter for consideration in determining whether
exceptional circumstances exist.
2.5 Taylor Wimpey also wishes to draw upon the significant issues raised by the Inspector in
the examination into the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan. Submitted for examination in May
2017, the plan as submitted did not provide for a sufficient housing land supply to meet the
Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (‘FOAHN’). Following stages 1 and 2 of the hearing
sessions, the Inspector issued a 'Green Belt review' note in December 2017 setting out its
initial thoughts relating to the soundness of the plan in the context of the Green Belt Review
findings:
2.6 “The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of Green Belt
restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks to the Hearing sessions into
Strategic Matters, I pointed out that I did not consider the development strategy put
forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the
failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely
because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its
findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by
development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to
smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes
without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how
land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might
reasonably be considered further.” (page 1) [Emphasis added]
2.7 Following conclusion of the examination hearings over three years, the Inspector raised
fundamental issues relating to the soundness of the plan and, amongst other matters,
requested the Council to provide additional sites to make up the supply of housing land to
meet the FOAHN. The Inspector later published its ‘Supplementary Conclusions and
Advice’ note in June 2021, setting out:
2.8 “14. The sites that passed the site selection process but were not submitted to the
Examination, appear to have been rejected primarily because the Land Use Consultants
(LUC) stage 3 GB study concluded that they would cause high or moderate/high harm to
the GB and/or they would erode the green gaps between excluded villages. At the same
time, the Council also resolved to no longer support a number of Regulation 19 sites that
the LUC report had similarly concluded would cause high harm to the GB, including some
that had already been examined and found to be potentially sound.
2.9 15. Whilst the harm to the GB’s purposes is certainly a significant consideration in the
assessment of a site’s appropriateness for allocation, other than in locations that were
specifically classified as “essential GB”, it is not a trump card. It is undoubtedly an
important starting point for the assessment, but it is nevertheless only one of a number of
factors that should be appropriately weighed in the exceptional circumstances’
consideration and then in the overall soundness balance. Whilst site selection should have
regard to the extent of the harm to the GB, sustainability and accessibility factors, as well
as other planning considerations, also warrant weight in this balance.”
2.10 In short, it is critical that the Council avoids a similar fate to that experienced by Welwyn
Hatfield. The Local Plan should identify sufficient land and site to ensure that it is able to
deliver the minimum housing need provided for with the Standard Method. Given the
constrained urban nature of the borough this should inevitably include the release of land
from the Green Belt.
2.11 NPPF paragraph 11(b) requires Dudley to provide for its objectively assessed need for
housing as a minimum, as well as any unmet needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
authorities. Table 5.1 of the DLP states that the shortfall (1,078 dwellings) is to be exported
through the Duty to Co-operate. Taylor Wimpey does not consider this to be a sound
approach and explains why in detail below.
2.12 The significant unmet housing need within the Greater Birmingham and Black Country
Housing Market Area (“GBBCHMA”) has not been acknowledged by draft Policy DLP1. In
consideration, it is unlikely that Dudley’s shortfall will be accommodated by neighbouring
authorities.
2.13 Paragraph 8.4 of the DLP states that the housing supply will accommodate 90.98% of
current local housing need up to 2041 (homes) with 96.4% of the supply on brownfield land
and 3.6% of the supply on greenfield land. Approximately 3,000 dwellings will be provided
through the delivery of windfall sites.
2.14 Taylor Wimpey also raises concern in regard to the deliverability of brownfield land and
considers the stated supply to be an inaccurate figure. The shortfall of housing within
Dudley is likely to be to a greater degree than what has been stated within the DLP. 2.15 The DLP’s approach through draft Policy DLP1 is flawed on several grounds, and these are
set out as follows and below:
1 Local Housing Need: The Local Housing Need has not been met within the spatial
strategy which is the minimum housing need. The Council has not assessed whether a
housing requirement greater than the Local Housing Need is justified.
2 GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need: The DLP fails to acknowledge the unmet
housing need arising from the GBBCHMA when seeking to export Dudley’s housing
shortfall.
3 Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate: The Duty to
Cooperate has not been fulfilled and the unmet housing need identified has been
deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(c). Dudley has not
assessed the reasonable alternatives capable of meeting the minimum housing need.
4 Sustainability Appraisal: The Draft Sustainability Appraisal fails to consider all of
the options available to meet the LHN as well as the GBBCHMA’s unmet need, and
therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).
5 The Deliverability of Brownfield Land: The proposed supply of brownfield land
and windfall sites is an unrealistic strategy. In reality, the shortfall of housing land is
greater than what has been stated within the DLP.
6 Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release: The DLP does not seek to
identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for
housing. The DLP does not recognise that exceptional circumstances for the release of
land from the Green Belt exist.
Local Housing Need
2.16 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound. Draft Policy DLP1 has not considered whether a housing
requirement greater than the LHN is justified. The proposed spatial strategy is unjustified
and so there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether the LHN will be met.
2.17 In this context, paragraph 11b of the NPPF is clear that:
“Strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
areas, unless:
1 the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular
importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or
distribution of development in the plan area; or
2 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole”
2.18 The NPPF also states that:
“To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be
informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in
national planning guidance…” (Para 61) 2.19 It has already been acknowledged that the LHN for Dudley over the upcoming Local Plan
Period (2023-41) is 11,954 dwellings as calculated by the Standard Method. When
compared to the housing target set for the Borough (10,876 dwellings), a shortfall of 1,078
homes is created.
