Comment

Representation ID: 476

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Worcestershire

No allowance for larger employment land windfalls, even though the cross-boundary BC evidence suggests that could be an important source in the borough. A further 14 has is considered to be specifically related to Dudley from the WMRFI.

Commissioned a review of employment need and supply (attached), which concludes that this figure does not fully account for already identified land in South Staffordshire, including at the WMRFI, and that supply would will in reality meet that outstanding need.

Comment

Representation ID: 477

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Worcestershire

We do not agree with the policy wording on Duty to Cooperate in Part 3 of the Policy. We consider that the needs of Dudley for employment land should be viewed in the context of the Black Country itself and the policy should identify that any shortfall of employment land will be met in other parts of the sub-region.
In terms of housing, we do not consider there is a justified short-fall, but any excess housing within the current allocations should be identified as meeting a short-fall in other Black Country boroughs, notably Sandwell.
This would mean that Para 5.13 should also be redrafted to stress that the need should be met within the Black Country sub-region, and perhaps Birmingham, not the wider GBBCHMA or the FEMA.

Support

Representation ID: 492

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Mike Wood

After carefully reviewing the document, it is clear that the Draft Plan is significantly better for Dudley South than the previous proposals contained in the Black Country Plan. I am of course particularly pleased to see that Green Belt land will be protected in the Plan, and that proposals to build on precious green spaces such as at Crestwood and off Severn Drive in Pensnett do not appear in the Draft Local Plan.

This is something I have campaigned for, and local residents frequently contact me about.

Object

Representation ID: 494

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

2.4 The Foundation has no concerns with the principle of a policy that will support sustainable growth that meets the needs of local communities. As noted in the 2022-2023 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (‘SHLAA’), the Local Housing Need Standard Method is 11,790 homes between 2023-2041 or 11,954 allowing for 5% (164) homes buffer for the first five years. Policy DLP1 fails to meet this need, identifying a supply of 10,876 net new homes for the plan period, amounting to a shortfall of 914 – 1,078 new homes.

2.5 Firstly, the policy should be clear that 10,876 new homes is the proposed supply only and that the full need for the Borough is currently at least 11,790 homes.

2.6 Secondly, the Borough should be reviewing its Green Belt boundaries given the availability of land beyond its urban area, and not exacerbating the already significant housing shortfall arising from the wider Black Country authorities. Based on their own assumptions the Black Country Authorities (‘BCAs’) (including Dudley) concluded there was an unmet need of 36,819 homes up to 2039 as part of the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021). That assumed that Dudley would contribute to reducing the shortfall, not add to it.

2.7 Beyond the Black Country, Dudley is one of fourteen local authorities that make up the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (‘GBBCHMA’) which also includes Birmingham. Birmingham, the largest local authority within the GBBHMA, has now commenced a review of its local plan. The Issues and Options version of the plan published in 2022 indicates there is likely to be a substantial shortfall from the city of circa 78,000 homes up to 2042.

2.8 As pointed out in Dudley’s response to the Sandwell Local Plan consultation (dated 16th March 2023), it is important for authorities to meet its own housing needs within its own boundaries as far as possible to reduce the wider housing market area shortfall. Indeed, local policies should identify and plan for a sufficient supply of housing as per NPPF paragraph 69.

2.9 Table 5.1 in the DLP notes that a total of 1,078 new homes are to be added to the wider GBBCHMA shortfall and ‘exported’ elsewhere. The Draft Duty to Cooperate (‘DtC’) Statement (October 2023) that forms part of the evidence base notes that at the time of preparing the Draft DLP potential contributions for housing from the BCAs and GBBHMA are as follows:

2.10 At a meeting of its Full Council on 17th October 2023, Lichfield District Council made the decision to withdraw its Local Plan Review and start again with preparing a plan, therefore its contribution to Borough’s unmet need should be discounted. As such, Table 2.1 indicates that only 431 homes from neighbouring authorities have been potentially secured, with the remainder still subject to negotiation and agreement. Notwithstanding this limited weight can be given to a number of the homes included in the table.

2.11 Furthermore, it is unclear what progress is being made on the other plans referred to, including South Staffordshire, Telford & Wrekin, and Cannock Chase. We understand there will be a further Regulation 19 consultation on South Staffordshire’s Local Plan Review in early 2024, this will likely indicate the contribution it can make to the wider GBBCHMA shortfall.

2.12 In light of the above, for the DLP to be considered positively prepared the overall development strategy should be revisited and the need to review Green Belt boundaries to ensure that the Borough is able to meet its own needs. Both the Racecourse Lane and Worcester Lane sites together amount to circa 820 new dwellings, which equates to 76% of the unmet need that is to be exported to neighbouring authorities.

2.13 The above demonstrates that there is no evidence for lowering the supply of housing for the plan period total. Given the unmet need within the Borough and wider housing market area, exceptional circumstances have been clearly demonstrated to alter Green Belt boundaries through the draft plan, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 145.

Object

Representation ID: 498

Received: 22/01/2024

Respondent: St Phillips Land Limited

Agent: Lichfields

2.1 St Philips 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.

2.2 Fundamentally, 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 needs 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 sites for the first five years of the plan period and deliverable sites of broad locations to meet needs for years 6-10 and 11-15 of the plan periods. The Council has not done this and consequently Policy DLP1 in relation to housing land supply is 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 In this regard, St Philips considers that the DLP’s approach through draft Policy DLP1 is flawed on several grounds, and these are summarised below:

1 Local Housing Need: The Council has not assessed whether a housing requirement greater than the LHN is justified.

2 A Spatial Strategy that Doesn’t Address Housing Needs: The LHN has not been met within the spatial strategy, which is the minimum housing need.

3 Addressing Worsening Unmet Housing Needs: The DLP fails to acknowledge the unmet housing need arising from the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area [GBBCHMA] when seeking to export Dudley’s housing shortfall.

4 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).

5 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).
6. The Deliverability of Brownfield Land: The proposed supply of brownfield land and windfall sites is an unrealistic and unviable strategy. In reality, the shortfall of housing land is greater than what has been stated within the DLP.

7. 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.

2.5 St Philips detailed objections in relation to the above grounds are set out below:

1. Local Housing Need

2.6 Draft Policy DLP1 has not considered whether a housing requirement greater than the minimum LHN is justified and, on the face of it, is unclear as to whether the LHN will be met. 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 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”

2.7 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)

2.8 The DLP acknowledges 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.

2.9 The LHN is a minimum target for housing development. Whilst the Council would require exceptional circumstances to apply a lower housing requirement, the NPPF – at paragraph 61 – states that the LHN figure is a minimum number and that an uplift to the LHN can be applied when supported by evidence.