2.20 Taylor Wimpey considers that draft Policy DLP1 is currently unsound as the proposed
spatial strategy is unjustified and so it is uncertain as to whether the LHN will be met. As
discussed below, draft Policy DLP1 (3) aims to export the shortfall to neighbouring
authorities but fails to acknowledge the severe unmet need within the Housing Market
Area. The uncertainty associated with the allocated and emerging contributions from
neighbouring authorities means that Dudley’s shortfall will likely be deferred rather than
dealt with. The Council must identify additional land in order to meet this unmet need and
Taylor Wimpey considers the release of Green Belt land to be the most suitable option.
2.21 The DLP will therefore need to revise its minimum housing target in order to meet the
LHN, and should consequently seek to plan for a minimum of 11,954 dwellings. This would
equate to 664 dwellings per annum (“dpa”) opposed to 604 dpa. Exporting the shortfall
identified within the DLP would be found to be unsound by Inspectors during Local Plan
Examination given the severe shortfall of the GBBCHMA’s unmet need and the uncertainty
associated with the allocated and emerging contributions (discussed below).
2.22 The LHN is a minimum target for housing development. The Council would require
exceptional circumstances to apply a different target but if a housing requirement greater
than the LHN is justified, the Council’s shortfall would be more severe than what is stated.
It is therefore important for the Council to consider whether a housing requirement above
the LHN is justified. The Council should carry out an up-to-date housing needs assessment
to establish if an additional housing requirement is required to take into account additional
need.
2.23 NPPF paragraph 61 states that the local housing need figure determines the minimum
number of homes needed. Therefore, an uplift to the LHN can be applied when supported
by evidence.
2.24 Both the NPPF1 and PPG2 are clear that the LHN figure generated by the standard method
is a minimum starting point (i.e. actual housing need may be higher than this figure).
Moreover, elsewhere in the guidance, the PPG differentiates between the minimum figure
arrived at through the standard method and ‘actual’ housing need which can be higher.
Taylor Wimpey encourages the Council to conduct sufficient research in order to
understand whether an uplift is required.
2.25 It is ‘actual’ housing need that represents the objectively assessed need to which the tests in
paragraph 11 of the NPPF apply, and there is also a requirement for the Council to test
reasonable alternatives3. Therefore, the Council should actively identify whether there are
reasons for testing higher figures as estimates of housing need. Currently, the DLP does not
confirm whether a housing requirement greater than the LHN has been tested. 2.26 Fundamentally, this is because the standard method does not attempt to predict the impact
that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might
have on demographic behaviour, nor considers local factors, policies and aspirations which
might legitimately mean the Council should seek to plan for more homes than the
minimum. The PPG goes on to state that it would be appropriate for a higher figure to be
adopted on the basis of employment, infrastructure, affordable housing needs or unmet
housing needs.4 It is considered that the acute housing shortfall within the GBBCHMA
could justify the adoption of a housing requirement greater than the LHN. If this is the case,
it would be a suitable and justified strategy for Dudley to consider the assessment and
release of Green Belt sites for housing development.
2.27 Where a housing requirement above the LHN is identified, Dudley will have to provide a
greater supply of deliverable sites in order to meet the housing requirement. Taylor
Wimpey considers that the identification of a number of suitable sites would accord with
paragraph 60 of the NPPF which clearly states that:
“To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is
important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is
needed.”
2.28 Taylor Wimpey welcomes the Council’s acknowledgement of Dudley’s LHN but objects to
the Spatial Strategy set out in Policy DLP1. The proposed spatial strategy is unjustified and
it is not clear whether the LHN will be met within the Local Plan period. Additionally, given
the severe unmet need within the GBBCHMA. So that the Local Plan may be found to be
sound, Taylor Wimpey urges the Council to consider the release of suitable sites from the
Green Belt so that as a minimum, the LHN is met.
GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need
2.29 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as it fails to acknowledge and address the unmet housing
need arising from the GBBCHMA, and instead seeks to increase the shortfall.
2.30 The GBBCHMA’s overall situation has primarily been set out within the:
• Draft Dudley Local Plan Duty to Co-operate Statement (October 2023)
• ‘Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) Housing
Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement Addendum’ (April 2023)
• Birmingham Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation Document (December 2022)
• Draft Black Country Plan Regulation 18 consultation Document (August 2021)
2.31 In this regard, Taylor Wimpey notes that within the GBBCHMA there is emerging evidence
of an acute level of unmet housing need. Birmingham City Councils New Local Plan 2020-
2042- Issues and Options (“BCCIO”) has recently confirmed that, as of March 2022,
Birmingham’s LHN figure is 7,136 dpa (Para 4.7). This includes an additional 35% for the
top 20 largest cities in the UK.
2.32 Cumulatively, this would equate to a housing need figure of 149,286 dwellings for the 22-
year plan period (2022 to 2042). The BCCIO states that the Council can currently demonstrate a supply of 70,871 dwellings, which includes completions between 2020/21-
2021/22 of 6,624 dwellings. The BCCIO concludes that, at present, there is a shortfall of
around 78,415 dwellings to be found through the preparation of the Birmingham Local Plan
Review (Para 4.15).
2.33 Alongside Birmingham’s emerging unmet needs (c.78,000), another significant source of
potential unmet needs is from within the Black Country. It is important to note that the
Black Country Plan is no longer being jointly prepared and thus the Black Country
Authorities will now prepare individual Local Plans; however, the unmet housing need
(28,239 dwellings) still remains in the Black Country; albeit, now disaggregated amongst
the four Black Country Authorities.