2.10 The PPG1 is also 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 the ‘actual’ housing need which can be higher. St Philips encourages the Council to conduct sufficient research in order to understand whether an uplift is required.

2.11 It is the ‘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 alternatives .Therefore, the Council should actively identify whether there are reasons for testing higher figures as estimates of housing needs. Currently, the DLP does not confirm whether a housing requirement greater than the LHN has been tested.

2.12 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.3

2.13 It is recognised that if further uplifts to the minimum LHN would require additional housing allocations, and that on the basis of the Council’s proposed spatial strategy, would result in a greater shortfall. However, it is critical that the Council considers whether a housing requirement above the LHN is justified, per the requirements of the PPG. On the basis that the Council has not prepared an up-to-date assessment of their housing needs, the Council should carry out an up-to-date housing needs assessment to establish if uplifts to the LHN figures are required to reflect affordable housing needs, economic growth or unmet housing needs.

2.14 Indeed, St Philips considers that the acute housing shortfall within the GBBCHMA could justify the adoption of a housing requirement greater than the LHN. In this instance, it would therefore be a suitable and justified strategy for Dudley to consider the assessment and release of Green Belt sites for housing development – discussed further below. Moreover, where a housing requirement above the minimum LHN is identified, Dudley would have to provide a greater supply of suitable and deliverable sites in order to meet the housing requirement, per the requirements of 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.”

2.15 Ultimately, the Council has failed to consider whether the minimum LHN figure is appropriate for the purposes of plan-making, or whether uplifts to address affordable housing needs, economic growth aspirations or unmet housing needs should be accommodated within the housing requirement.

2. A Spatial Strategy that Doesn’t Address Housing Needs in Full

2.16 St Philips welcomes the Council’s acknowledgement of Dudley’s minimum LHN figure but strongly 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.

2.17 Draft Policy DLP1 (3) aims to export the c.1,000 dwelling shortfall to neighbouring authorities. As set out below in more detail, 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 needs.

2.18 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 that the Council aims to export to neighbouring authorities.

2.19 St Philips consider that the Council’s proposed spatial strategy is fundamentally flawed and that the DLP should revise its housing requirement in order to meet the Standard Method’s LHN figure, as a minimum, and should consequently seek to plan for a minimum of 11,954 dwellings. This would equate to 664 dwellings per annum (“dpa”) as opposed to 604 dpa. This is because exporting the shortfall identified within the DLP would be found to be unsound by Inspectors during the 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). To this end, the Council must also identify additional land in order to meet this unmet need and St Philips considers the release of Green Belt land to be the most suitable and viable option.

3. Addressing Worsening Unmet Housing Needs

2.20 As noted above, the consequence of the Council’s proposed spatial strategy is that the Council is unable to fully address its minimum LHN-based housing needs for the plan period, resulting in a shortfall of c.1,000 dwellings needing to be addressed within the GBBCHMA. As a result, St Philips strongly contend that 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 and defer this matter to other authorities. An approach that is fundamentally contrary to NPPF paragraphs 35(b & c), as the Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled.

2.21 Crucially, the unmet housing needs position arising across the GBBCHMA can only be described as prodigious, and worsening as each authority prepares the next round of Local Plans. By way of example, the GBBCHMA’s overall situation has primarily been set out within the below documents:

• Draft Dudley Local Plan Duty to Co-operate Statement (October 2023)

• 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)

2.22 In this regard, St Philips notes that within the GBBCHMA there is emerging evidence of an acute level of unmet housing needs. Birmingham City Council's 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.

2.23 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).

2.24 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.

2.25 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”

2.26 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:

2.27 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.

2.28 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:

2.29 In consideration, the total contribution towards the GBBCHMA unmet need is between
14,410 and 18,420 dwellings. St Philips 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.

2.30 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.

2.31 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.

2.32 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.

2.33 In consideration, St Philips 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.”

2.34 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.”

2.35 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).

2.36 Whilst St Philips acknowledges that it is not for Dudley to address the GBBCHMA’s unmet needs in full, given the scale of the shortfall arising from the GBBCHMA, St Philips considers that Dudley must play a proportionate role. Moreover, that it is important that Dudley makes it clear in the DLP that it will help address these acute unmet need and should, where possible, be specific in the exact proportion of the unmet need that the upcoming Local Plan can accommodate. This is because, 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 – discussed further below.

2.37 Crucially, St Philips strongly contends that areas like Dudley, with a large quantum of suitable land within the Green Belt, have a duty to support housing growth and not only address its own housing need but also the shortfall of housing provision within the HMA. To this end, St Philips recommends that the DLP meets its own housing needs in full and makes a proportionate contribution to addressing the unmet housing needs of the GBBCHMA to ensure it aligns with the test of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35.

2.38 With regards to a ‘proportionate contribution’, St Philips 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, St Philips therefore encourages Dudley to adopt Lichfield’s model in order to sustainably distribute the GBBCHMA’s unmet need.
2.39 The model calculates the proportion of housing that can be sustainably redistributed towards surrounding authorities based on the functional relationship between the administrative areas.

2.40 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.

2.41 The objective should be to create an agreed position with regard to the spatial distribution of housing that is justified based on technical evidence and which can be used to underpin the preparation of Local Plans. This would ensure that as and when a spatial distribution methodology is agreed upon, Dudley will have in place a sufficient supply of sites which have been tested through an acceptable model and other evidence base documents.

2.42 In essence, 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. St Philips therefore considers that Dudley should assess alternative options for growth, including the release of land from the Green Belt capable of meeting and potentially increasing the housing supply above and beyond the LHN to assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of the GBBCHMA, and in particular the BCAs, as required by the Duty to Cooperate.

4. Duty to Cooperate

2.43 As set out above, there is an acute unmet housing need within the GBBCHMA that needs to be addressed through cooperation and suitable planning. In this regard, the Council has published a Draft Dudley Local Plan Duty to Cooperate Statement (October 2023) (“DtC”), which sets out how it assumes the shortfall will be addressed elsewhere through the local plan reviews of counterpart HMA authorities and the associated contributions.

2.44 The Council’s 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 in 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.

2.45 Regarding the 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.

2.46 Firstly, in the absence of any signed Statements of Common Ground (“SoCG”), St Philips 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 is yet to be confirmed whether Dudley’s shortfall can be met via the identified contributions listed above.

2.47 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.

2.48 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:

2.49 However, given the absence of a SoCG, St Philips 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 un-agreed. 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.

2.50 The PPG4 confirms that the preparation of SoCGs with neighbouring authorities will contribute to demonstrating whether the duty has been met:

“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]

2.51 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.

2.52 Secondly, as the provisional housing contributions from neighbouring authorities address 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).

2.53 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)

2.54 Fundamentally, it is likely that Dudley’s shortfall will remain unaddressed given the BCA’s unmet need, and the lack of a signed SoCG. On this basis, the Council’s proposed approach to dealing with the Duty to Cooperate is contrary to the NPPF. The Council is demonstrably 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 and needing to be addressed through a SoCG. Indeed, this is particularly pertinent, given the Inspector’s recent findings5 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.

2.55 Again, St Philips 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, particularly the other BCAs. Given the acute unmet housing need and the uncertainty associated with the allocated and emerging contributions, the most suitable strategy for maximising housing growth would be through the release of sites within the Green Belt, which St Philips considers to be the most appropriate strategy for Dudley, and the exceptional circumstances required for Green Belt release are discussed in detail below.

Support

Representation ID: 506

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Sovereign Centros

Agent: Williams Gallagher

Support for the development strategy in principle including the spatial strategy which looks to focus growth and regeneration into the Borough’s Centres and Regeneration Corridors, delivering new homes, jobs and local services.

Comment

Representation ID: 512

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Clowes Development LTD

Agent: Harris Lamb

There is a significant shortfall in employment land in the Dudley Regulation 18 Preferred Options Local Plan. It is evident that Dudley MBC need to engage positively with South Staffordshire District Council and identify suitable employment sites which will deliver benefits for both economies. In short, the Clowes’ Site represents jobs for local people and is important for bolstering the strength of the local economy for the benefit of all. Not providing this land will have a negative impact on local people and it is the local people who will suffer if a solution cannot be found.
Clear and decisive action is needed to ensure these needs are met and the starting point should be discussions with South Staffordshire to urge them, under the statutory Duty to Cooperate, to provide appropriate land needed to deliver these jobs.

Comment

Representation ID: 516

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Lichfield District Council

Lichfield District Council notes that the proposed housing requirement for the Dudley Local Plan is 11,954 homes between 2023-2041 as detailed within Policy DLP1 Development Strategy and Table 5.1 of the Issues and Options consultation document. This is based on the Standard Method used to calculate Local Housing Need (LHN) for Dudley.
It is acknowledged that the Dudley Local Plan aims to deliver 10,686 new homes within the borough primarily through a ‘brownfield first’ approach, with 96.4% of the supply on brownfield land and 3.6% of the supply on greenfield land. This leaves a shortfall of 1,078 homes that the plan states cannot currently be delivered within Dudley’s own administrative area and will need to be exported through the Duty to Cooperate. It is also acknowledged that that Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (DMBC) is not currently looking to deliver any of this shortfall through a review of its Green Belt boundaries, as noted at Policy DLP49 Green Belt and Policy DLP3 Paragraph 5.
This shortfall must be considered in the context of wider housing needs across the housing market area. As you will know, the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) authorities published an updated Housing Needs and Supply Position Statement Addendum in April 2023. Further to this, in late 2022 Birmingham City Council formally commenced the review of its plan and estimated a shortfall of 78,415 homes to 2042 in its Issues and Options document based on the Standard Method. This is in addition to the significant unmet need which had previously been identified in the draft Black Country Local Plan, upon which work stopped in 2022. Since that time, the draft Sandwell Local Plan Regulation consultation identified a shortfall of 18,606 homes to 2041. These are significant figures and therefore all HMA authorities must continue to work effectively with the other partners in the GBBCHMA to address this emerging shortfall.
The approach towards calculating Dudley’s own local housing requirement and the site selection process is noted, Lichfield District Council is conscious that the Dudley Local Plan only provides options to partially meet Dudley’s own local need and is not proposing to contribute to meeting the wider GBBCHMA shortfall.
It is acknowledged that the Dudley Local Plan adopts a brownfield-first approach to maximise delivery of
development within the urban area and that the Council is working with the West Midlands Combined Authority to ensure that brownfield land is prioritised for development and funding intervention. It is widely acknowledged that brownfield developments often have significant delivery constraints. Given the scale of potential unmet need within the HMA, including Dudley identifying unmet need at this stage, it is important that the Dudley Local Plan seeks to provide as much of its housing requirement within its own administrative area and considers all options to do so.

Comment

Representation ID: 527

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Hagley Parish Council

Hagley Parish Council welcomes the positive steps taken to not build on Green Belt land in the Dudley Metropolitan Area. Hagley Parish Council recognises the importance of maintaining the greenbelt between Dudley, Halesowen, and Hagley. In that connection, it places particular emphasis on maintaining the gap between Hagley and Pedmore which is a mere 500 metres wide along Worcester Lane, Pedmore. It is also important to preserve the open land around Pedmore Hall, below Wychbury hillfort and east of Hagley Road.
Hagley Parish Council is concerned that Dudley MBC is proposing to adopt a policy that does not meet its objectively assessed needs and is seeking to export the excess to adjacent districts. Since there is little undeveloped land either in Bromsgrove or South Staffordshire districts, other than Green Belt, the implication is that Dudley MBC intends to force adjacent districts to review their Green Belt, in order to meet Dudley’s needs. This is highly undesirable.
It is imperative that Dudley MBC Strategic Planners liaise directly with Worcestershire Highways and Bromsgrove District Council Strategic Planners to mitigate the effects of increased traffic that will be generated from Dudley’s Housing and economic growth.
Hagley (and wider Bromsgrove) are affected by commuter, social and leisure traffic using the A456, A491, A450 and B4187 when travelling to join the A38, M5 and M6 and destinations beyond. Investment is required to alleviate the added pressures on these already congested junctions. The Grange roundabout at Halesowen (A456/A459/B4551) is a particular pinch point, where means need to be found to improve capacity

Object

Representation ID: 535

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Goldfinch Town Planning Services has significant planning policy concerns that the LPA is accommodating and taking forward completely undeliverable and unrealistic housing site allocations within the emerging Local Plan Review (2023/ 2024) which directly conflict with deliverability focused guidance set out in paragraphs 16 (indent b) and 35 (indent c) of the Revised NPPF (2023). Paragraph 16 (indent b) of the Revised NPPF (2023) is perfectly clear in its view that: “…Plans should (indent b) be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable…” The tests of Soundness for Local Plan preparation as set out in paragraph 35 (indent c) of the Revised NPPF (2023) are clear that: “…Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess whether they have been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are ‘sound’ if they are: (indent c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period…”

Goldfinch Town Planning Services has major concerns in relation to the proposed spatial planning policy approach of focusing the proposed 10,876 new homes within the urban area within the Dudley Metropolitan Borough, and considers that in order to create sustainable communities and protect sensitive urban green space areas, reduce urban air pollution, and protect sensitive wildlife corridors within the inner urban area from built development encroachment pressures, and protect existing employment land sites from changes of use to new housing, there will need to be some Green Belt release within the Local Plan Review to form a sustainable major urban extension within the Green Belt immediately alongside established residential communities.