2.34 In this context, paragraph 11b of the NPPF is clear that:
“b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
areas”
2.35 The Draft Dudley Local Plan Duty to Cooperate Statement (October 2023) sets out the
allocated and emerging contributions made by the GBBCHMA authorities and non-HMA
authorities as of October 2021, which totals 14,410 dwellings:
2.36 The report acknowledges that as of October 2023, the Lichfield Local Plan was withdrawn
from examination and thus impacts the identified contribution to the unmet need within
the GBBCHMA.
2.37 The GBBCHMA Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement Addendum’
(April 2023) also sets out the allocated and emerging contributions made by the GBBCHMA
authorities and non-HMA authorities as of April 2023, which totals 18,420 dwellings:
2.38 In consideration, the total contribution towards the GBBCHMA unmet need is between
14,410 and 18,420 dwellings. Taylor Wimpey acknowledges that the Draft Dudley Duty to
Cooperate Statement was published after the April 2023 GBBCHMA Position Statement
and acknowledges two additional contributions, 1,640 dwellings from Telford and Wrekin,
and 2,000 dwellings from Stafford. This brings the total potential contribution to 22,060
dwellings.
2.39 Even after the total potential contribution of 22,060 dwellings is taken into consideration, a
significant unmet housing need would still remain within the GBBCHMA. The total unmet
need equals 106,654 dwellings when you consider the shortfalls within Birmingham and the
Black Country Authorities, meaning that a significant proportion of the unmet need would
be deferred rather than dealt with.
2.40 Additionally, there is no formal agreement between the authorities making up the
GBBCHMA regarding the apportionment of this unmet need, and importantly, these
‘commitments’ do not form part of any adopted Local Plan that has been tested and
approved through the examination process. There is no clear indication in regard to where
the contributions will be allocated and so uncertainty remains.
2.41 The total shortfall up to 2041 will of course be subject to consideration through the future
plan making process for the remaining HMA local authorities. Walsall, Wolverhampton and
Sandwell are also beginning their Local plan Reviews, meaning that the total shortfall may
well increase.
2.42 In consideration, Taylor Wimpey advises the Council to note that there remains an acute
housing land supply shortfall across the GBBCHMA that will need to be addressed. Even
after all of the discussed contributions are made, a severe unmet housing need will remain
unresolved. Paragraph 3.7 of the Council’s Options to the Preferred Strategy sets out that;
“Whilst further clarity is required on the current status of Local Plans for Lichfield, South
Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, Telford & Wrekin and Bromsgrove as the work on Local Plans further progress, the potential contributions that could be apportioned towards
Dudley’s unmet need will make some significant headway in addressing the borough’s
unmet housing needs. It is for this reason that it is considered that ‘exceptional
circumstances’ have not need triggered to justify the need to consider a review of the
borough’s Green Belt.”
2.43 Paragraph 3.11 goes on to acknowledge the potential to release land from the Green Belt,
but concludes that the Council does not consider that identified shortfall in supply to be
significant. As a result, the Council concludes that; “Under the existing NPPF, Green Belt
boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced
and justified through the preparation of updating of plans. As a result of updated urban
capacity evidence and ongoing DtC discussions with neighbouring authorities and across
the Black Country FEMA (see DtC and employment supply evidence 2023), Dudley’s
housing and employment shortfalls are not considered significant. It is therefore
considered that exceptional circumstances have not been triggered and Green Belt
boundaries are not proposed to be altered in the draft DLP.”
2.44 The spatial strategy proposed by Draft Policy DLP1 is therefore considered to be unsound as
the DLP does not reasonably assess the scale and implication of the identified unmet need,
or whether reasonable alternatives exist to accommodate the growth within the Borough
through Green Belt release and the high-risk associated with exporting the shortfall (1,078
dwellings).
2.45 Taylor Wimpey considers that areas like Dudley with a large quantum of suitable land
within the Green Belt has a duty to support housing growth and not only address its own
housing need, but also the shortfall of housing provision within the HMA.
2.46 Conclusively, it is essential that Dudley considers the unmet housing need arising from the
GBBCHMA, to avoid exacerbating the already significant shortfall of up to 106,654
dwellings.
2.1 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that Dudley should assess alternative options for
growth, including release of land from the Green Belt which are capable of meeting and
potentially increasing the housing supply above and beyond the LHN.
Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate
2.2 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as the unmet housing need has been deferred rather than
dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 35(b & c), and the Duty to Cooperate has not been
fulfilled.
2.3 As acknowledged above, there is an acute unmet housing need within the GBBCHMA that
needs to be addressed through cooperation and suitable planning. Instead of seeking to
maximise housing growth within Dudley and help reduce the severe shortfall, the DLP
seeks to export 1,078 dwellings of its own need.
2.4 The DLP does not state why it is unable to accommodate Dudley’s identified shortfall or the
reasons for not assessing alternative options capable of accommodating a greater level of
housing. Although paragraph 3.2.6 of Dudley’s Draft Sustainability appraisal states “it is
unlikely that there would be sufficient brownfield sites to accommodate all the identified
need”, the Council has proposed a predominantly brownfield-led spatial strategy with minimal greenfield development. As identified, this results in a shortfall of housing which
the Council aims to export to neighbouring authorities.
2.5 Consequently, the Council has published a Draft Dudley Local Plan Duty to Cooperate
Statement (October 2023) (“DtC”) setting out how it assumes the shortfall will be addressed
elsewhere through the local plan reviews of counterpart HMA authorities and the
associated contributions. The desired approach would be to “apportion the contributions
between the four authorities based upon the use of migration data and the functional
relationship between the exporting area and the individual BCA where the shortfall
arises” as stated at paragraph 2.44. Paragraph 2.44 of the DtC continues by stating that the
“approach is subject to all of the Black Country Authorities agreement via a Statement of
Common Ground.” This confirms that Dudley is yet to agree to a Statement of Common
Ground with the neighbouring HMA authorities in regard to how the contributions will be
distributed within the Black Country. There is therefore a degree of uncertainty in regard to
how Dudley’s housing shortfall will be met.
2.6 Regarding next steps, Paragraph 3.3 of the DtC states “the Council’s primary objective will
be to prepare and complete a Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement as the Dudley
Plan progresses to Publication Regulation 19 Stage in Autumn 2024”. The DtC is therefore
the first iteration of the document and is yet to be finalised, increasing the uncertainty in
regard to the unmet need.
2.7 Firstly, in the absence of any signed Statements of Common Ground (“SoCG”), Taylor
Wimpey raises concern with the uncertainty associated with the distribution of the
allocated and emerging contributions. Given the acute unmet housing need within the
Black Country (c.28,000 dwellings), it yet to be confirmed whether Dudley’s shortfall can
be met via the identified contributions listed above.
2.8 NPPF paragraph 35(c) confirms that plans are sound if they are “based on effective joint
working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than
deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground”. Instead of seeking to
accommodate the shortfall (1,078 dwellings) within the administrative boundary, Dudley
proposes to defer the unmet need to neighbouring authorities even though there is an
existing acute shortfall.
2.9 As outlined above, the draft Dudley Local Plan DtC states that a maximum contribution of
14,410 dwellings could be made toward the unmet need with the GBBCHMA. However, out
of this total contribution, only 5,140 dwellings have been attributed to the Black Country.
The DtC has sought to outline the potential contributions towards Dudley’s shortfall as
demonstrated by the table below:
2.10 However, given the absence of an SoCG, Taylor Wimpey considers these assumptions
wholly flawed and misleading. Shropshire has agreed to allocate 1,500 dwellings towards
the Black Country’s unmet need, but as acknowledged, the distribution of the contributions
between the BCAs is still unagreed. As for Lichfield, the Local Plan has been withdrawn
from Examination in public and so there is also a degree of uncertainty associated with this
contribution.
2.11 The PPG5 confirms that the preparation of SoCGs with neighbouring authorities will
contribute in demonstrating whether the duty has been met:
“How will the duty to cooperate be considered at local plan examination?
The local plan examination will first assess whether a local planning authority has
complied with the duty to cooperate and other legal requirements. The Inspector will use
all available evidence including statements of common ground, Authority Monitoring
Reports, and other submitted evidence (such as the statement of compliance prescribed by
Planning Inspectorate’s examination procedure guidance) to determine whether the duty
has been satisfied.” [Emphasis added]
2.12 Until the Council has published such SoCGs and additional evidence detailing the
discussions that have taken place, the duty to cooperate has not been fulfilled and a degree
of uncertainty remains. The absence of any SoCG at this stage reinforces the apparent
issues between the Black Country Authorities (“BCA”) as it is clear there remains a number
of areas of disagreement regarding the distribution of the contributions.
2.13 Secondly, as the provisional housing contributions from neighbouring authorities addresses
only a limited proportion of the shortfall (28,239 dwellings), the DLP has not sought to
maximise housing land supply in order to deal with the residual unmet need as well as
Dudley’s own housing shortfall (1,078 dwellings).
2.14 In this context, NPPF paragraph 35(a) requires that Local Plans are positively prepared and
provide “a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed
needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from
neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so”. At this stage of the
DLP plan-making process, it is fundamentally unclear how the residual shortfall up to 2041
will be met, or how any consideration has been given to reducing the HMA’s shortfall. In
this respect, paragraph 3.3.5 of the Draft Dudley Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal further
raises concern by stating:
“Overall, Option 3 appears to be the most favourable housing spatial growth option as it
ensures the housing need will be met, although there is also some uncertainty in the impacts of this option given the unknown location of the exported proportion of growth.”
(Emphasis added)
2.15 Not only is this approach fundamentally flawed and entirely contrary to the requirement of
NPPF paragraph 35(a, b & c), but it is completely misaligned with “the Government’s
objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes” (NPPF paragraph 60).
2.16 As it is likely that Dudley’s shortfall will remain unaddressed given the BCA’s unmet need,
Draft Policy DLP1 is considered to be unsound as Dudley are seeking to defer, rather than
deal with, the issue of unmet housing need through the DLP. Dudley should therefore seek
to ensure that the housing supply within its administrative area is truly maximised prior to
being exported to other areas.
2.17 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that the Council should consider and assess a spatial
strategy that not only meets the development needs of Dudley, but also accommodates a
suitable proportion of the unmet housing need within the GBBCHMA. Given the acute
unmet housing need and the uncertainty associated with the allocated and emerging
contributions, this is considered to be the most appropriate strategy for Dudley.
2.18 Whilst Taylor Wimpey acknowledges that it is not for Dudley to address the HMA’s unmet
needs in full, given the scale of the shortfall arising from the GBBCHMA, Taylor Wimpey
considers that Dudley must play a proportionate role.
2.19 It is important that Dudley makes it clear that it will help address the acute unmet need and
should, where possible, be specific in the exact proportion of the unmet need that the
upcoming Local Plan can accommodate. Draft Policy DLP1 seeks to adopt an alternative
strategy by deferring Dudley’s unmet housing need and fails to acknowledge the severe
shortfall within the GBBCHMA.
2.20 Indeed, this is particularly pertinent, given the Inspector’s recent findings6 in respect of the
Sevenoaks Local Plan where problems of unmet need were not adequately addressed
through the duty to cooperate process, resulting in a terminal failure of legal compliance.