The emerging Sustainability Appraisal (SA) supporting background technical evidence base accompanying the emerging Local Plan Review and policies contained within the emerging Local Plan Review are both currently failing to address the critical climate change emergency now affecting the Dudley Metropolitan Borough inner urban area, by continuing to support a spatial planning policy approach that is forcing through 10,876 new homes solely into the inner urban area.

In the Dudley Metropolitan Borough, the main contributor to poor air quality is from the emissions produced by transport. The two most harmful are Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). There is a particular problem of very poor air quality within the Dudley Borough inner urban area, given that existing road networks within this area are already heavily congested. The traffic highway congestion implications of focusing proposed 10,876 new homes within the urban area will be considerable. Given that existing road infrastructure networks within urban areas within the Dudley Metropolitan Borough are already heavily constrained and heavily congested with vehicular traffic. They have no capacity to accommodate this significant scale of new traffic growth.

Promoting 10,876 new homes solely within the urban area is not promoting the most sustainable patterns of new housing development and is therefore conflicting with the ‘Sustainability’ test as set out in paragraph 35 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (2023).

We have concerns that insufficiently robust green infrastructure evidence is being used to support local plan preparation.

The urban cramming of 10,876 new homes solely into the inner urban area will result in the loss of extensive areas of sensitive urban green space areas which provide a critically important outdoor recreational resource, serving heavily populated residential areas within the inner urban area. Ensuring the ongoing planning policy protection of these sensitive publicly accessible urban green space areas is critically important in order to help tackle the worsening adult and childhood obesity epidemic which is now affecting the Dudley Metropolitan Borough and wider Black Country sub-region. It is important that these existing urban green space areas are protected, in order to help promote more sustainable patterns of development and to help support more physically active healthy lifestyles to address the local obesity epidemic, consistent with health focused guidance reinforced within paragraphs 8 (indent b), 92 (indents b and c), 93 (indent b), 97, 130 (indent f) and 185 of the Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (September 2023). Securing the ongoing planning policy protection of these critically important urban green space areas provides exceptional circumstances to help support Green Belt release within the emerging Local Plan Review. The scale of new housing development being proposed within the inner urban area is just not sustainable or deliverable.

In recent years, the Black Country Council’s have now all lost specialist urban green space planning policy expertise, so these issues are considered important. Urban green space planning is a specialist and highly complex planning policy topic area, and many LPA’s across the UK do not place enough importance on this specific town planning skillset. Which is an alarming situation because many urban LPA’s are now in a position where they are having to now consider the release of urban green space areas for new housing development as the supply of previously-developed land sites (urban brownfield land) starts to run out within many LPA areas, and there is a chronic shortage of sites for new housing. Given that there is no longer specialist urban green space planning policy expertise in place to ensure that the right types of urban green space areas are protected and suitable urban green space sites released for new housing development, we have concerns that the loss of urban green space areas to a significant urban cramming spatial planning policy approach will not be properly managed and co-ordinated by the LPA. We have ongoing concerns that focusing major new levels of new housing development into the inner urban area is not feasible, not deliverable and will result in the extensive loss of sensitive urban green space sites. Which will mean that both the environmental quality and local communities health will suffer as a result within the inner urban area. The position is perfectly clear, there are now sufficiently robust exceptional circumstances in place for the LPA to now consider Green Belt release within this emerging Local Plan Review, in order to protect the environmental quality of the inner urban area.

Focusing 10,876 new homes within the inner urban area will cause environmental vandalism on an “industrial-scale” across large parts of the urban area, and will cause considerable levels of environmental damage to sensitive wildlife corridors, in direct conflict with guidance reinforced within paragraphs 174 (indent d), 175 and 179 of the Revised NPPF (2023). The proposals would also conflict with existing adopted Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) (adopted February 2011) nature conservation focused policies CSP3 (Environmental Infrastructure) and ENV1 (Nature Conservation), given significantly adverse and severe wildlife corridor impacts. This is important given that important wildlife corridors link to critically important ecologically sensitive sites within the borough, such as the Fens Pool SAC, LNR and SSSI. There is an extensive green infrastructure ‘landscape-scale’ wildlife corridor network within the Dudley Metropolitan Borough which requires urgent and ongoing Planning Policy protection. The position is perfectly clear, there are now sufficiently robust exceptional circumstances in place for the LPA to now justify and consider Green Belt release within this emerging Local Plan Review, in order to protect key natural green space resources within the Dudley Metropolitan Borough inner urban area.

At this early stage of Local Plan preparation (Regulation 18), we have concerns that the emerging Local Plan Review and its accompanying emerging Sustainability Appraisal (SA) are both not currently effectively accommodating climate change pressures into the Plan making approach, in direct conflict with climate change focused guidance set out within paragraphs 153 and 154 of the Revised NPPF (2023). Given that considerable levels of urban cramming are being proposed by the LPA within the inner urban area which will result in the extensive loss of small, medium and large-scale urban woodlands across the borough’s inner urban area, which are all critical for helping the urban area to respond more effectively to the urban heat island effect (promoting urban cooling and reducing extremes in temperature), for reducing flood risk, for promoting carbon storage, and for improving poor urban air quality. All of these climate change pressures will become more severe in future years across the Black Country sub-region. The position is perfectly clear, there are now sufficiently robust exceptional circumstances in place for the LPA to now consider Green Belt release within this emerging Local Plan Review, in order to help protect the climate change future resilience of the Dudley Borough inner urban area, by maintaining a good supply of urban green space areas within the heavily urbanised inner urban area.