2.21 Unless a proportionate contribution towards the unmet needs identified is accommodated,
Dudley risks not fulfilling its ‘duty to cooperate’ with neighbouring authorities, as required
by paragraph 24 of the NPPF.
2.22 Taylor Wimpey supports Dudley’s acknowledgement of the Duty to Cooperate but also
recommends that a proportionate contribution should be made in addition to meeting the
Council’s own housing need. This would ensure that the emerging Local Plan can pass the
test of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35.
2.23 Taylor Wimpey considers that a functional relationship approach is a suitable strategy and
refers to Lichfields’ ‘The Black Country’s next top model’. Lichfields’ model drew on the
precedent set in the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA/North Warwickshire and has been
again supported by the emerging approach in the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA. Both
Stafford Borough Council and South Staffordshire Council reflected on Lichfields’ model in
the latest sustainability appraisals for the most recent consultations, Taylor Wimpey therefore encourages Dudley to adopt Lichfield’s model in order to sustainably distribute
the GBBCHMA’s unmet need.
2.24 The model calculates the proportion of housing that can be sustainably redistributed
towards surrounding authorities based on the functional relationship between the
administrative areas.
2.25 Such a model takes account of the below trends within the HMA and between authorities
with a functional relationship:
1 Migration patterns between authorities;
2 Commuting linkages between authorities;
3 Opportunities to capitalise on sustainable transport links;
4 Affordability pressures; and
5 The degree of environmental and physical constraints.
2.26 The objective should be to create an agreed position with regard to the spatial distribution
of housing that is justified based upon technical evidence and which can be used to
underpin the preparation of Local Plans.
2.27 This would ensure that as and when a spatial distribution methodology is agreed, Dudley
will have in place a sufficient supply of sites which have been tested through an acceptable
model and other evidence base documents.
2.28 Taylor Wimpey considers that the most suitable strategy for maximising housing growth
would be through the release of sites within the Green Belt. The exceptional circumstances
required for Green Belt release will be discussed below.
Draft Sustainability Appraisal
2.29 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as it fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for
housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b). The
approach taken within the Draft Sustainability Appraisal (“SA”) is unjustified as it does not
take into account all reasonable alternatives for meeting the unmet housing need and
providing a sufficient contribution toward the HMA’s unmet housing need.
2.30 Chapter 3 of the SA sets out the various housing growth options assessed in sustainability
terms. Table 3.1 of the SA outlines the three housing options subjected to the appraisal, as
replicated below. 2.31 As Stated by paragraph 3.4.1 of the SA, option 3 was selected as it would address the
housing need through a balanced spatial approach.
2.32 However, paragraph 3.3.1 states:
“When assessing the housing spatial options against the 14 SA Objectives, there is very
little separating Options 1, 2 and 3 and it is difficult to identify a single best performing
option. All would be expected to deliver a similar level of growth within Dudley.”
2.33 Although, a specific housing figure is not assessed in regard to each option, it has been
confirmed by the SA that the options would deliver a similar level of growth within Dudley.
Taylor Wimpey considers this approach to be unsound as the SA has failed to assess
alternative options for delivering a higher level of growth, such as by releasing suitable sites
within the Green Belt.
2.34 Additionally, paragraph 3.3.5 of the SA confirms that there is a level of uncertainty attached
to option 3 as the location of the exported housing shortfall is unknown and is yet to be
agreed. This could mean that the minimum housing need within Dudley is not met within
the Local Plan period given the uncertainty, and therefore justifies the assessment of
alternative options for housing growth. Dudley has failed to assess different housing growth
scenarios and instead seeks to defer the identified shortfall to neighbouring authorities.
Given the severe unmet housing need within the GBBCHMA, Taylor Wimpey does not
consider this to be a sound strategy.
2.35 There is seemingly no rationale or justification for the three housing options appraised,
other than to achieve a predominantly brownfield-led development strategy. When
discussing option 3, table 3.1 states that “This option would result in site allocations being
designated within the urban area, which would include a predominate supply of
brownfield sites and some low-quality open space sites.” (Emphasis added)
2.36 Para 8.4 of the DLP states that the housing supply “will accommodate 90.98% of current
local housing need up to 2041 (homes) with 96.4% of the supply on brownfield land and
3.6% of the supply on greenfield land – this accounts for all housing supply apart from the
windfall sites.” This confirms that the spatial strategy within Dudley is to be predominantly
brownfield-led.
2.37 Paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.3 of the SA acknowledge NPPF paragraph 61 which states that “any
needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in
establishing the amount of housing to be planned for”. However, the SA has not attempted
to assess a growth option that not only maximises housing growth within Dudley, but also
makes a contribution to the unmet needs within neighbouring authority areas. Taylor
Wimpey considers that the three identified options are too similar and advises the Council
to assess alternative options for housing growth with a focus on maximising housing
supply. 2.38 In this respect, the PPG7 confirms that the reasonable alternatives are to be identified
“taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme”.
Consequently, it is not within the remit or scope of the SA to appraise the sustainability
credentials of exporting housing growth outside of the administrative area of Dudley. The
SA should instead assess the options capable of maximising housing growth within the
Council’s boundary.
2.39 When discussing sustainability appraisals, The PPG8also confirms that “Its role is to
promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan,
when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve relevant environmental,
economic and social objectives.” The PPG9 continues by stating
“Reasonable alternatives are the different realistic options considered by the plan-maker
in developing the policies in the plan. They need to be sufficiently distinct to highlight the
different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be
made.”
2.40 By omitting a higher-range growth option, for example an option which considers the
release of Green Belt land for development purposes, the DLP has artificially omitted a
reasonable but realistic alternative which could potentially provide more positive and less
negative sustainability impacts, whilst still meeting the objectives and maximising housing
growth.
2.41 Option 1 within the SA aims to aims to accommodate Dudley’s housing need within the
urban area predominantly on brownfield land. Option 3 is only a slight deviation with 3.6%
of the housing supply being allocated to greenfield land. Taylor Wimpey does not consider
that the SA has assessed an option which aims to meet “the needs of its communities and
businesses” as stated within the DLP’s proposed vision. Dudley instead seeks to defer the
identified shortfall of housing opposed to considering an option which maximises growth
within the administrative boundary.
2.42 Consequently, the SA as currently prepared is unsound. It has failed to identify and test the
sustainability implications of a growth option which achieves a higher level of housing
development within Dudley’s administrative boundary, including the option of the release
of Green Belt land to meet housing needs. For this reason, Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as
it conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 32 and 35(a & b).
The Deliverability of Brownfield Land
2.43 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound. The proposed supply of brownfield and windfall sites is an
unjustified strategy which conflicts with NPPF Paragraph 35(b).
2.44 The DLP states that 96.4% of the total housing supply will be on brownfield land
approximately and that 3,000 dwellings will be supplied through the development of
windfall sites. Taylor Wimpey raises concern with the proposed spatial strategy, and
considers the housing trajectory to be unjustified. 2.45 With regard to the use of land for the development of housing, NPPF paragraph 119 states
the following:
“Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the
need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and
ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear
strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use
as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.”
2.46 Paragraph 120 of the NPPF continues by stating that “Planning policies and decisions
should:
• give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within
settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate
opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable
land; and
• promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially
if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is
constrained and available sites could be used more effectively”
2.47 Taylor Wimpey supports this approach and agrees with the Council’s view that the
redevelopment of brownfield land must be a first resort as this would be found to be sound
in accordance with National Planning Policy. However, Taylor Wimpey raises concern over
the deliverability of brownfield land and Dudley’s reliance upon this within Draft Policy
DLP1.
2.48 A reliance upon the delivery of brownfield land in order to meet an identified housing need
comes with a risk. While brownfield redevelopment can be an important strategy for
addressing housing needs, there are several issues associated with the deliverability of
brownfield land for housing development. Some of these issues include:
1 Contamination and Remediation Costs: Brownfield sites often have soil and
groundwater contamination from previous industrial or commercial activities.
Remediation can be expensive and time-consuming, adding significant monetary and
time costs to the overall development.
2 Community Opposition: Local communities may resist the redevelopment of
brownfield sites due to concerns about environmental hazards, noise, traffic, and
changes to the character of the neighbourhood. Public perception and opposition can
slow down or halt the development.
3 Infrastructure Challenges: Brownfield sites may lack the necessary infrastructure,
such as utilities, roads, and public services, to support housing development.
Upgrading or installing infrastructure can be costly and may require collaboration with
local authorities which is a time consuming process.
4 Market Viability and Demand: The location and history of brownfield sites may
affect their market appeal. Developers must carefully assess the demand for housing in
the specific area and whether potential buyers are willing to accept the history of the
site. The inner-urban areas usually associated with brownfield sites also means that the
cost of developing a site is far greater than a greenfield site. This can deter developers
from investing into the redevelopment of specific areas. 5 Longer Approval Processes: Due to the complexity of brownfield redevelopment,
obtaining planning permissions and approvals from regulatory authorities may take
longer compared to greenfield sites, leading to delays in project timelines.
6 Financing and Funding Issues: Securing financing for brownfield redevelopment
can be challenging due to the perceived risks associated with contamination cleanup
and uncertainties about the final development costs. Developers may face difficulties in
attracting investment.
2.49 The challenges associated with the development of brownfield have been acknowledged by
paragraph 6.6 of the DLP which states:
“The DLP adopts a brownfield-first approach to maximise delivery of development within
the urban area; however, poor ground conditions that are a legacy of the Dudley’s mining
and industrial past are a significant constraint, in both physical and financial terms.
Therefore, tackling significant and structural delivery constraints are a priority for
interventions, as they affect much of the development land supply in the urban area.”
2.50 Paragraph 3.2.6 of the SA also recognises the downfalls associated with brownfield land by
stating:
“Although Option 1 proposes development predominantly within brownfield sites, it is
unlikely that there would be sufficient brownfield sites to accommodate all the identified
need.”
2.51 It has been accepted by both the DLP and the SA that the supply of brownfield land is
incapable of meeting Dudley’s housing need, and that the poor ground conditions present a
significant constraint. Taylor Wimpey considers that the supply is likely to be constrained
further by the issues highlighted above, therefore reducing the housing supply and
increasing the shortfall. And as discussed, the uncertainty surrounding deferring the unmet
need means that the Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound.
2.52 Taylor Wimpey also raises concern in regard to the proposed supply of windfall sites and
their associated deliverability. Windfall sites are parcels of land that become available for
development unexpectedly or unintentionally. These sites are often not originally
designated for housing, and their availability is typically unplanned. The deliverability and
supply of windfall sites for housing development present multiple challenges such as:
1 Planning Uncertainty: Windfall sites often lack a predetermined designation for
housing, leading to uncertainty about their development potential. Planning
applications may not align with housing goals and policies making it uncertain as to
whether permission will be granted.
2 Infrastructure Limitations: Some windfall sites may lack necessary infrastructure,
such as roads, utilities, and public services, making it challenging to integrate them into
the existing urban fabric.
3 Limited Scale and Density: Windfall sites are often smaller in scale compared to
planned housing developments, which can limit the overall impact on housing supply
and may not effectively address housing shortages.