Local residents living within the Dudley Metropolitan Borough have a fundamental, clear and basic Legal Right “to be able to breathe clean and healthy air”. This basic Legal right is supported under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (The Human Rights Act) Legislation. The proposed spatial planning policy approach of focusing 10,876 new homes within the urban area could breach Article 2 of the Human Rights Act legislation, given that highly unsustainable patterns of new housing development are being encouraged by a proposed “urban cramming” planning policy approach. Which will only lead to greater levels of air pollution, which will have a detrimental effect on local residents and their health, contrary to guidance in paragraph 35 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (2023).

Within the emerging Local Plan Review the council should focus on protecting existing employment land sites (including lower quality employment land sites which are currently struggling during the severe economic recession) in order to ensure that there is a sufficient ready supply of employment land available to meet the Dudley Borough’s current and future employment land needs. Essentially to ensure that local communities have a supply of local jobs within the inner urban area close to existing established residential communities. This plan-making approach will help to ensure the delivery of sustainable communities consistent with guidance in paragraph 35 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (2023). The proposed spatial planning policy approach of focusing over 10,000 new homes into the inner urban area will result in the loss of employment land sites within the inner urban area, which could help meet future community needs. All types and condition of employment land sites should therefore be safeguarded within the inner urban area in the emerging Local Plan Review, and significant new housing development focused towards a housing-led sustainable urban extension in the borough’s low quality Green Belt countryside at land located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge. The position is perfectly clear, there are now sufficiently robust exceptional circumstances and planning policy grounds now in place for the LPA to now consider Green Belt release within this emerging Local Plan Review, in order to help protect and maintain a sufficient and adequate supply of employment and provision within the inner urban area. To help ensure that there is a sufficient supply of locally-based employment land opportunities provision available to meet local community urgent needs, during a severe prolonged economic recession and cost-of-living crisis. This is particularly relevant given that the Black Country’s traditional manufacturing industry has suffered extensive decline during the last 60 years. There is a need to future proof existing employment sites within the urban area with new, more resilient employment uses to help meet the local communities needs. The economic vitality of the inner urban area needs to be protected as the local area emerges from the post COVID-19 economic recovery.

Safeguarding the protection of vulnerable historic environment assets. We are using the example of the recent demolition of the Crooked House (public house) as this provides an excellent example of the challenges that the Black Country sub-region is currently facing in respect of historic environment planning policy matters. Essentially how to successfully protect important historic environment assets, not all of which will necessarily be either Locally Listed or Statutory Listed (Grades I, II, etc) buildings. This planning policy matter requires urgent consideration by the LPA within the Local Plan Reviews (2023/ 2024) historic environment chapter, in order to help protect the historic environment. We have concerns that the forcing through and urban cramming of 10,876 proposed new homes into the Dudley Borough inner urban area will cause significant levels of harm to the borough’s highly sensitive historic environment assets, the areas historic character and its local distinctiveness. Green Belt release for major new housing development should be strongly promoted within the emerging Local Plan Review south of Racecourse Lane in order to help protect the inner urban areas important historic environment assets, the inner urban areas local distinctiveness and its historic landscapes.

The importance of improving poor urban air quality within heavily urbanised parts of the Dudley Metropolitan Borough, and along major highway networks to help promote more healthy communities is considered critically important. The considerable levels of urban cramming being proposed within the Local Plan Review by delivering 10,876 new homes within the urban area will make the poor air quality position far worse, which reinforces the urgent need for Green Belt release on land located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge.

Sensitive urban green space (of value for outdoor recreation and nature conservation) vs Green Belt release – finding sufficient sites for new housing. Urban green space areas in many cases have significant more outdoor recreational and biodiversity value, and climate change mitigation benefits in comparison to restricted access intensive Green Belt farmland. A good example of this is the ecologically sterile intensive farmland located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge. These aspects are supported by robust, defendable and up-to-date photographic evidence within this Local Plan Representation.

Comment

Representation ID: 543

Received: 23/01/2024

Respondent: Birmingham City Council

Policy DLP1 of the DLP sets out the land requirements to meet housing need and employment land needs for the plan period. The housing need for Dudley, using the Government’s Standard Methodology, specifies that land for 11,954 homes is required by 2040/41. The Policy sets out the context of how the development choices for Dudley have been made, primarily seeking to deliver development within the Borough’s Centres and Regeneration Corridors. These choices mean that land for only 10,876 homes can be identified, leaving a shortfall and unmet housing need of 1,078 homes.
The employment land needs for Dudley have been calculated to be 72 hectares (or 98 hectares if you include the need to replace sites lost to residential uses as part of the housing supply). However, only 25 hectares of land for employment have been identified and so, there is a shortfall of 47 hectares within Dudley (73 hectares shortfall if you include the need to replace sites lost to residential uses as part of the housing supply).
Paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11 set out the spatial strategy choices which seek to protect green spaces within the Borough, the green belt and the ‘wedges’ of open land but highlights that this approach has led to a shortage of deliverable sites identified for housing and employment and aims to address these outstanding development needs via the Duty to Cooperate.

Comment

Representation ID: 545

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Solihull MBC

The Draft Black Country Plan proposed the realise of Green Belt sites in Dudley.
The Draft Dudley Local Plan has drawn back from any Green belt land releases.
There remains an unment need originating from DMBC that is higher than it otherwise would have been due to the plans approach's to not releasing any Green Belt Land
It is not clear from the plan what the DMBCs's expectations are for other LPAs in the housing market and function economic areas and beyond to assist in meeting DMBC's need, particularly if the only opportunity for the other LPAs to accomodate DMBCs need is for Green Belt land release in these other LPAs

Object

Representation ID: 546

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

As part of the Local Plan Review making process, the LPA should undertake comparative research of other LPA areas across the UK to help identify best practice, in terms of identifying techniques used by other LPA planning policy teams to help support the future vitality and viability of existing centres, and strategies used to help attract high quality new inward investment opportunities within allocated employment land sites. In order to help support town centre regeneration and high-quality economic regeneration growth and good quality job creation opportunities. This is considered particularly important in order to help support the post COVID-19 highly fragile local economic recovery across the Dudley Metropolitan Borough and wider Black Country sub-region, which is experiencing significant decline within the Black Country’s various Town Centre locations and existing industrial estates.