4 Limited Control Over Design: Developers may have limited control over the design
and layout of windfall sites, especially if the sites are existing structures or spaces that require adaptation for housing purposes. This can often deter developers from
investing into certain sites.
5 Market Viability Issues: The market demand for housing on windfall sites may be
uncertain, and developers must carefully assess the economic feasibility of such
projects. This uncertainty makes it difficult to estimate the future supply of windfall
development.
6 Inconsistent Housing Mix: The unplanned nature of windfall sites may result in an
inconsistent housing mix that does not align with broader housing strategies or local
housing needs. This consequently impacts the housing supply associated with windfall
sites and the Council’s objective of meeting the housing need.
2.53 Taylor Wimpey accepts that that the proposed supply of windfall development is based on
past trends, however, the high degree of uncertainty and unidentified nature raises concern.
Windfall allowances comprise a significant element of the housing supply in Dudley, which
therefore means that a high degree of inaccuracy is associated with draft Policy DLP1. Given
the uncertainty associated with the delivery of windfall sites, Taylor Wimpey considers the
reliance upon windfall development within draft Policy DLP1 to be unjustified.
2.54 Taylor Wimpey considers that the actual housing supply is likely to be lower than what has
been stated within the DLP. This means that the actual housing shortfall is likely to be more
severe than what has been presented by the Council.
2.55 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers the housing deliverability trajectory to be flawed and is
in fact high-risk with a limited potential deliverability over the coming years.
2.56 The spatial strategy outlined within Draft Policy DLP1 is therefore unsound due to the
deliverability of brownfield land and windfall sites.
Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release
2.57 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as it does not seek to identify, allocate and release a suitable
supply of land within the Green Belt for housing. Consequently, this presents the risk that
the housing need will not be met and the unmet need within the HMA will not be
addressed.
2.58 Paragraph 13.3 of the DLP states:
“The Plan is not proposing to review any of the borough's Green Belt boundaries or
allocate any development sites or proposals within the Green Belt in accordance with the
preferred spatial strategy.”
2.59 No further explanation is provided in regard to why this is the preferred spatial strategy.
2.60 The NPPF is clear on the weight attached to Green Belt by the Government, and that “once
established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional
circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of
plans.” (Para 140).
2.61 Paragraph 141 of the NPPF goes on to state that a local planning authority should have
“demonstrated that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” and goes on to state that this will be assessed through a
number of criteria which will consider whether the strategy:
a “makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
b optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this
Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum
density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by
public transport; and
c has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether
they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as
demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”
2.62 Taylor Wimpey supports this sequential approach and considers that, on the face of it, the
Council’s current approach accords with the NPPF in principle. The extent of the Green Belt
is such that, unless it is amended, it will significantly restrict the amount of residential
development that could be accommodated in Dudley. Whilst Taylor Wimpey recognises
that the Plan Review is at an ‘early stage’, it is considered important that the Council should
sufficiently, and robustly consider all options for housing growth to demonstrate the
soundness of its need to review the Green Belt boundaries, as required by the NPPF.
2.63 There is insufficient brownfield land to meet the Dudley’s development needs (i.e., point a),
and by reason of this, the optimisation of densities on brownfield land is also unlikely to
meet the development needs (i.e., point b). In terms of point c, given the 106.654 dwelling
scale of the unmet needs across the GBBCHMA, it is unlikely that other authorities within
the GBBCHMA could meet Dudley’s shortfall (a minimum of 1,078 dwellings) in full.
2.64 The DLP aims to achieve a spatial strategy that predominantly focuses on the development
of brownfield land, allocating 96.4% of the housing supply to previously developed sites.
Taylor Wimpey supports this approach and agrees with the Council’s view that the
redevelopment of brownfield land must be a first resort as this would be found to be sound
in accordance with National Planning Policy, but only where it can be demonstrated that
the delivery of such sites is deliverable and viable.
2.65 The Council has accepted that the housing need cannot be accommodated in full on the
available brownfield land within the administrative area. In order to meet the LHN, Dudley
has proposed to export a shortfall of 1,078 dwellings to the neighbouring authorities within
the housing market area (“HMA”) notwithstanding that there is no agreement or SOCG
with neighbouring local authorities to meet such needs.
2.66 Draft Policy DLP1 has failed to acknowledge the severe unmet housing need within the
GBBCHMA, with a shortfall of c.28,000 dwellings within the Black Country alone. Instead
of seeking to accommodate Dudley’s shortfall, the Council has deferred 1,078 dwellings to
the HMA, increasing the overall unmet need within the GBBCHMA. A s discussed, there is a
high degree of uncertainty as to whether the shortfall (1,078 dwellings) could be
accommodated by neighbouring authorities.
2.67 Taylor Wimpey raises concern as to whether the shortfall can be accommodated by the
HMA. Taylor Wimpey notes that discussions with neighbouring authorities will be
undertaken through the DtC, however, other authorities within the GBBCHMA are already
relying on the wider GBBCHMA to meet their individual housing needs, namely the Black
Country Authorities with an overall shortfall of c.28,000 dwellings. As discussed, the overall shortfall within the HMA equals 106,654 dwellings when including Birmingham
City Council’s unmet need. Given the uncertainty associated with the allocated and
emerging contributions towards the HMA’s shortfall, it is unlikely that Dudley’s unmet
need will be accommodated by neighbouring authorities. Taylor Wimpey considers that
Draft Policy DLP1 seeks to defer the shortfall (1,078 dwellings) opposed to addressing it
within the spatial strategy.
2.68 There is a significant, and persistent level of unmet housing need across the GBBCHMA.
Many of the Council’s neighbouring authorities are already unable to meet their own needs
within existing urban areas and are therefore unlikely to be able to accommodate Dudley’s
shortfall of housing. This is recognised by paragraph 3.3.5 of the SA which states:
“Overall, Option 3 appears to be the most favourable housing spatial growth option as it
ensures the housing need will be met, although there is also some uncertainty in the
impacts of this option given the unknown location of the exported proportion of growth.”
2.69 As previously discussed, Taylor Wimpey considers that the housing supply (10,876
dwellings) is inaccurate as the deliverability of brownfield land has not been appropriately
assessed. The spatial strategy proposed is one of high-risk, as the actual supply of housing is
lower than what has been stated.
2.70 In addition, Taylor Wimpey advices the Council to acknowledge that the LHN is a minimum
starting point for housing need and that the housing requirement for Dudley could be
higher when assessed under exceptional circumstances. It is therefore important for the
Council to consider whether a housing requirement above the LHN is justified.
2.71 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers the housing shortfall within Dudley to be more severe
than what has been stated within the DLP. And as discussed, it is unlikely that this unmet
need can be accommodated by the proposed spatial strategy.
2.72 NPPF paragraph 11(b) states:
“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
areas, unless:
1 the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular
importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or
distribution of development in the plan area7; or
2 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”
2.73 NPPF paragraph 35(c) requires Local Plans to be effective, they must be “deliverable over
the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters
that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common
ground”.
2.74 Taylor Wimpey considers Draft Policy DLP1 to be unsound as the proposed spatial strategy
will not meet Dudley’s housing need, and has not acknowledged the acute shortfall within
the HMA. Draft Policy DLP1 states that Dudley’s unmet need will be dealt with through the
Duty to Cooperate, however, Taylor Wimpey considers that this strategic matter has in fact
been deferred given the uncertainty within the HMA. The spatial strategy conflicts with
NPPF paragraphs 11(b) and 35(c).
2.75 Given the shortfall in housing both within Dudley and the GBBCHMA, it is necessary to
consider the strategic release of land from the Green Belt. In this context, Calverton Parish
Council v Nottingham City Council10 confirms that the acuteness and intensity of housing
need constitutes a matter for consideration in determining whether exceptional
circumstances exist.
2.76 There is, therefore, a legitimate and cogent need to consider the release of Green Belt land
within Dudley to seek to reduce the level of unmet housing needs arising from Dudley and
the GBBCHMA. As such, Taylor Wimpey considers that the acuteness of the unmet housing
need can, and in this instance, should, constitute exceptional circumstances, as established
in the Calverton case.
2.77 Given the insufficient supply and risks associated with the deliverability of brownfield land
in Dudley and the uncertainty associated with the acute shortfall within the HMA, Taylor
Wimpey considers that the exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land
exist. The most suitable strategy for achieving the required housing growth would be
through the release of Green Belt land.
2.78 The unmet need is a fundamental issue of the DLP which, unless resolved at the Regulation
19 stage, will most likely lead to it being found unsound at examination. Additionally, it is
an issue echoed by counterpart GBBCHMA authorities including South Staffordshire which,
within its recent publication of the Local Plan Review Preferred Options (September 2021)
consultation, sets out:
“the Council will be working with the Birmingham and the Black Country authorities to
ensure that housing supply within their administrative areas is truly maximised prior to
being exported to other areas” (paragraph 4.11)
2.79 It will therefore prove critical that the DLP assesses all reasonable alternatives for
maximising housing growth, not only to address the 1,078 dwelling shortfall (minimum
figure), but also to fulfil the Duty to Cooperate by ensuring counterpart GBBCHMA
authorities are satisfied the DLP has truly maximised its housing land supply.
2.80 As the exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release have been demonstrated, the DLP
should seek to allocate a sufficient quantum of land for housing through this local plan
review in order to avoid the need for a further Green Belt review through future local plan
reviews. In this regard, NPPF paragraph 140 states:
“Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries,
having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond
the plan period.”

Object

Representation ID: 472

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Worcestershire

Housing
West Midlands CPRE objects to the housing supply figure give in Policy DLP 1, 1a, We consider it is too low and that Table 5.1 should be reviewed to take account, in particular, of large windfalls.

We commissioned a review of the housing need and supply (attached) which suggested that 1,019 homes, at a minimum, should be added to the supply to give a more realistic windfall allowance, including some housing from employment sites (in line with Policy DLP21/22) and in town centres (in line with Policy DLP 24/28) which could reasonably be expected over the next twenty years.
We consider some further additional supply could be added based on higher densities as well as reducing the discount rate on industrial sites.

That would mean total supply in Table 5.1 would be at least 11,895 (59 short of the current requirement, but below the current (unneeded) 5% buffer).

This would ensure that even under the Standard Methodology approach espoused by the council there would be sufficient housing to meet the anticipated need and the addition imposed by the Government to meet the ‘affordability uplift’.

However, we consider that there is a case for adopting a figure closer to lower the ONS2016 housing projections. While the CENSUS shows higher base-level housing numbers for Dudley, across the Black Country the CENSUS results level out closest to the ONS2016 need. In other words, viewing the need across the sub-region in a holistic way, would suggest a common approach to each local authority to avoid double-counting and would, in our view, be justifiable under the new provisions of the NPPF (December 2023 Para 61).

That would mean total need in Table 5.1 would be at least 9,306 (without the unneeded 5% buffer). That would give an excess in Dudley of 2,589 without further release in the Green Belt which could allow for adjacent housing shortfalls (particularly in Sandwell) to be accommodated within the Dudley allocations.