Comment

Representation ID: 550

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: Redditch Borough Council

It is noted that Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council is meeting the majority of its housing needs which is to be welcomed, although acknowledge there still remains a shortfall of 1,078 homes to be met across the Housing Market Area. It is also acknowledged that a significant proportion of employment needs are also being met within the Borough, although still leaving a shortfall of 33 hectares to be found across the Functional Economic Market Area. Of further note are the issues raised with provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation identifying a shortfall of up to 32 pitches.
Redditch Borough Council remains committed to the Duty to Cooperate and will continue to engage in discussions. Redditch is an authority which is significanly constrained by Green Belt and any significant future development for either housing or employment needs will require removing land from the Green Belt. With the current uncertainties around the role that Green Belt land is expected to play for future development needs, caused by the as yet unconfirmed reforms to the NPPF originally announced in December 2022, officers of the Council are unable to comment further at this stage as to the validity or otherwise of the approach taken by Dudley MBC with this draft Local Plan.
As stated above the Council will continue to engage under the Duty to Cooperate and in due course will welcome further discussions on the approach taken by Dudley MBC and we look forward to investigating further any cross boundary infrastructure requirements required.

Object

Representation ID: 552

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Dudley Borough Spatial Strategy

Policy DL1 – Development Strategy

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 this will be elaborated on at the Publication stage of plan-making.

2.2. Claremont Planning however considers that this represents a misguided approach, providing 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 that need should be assessed using a clear and justified method. As the Council recognise the objectively assessed housing need as calculated using the Government’s standard method, 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 is proposed to be met. If there is to be reliance on neighbouring authorities to achieve this, then this should be evidenced by formal agreements with those authorities.

2.3. 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.

2.4. 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. It is therefore considered that the Council should recognise that it cannot be assured that it will be able to rely on neighbouring authorities to meet housing needs.

2.5. It is therefore advised that the Council should 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, and deliver increased affordable housing, for the emerging Plan period. Alongside this, the Council should reconsider the potential sources of supply, ensuring that appropriate site allocations are identified that will enable the Council to meet this identified need. It is contended that this should additionally include other available sites for housing within the urban area that have been promoted for development, including the Land at Corbett Hospital, promoted by Charles Church Homes & The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust.

Object

Representation ID: 569

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DL1 – Development Strategy
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 this will be elaborated on at the Publication stage of plan-making.
2.2.
Claremont Planning however considers that this represents a misguided approach, providing 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 that need should be assessed using a clear and justified method. As the Council recognise the objectively assessed housing need as calculated using the Government’s standard method, 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 is proposed to be met. If there is to be reliance on neighbouring authorities to achieve this, then this should be evidenced by formal agreements with those authorities.
2.3.
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.
2.4.
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. It is therefore considered that the Council should recognise that it cannot be assured that it will be able to rely on neighbouring authorities to meet housing needs.
2.5.
It is therefore advised that the Council should 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, and deliver increased affordable housing, for the emerging Plan period. Alongside this, the Council should reconsider the potential sources of supply, ensuring that appropriate site allocations are identified that will enable the Council to meet this identified need. It is contended that this should additionally include other available sites for housing within the urban area that have been promoted for development, including the Land at Corbett Hospital, promoted by Charles Church Homes & The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust.

Comment

Representation ID: 583

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: South Staffordshire Council

The strategy identifies a Growth Network comprising urban centres and corridors as the principal focus for future growth, maximising the effective reuse of land in accordance with national policy priorities. Though a housing shortfall has been identified the Draft Plan has not sought to consider amendments to existing Green Belt boundaries. This approach reflects the recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which now states that there is no requirement for Green Belt boundary alterations when plans are being updated or reviewed though authorities may choose to make such boundary amendments.

Comment

Representation ID: 599

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Shropshire Council

. Development Needs
2.1. We consider that your draft Spatial Strategy and draft Policy DLP1 clearly identify
your preferred strategy and your proposed scales of growth supported by Table
5.1 and your justification in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.13. Your statement in draft
Policy DLP1(1) that you seek ‘to deliver sustainable economic and housing growth
to meet strategic planning targets’ is significant and would appear to prioritise the delivery of an ‘economic’ spatial strategy with an appropriate balance of housing
growth. We also acknowledge the clear statement of both your housing and
employment land positions set out in paragraph 5.12 and acknowledge that this
will assist to improve the effectiveness of their DtC process.
2.2. We recognise your housing need comprises 11,954 dwellings and that 10,876
dwellings may be provided within your Borough, leaving an unmet housing need of
1,078 dwellings. Your employment land need comprises 72 hectares (rising to
98ha to replace your employment land losses), but only 25 hectares may be
provided within your Borough. This leaves a more significant unmet employment
land need of 47 hectares, or 73 hectares after replacing employment land losses.
2.3. Your unmet development needs are a cross boundary strategic matter for the
Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) and the
Black Country FEMA. It is noted this strategic issue has been discussed
extensively with LPAs in the GBBCHMA and with other closely related authorities
like Shropshire Council. As part of our Local Plan process our Council agreed with
ABCA to contribute 1,500 dwellings and 30 hectares of employment land towards
the unmet needs in the Black Country. This agreement did not determine how
these contributions would be apportioned between the four Black Country
Authorities, and it is assumed this process will be undertaken through DtC
conversations between the Black Country Authorities through ABCA. It should be
noted the Shropshire Local Plan remains at Examination.
2.4. It is expected that through the process of plan preparation in the West Midlands
region, and in particular by Authorities in the GBBCHMA, that further contributions
to unmet needs in your Borough and to the other Black Country LPAs will be
considered.
3. Unmet Development Needs
3.1. We have considered the implications of your land availability on your capacity to
meet your development needs and the contributions from LPA in the GBBCHMA,
the BCFEMA and from closely related authorities who have engaged in your DtC
process.
3.2. We recognise that you cannot currently show how your unmet development needs
will be met in full and that further measures may be necessary to meet these
unmet needs. We acknowledge your draft Local Plan articulates your
Development Strategy and how you will manage your Green Belt in Strategic Priorities 2 and 3 and in draft Policies DLP1, DLP3, DLP15, DLP37, DLP49 and
DLP50.
3.3. It is recognised that a decision to review Green Belt boundaries is for individual
LPAs to make. However, based upon the evidence of unmet need it is suggested
there is potential for your Authority to review Green Belt boundaries in order to
fully explore all development opportunity in your Borough, and thus reducing the
level of identified unmet need.
3.4. It is recognised the provisions of the new NPPF (published on 19th December) will
need to be considered in this context. In your evidence base you identify that the:
a. Black Country Green Belt Study (BCGBS) (September 2019) identifies in
paragraph 2.32 a significant conclusion in the Black Country Urban Capacity
Study (BCUCS) (May 2018) that your urban capacity evidence provides the
exceptional circumstances to trigger a Green Belt Review in the Black Country
to meet housing and employment land needs:
b. BCGBS sets out the method and findings of your Green Belt Review but it is
not sufficiently explicit about your findings on exceptional circumstances to
trigger the release of Green Belt land for development or for safeguarding for
future growth in your Borough;
c. Dudley Local Plan – Options to the Preferred Strategy states in paragraph 3.7
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 [been] triggered to justify the need to consider a
review of the borough’s Green Belt.” This statement refers only to your
unmet housing need and a similar statement has not been made about your
more significant unmet employment land need.
d. In relation to your unmet development needs, it is not currently possible for
you to show how you can achieve your intention in draft Policy DLP1 to
‘export’ these unmet needs to other LPAs;
3.5. We consider that your approach may already be largely compliant with national
policy on Green Belts but some further steps may help to justify the soundness of
your draft Local Plan and to help show whether your preferred strategy is
appropriate for your Borough. We acknowledge that you:a. have evaluated the urban capacity of your Borough as part of more extensive
assessments across the Black Country area. You have clearly identified your
unmet development needs to support ABCA to engage effectively in the DtC
process. These measures are consistent with paragraph 141 of the NPPF but
you should recognise that your intention to ‘export’ unmet need might:
i. result in pressure to release Green Belt land in other locations, which in
the view of this Council would be a far less sustainable option for meeting
unmet needs; and
ii. be balanced by a release of Green Belt land within the Black Country area.
b. are considering the sustainability of directing development into your urban
area, into the wider Black Country area, into neighbouring urban authorities and
have looked for further opportunities within and beyond the Metropolitan Green
Belt to meet your unmet needs as required by NPPF, paragraph 142.
3.6. This advice seeks to help your Authority show how your draft Local Plan provides
an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We believe this will help to evidence
your compliance with the tests of soundness for plan making in national policy.

Support

Representation ID: 617

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Brockmoor Properties Limited

Agent: Glen Dimplex Group

Policy DLP1 (Development Strategy)
Brockmoor Properties Limited support the development strategy set out in Policy DLP1, to deliver the identified development requirements sustainably. It is agreed that the majority of development should be delivered within the urban area, and identified Centres and Regeneration Corridors. Brockmoor Properties Limited further support the proposed distribution of growth set out in Table 5.1, more specifically to deliver 854 new homes in Regeneration Corridor 2, where the sites are situated, over the Plan period. It is important that overall development requirements are clearly set out as a minimum and this wording should be retained and reflected throughout the document.

It is also agreed that new homes should be supported by jobs and local services. The Brockmoor Foundry sites are located within well-established neighbourhoods and are well-connected to employment areas, local services and the Strategic Centre of Brierley Hill.

Comment

Representation ID: 623

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: South Warwickshire Council

It is encouraging to note that the Council have produced a Duty to Co-operate statement (October 2023) setting out in detail all the consultations that have been undertaken with the neighbouring and other authorities on housing and employment issues. Paragraph 2.40 of the statement highlights that out of the 11,954 homes needed during the Plan period, 10,876 can be met within the Borough leaving a shortfall of 1,078 homes. It is therefore heartening that Dudley is able to accommodate 91% of its identified housing need within its own borders. Nonetheless, any shortfall will have an impact on other authorities within the Housing Market Area. As a general principle, Dudley Council is encouraged to fully explore all reasonable options in order to meet as much of its own identified need as possible.
The South Warwickshire authorities note that any overspill of unmet housing or employment needs brings with it a need for additional infrastructure in the areas accommodating this overspill, in order to meet the needs of residents and businesses. As such, it is anticipated that any future considerations regarding accommodating overspill within the South Warwickshire area will also need to address these additional infrastructure needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 629

Received: 23/01/2024

Respondent: City of Wolverhampton Council

It is recognised that Dudley Council have fully explored all opportunities within the Borough
to maximise development capacity, including increased densities and sites in centres,
whilst protecting viable employment land and premises as necessary, given the evidenced
shortfall of employment development land across the Black Country Functional Economic
Market Area (BC FEMA). In the context of the revised NPPF, it is accepted that it will not
be possible to meet all development needs within the Borough, and that it is necessary for
Dudley to ask other authorities if they are able to contribute towards meeting Dudley needs
through the allocation of land in their Local Plans.
The current Wolverhampton position on housing and employment land need and supply is
set out in the Wolverhampton Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)
2022, the Black Country Economic Development Needs Assessment (BC EDNA) 2023
and the Draft BCP (2021). On the basis of the December 2022 consultation version of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Leader of the Council committed to
excluding any green belt land from development allocations in the emerging
Wolverhampton Local Plan (WLP).
Taking into account potential capacity on non-green belt land in the Draft BCP, and an
extended Plan period to 2042, the WLP is likely to generate a shortfall of around 11,500
homes and 50 ha of employment development land

Comment

Representation ID: 631

Received: 14/12/2023

Respondent: Sandwell Council

A significant difference compared with the draft BCP however is that a reduction in the supply of land for housing is proposed. This is as a result of the intention not to allocate land that is currently in Green Belt. The BCP proposals for Dudley included the provision of housing slightly in excess of local need to contribute towards the shortfalls in Sandwell, and to a lesser extent Wolverhampton. The draft Dudley local plan however proposes to supply less than enough to meet local needs, which means that this shortfall will need to be exported to neighbouring authorities.
As was the case with the BCP, the Dudley local plan also significantly under-provides sufficient employment land to meet the borough’s needs, although the proposed supply is slightly higher than that in the BCP.

Comment

Representation ID: 632

Received: 14/12/2023

Respondent: Sandwell Council

The Spatial Strategy at para 3.11 determines that exceptional circumstances to review the Green Belt boundary have not been triggered as Dudley’s housing and employment shortfalls are not considered significant

Comment

Representation ID: 633

Received: 14/12/2023

Respondent: Sandwell Council

However, para 61 of the NPPF is clear that “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.”
Dudley should take account of the amount of housing to be planned for not just within its own borough, but also the Black Country and wider Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA). This includes the housing shortfall of 18,606 arising in Sandwell until 2041, identified in the draft Sandwell Local Plan. Considered collectively the housing shortfalls in the GBBCHMA are significant and warrant a review of the Green Belt.
The BCP proposed that a total of 1,117 net additional homes would be provided in Dudley over the period 2020-39 in the Green Belt. The Dudley local plan proposes 10,876 homes over the period 2023-41. Need in Dudley over this period is 11,954 homes (664 homes per year). The plan states that this will result in a shortfall of 1,078 homes. If the Green Belt sites identified for housing in the BCP were brought forward, this would meet their shortfall and have a surplus of 39 homes. This would therefore negate the need to export the shortfall of 1,078 homes to other authorities who are themselves struggling to meet their own needs.
The Viability Appraisals for both authorities suggest that a significantly greater proportion of Dudley’s proposed housing allocations are viable or marginal on both brownfield and greenfield sites compared to Sandwell.
The Dudley Viability Appraisal recommends a tiered approach to affordable housing provision similar to Sandwell but with Dudley having higher percentage provision. This could mean that more affordable housing could be delivered for the HMA by releasing greenfield / Green Belt sites within Dudley as a greater percentage of affordable housing could be secured with sites remaining viable or marginal.
Sandwell Council recognises that local concerns have resulted in Dudley being unwilling to consider the use of Green Belt to help meet the need for housing. However, the resulting under-supply will place additional pressures on the housing supply in other authority areas and make it more difficult to demonstrate to authorities outside the Black Country that authorities within the Black Country have sought to maximise their supply before seeking to export some of it.
In December 2022, the Government consulted on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The changes included an addition to para 142 which would affect Green Belt;
“Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period.”
If this change was implemented, Dudley would not need to review its Green
Belt. However, Dudley’s actions are premature as councils are still awaiting
the outcome of this consultation. Therefore, until the outcome of the
consultation is known we would urge Dudley to look to allocate those sites that
were previously found suitable and available in the Green Belt to meet their
housing need in full.
Furthermore, Para 25 still requires joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies and sets out that they should “determine where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere”.
Para 67 in the consultation paper also states that “Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period. The requirement may be higher than the identified housing need, if it includes provision for neighbouring areas, or reflects growth ambitions linked to economic development or infrastructure investment.”
So even if the proposed changes to para 142 are implemented, there is still scope for neighbouring authorities to seek to help to contribute to neighbouring shortfalls.
The Dudley local plan proposes 25ha of additional employment land compared with the 22ha proposed in the BCP. Both these figures are well below the net need of 72ha. This means that 47ha of employment land to serve Dudley will need to be ‘exported’ to neighbouring authorities in the Black Country and to those adjacent authorities which have a strong economic relationship with the authority. The supply of suitable land for employment development in Dudley is physically constrained, so it is recommended that no concerns are raised on this topic.
The Dudley local plan contains a large number of policies about other topics. Most of these are site-specific or are about development management and are similar to those proposed in the BCP. As such, they raise no direct concerns for Sandwell.
There appears to be a mistake in paragraph 12.1 in which the text explains that the Council has pledged to achieve net zero carbon by 2050. The Council’s website suggests this should read 2030.

Comment

Representation ID: 635

Received: 16/01/2024

Respondent: Walsall Council

A reduction in the supply of land for housing is proposed compared with the BCP. This
is as a result of the intention not to allocate land that is currently in the green belt within
Dudley. The BCP proposals for Dudley included the provision of housing slightly in
excess of local need to contribute towards the needs of Sandwell, and to a lesser
extent Wolverhampton. The draft Dudley local plan, however, proposes to supply less
than enough to meet local needs, which means that this shortfall will need to be
exported to neighbouring authorities.
As was the case with the BCP, the Dudley local plan also significantly under-supplies
sufficient employment land to meet the borough’s needs, although the proposed
supply is slightly higher than that in the BCP.
A direct comparison with the BCP is not straightforward because the two plans were
intended to cover different time periods, and the need for both housing and
employment has changed since the preparation of the BCP as a result of the way in
which need is calculated, as well as the different time periods for the two documents.
The Dudley local plan however appears to under-state the extent of the proposed
housing supply shortfall.
The BCP proposed that 13,235 net additional homes would be provided in Dudley over
the period 2020-39. The local need under the national standard method was 636
homes per year (2021 basis). This meant that 1,151 homes would have been available
to meet needs arising elsewhere in the Black Country.
The Dudley local plan proposes 10,876 homes over the period 2023-41. Need in
Dudley over this period is 11,954 homes (664 homes per year). The plan states that
this will result in 1,078 homes having to be provided in other authority areas. The
reduction in supply compared with the BCP is effectively this ‘export’ figure added to
the number that are no longer proposed to meet need arising elsewhere in the Black
Country, i.e. 1,078 plus 1,151 or 2,229 homes.
We recognise the local concerns have resulted in Dudley being unwilling to consider
the use of green belt to help meet the need for housing. However, the resulting undersupply
will place additional pressures on the housing supply in other authority areas
and make it more difficult to demonstrate to authorities outside the Black Country thatauthorities within the Black Country have sought to maximise their supply before
seeking to export some of it.
We understand the draft plan was written in the context of the proposed amendments
to the NPPF that were published in December 2022. Amongst other amendments, it
was proposed to delete the reference in paragraph 35 to local plans being “informed
by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is
accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving
sustainable development.” The Dudley local plan proposes 25ha of additional employment land compared with the 22ha proposed in the BCP. Both these figures are well below the net need of 72ha. This means that 47ha of employment land to serve Dudley will need to be ‘exported’. The supply of suitable land for employment development in Dudley is physically
constrained, so we have no concerns on this topic.
We note that the sustainability appraisal examines three options for housing and two
for employment. Housing options 1 and 2 are rejected on the grounds that they would
not sufficiently meet housing needs in the borough. Paragraph 3.4.1 of the SA report
states that option 3 is selected, as it would address housing need through a balanced
spatial approach. However, table 3.1 states that this option would require a
contribution from duty to co-operate partners towards the potential shortfall, to enable
the total housing need for the borough to be met. Under option 3, the plan itself would
not address the total housing need and delivery of the requisite number of homes
would rely on the plans of other local authorities. We would, therefore, advise that you
review the conclusion reached with regards to option 3.

Comment

Representation ID: 678

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council

It is noted that Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council is meeting the majority of its housing needs which is to be welcomed, although acknowledge there still remains a shortfall of 1,078 homes to be met across the Housing Market Area. It is also acknowledged that a significant proportion of employment needs are also being met within the Borough, although still leaving a shortfall of 33 hectares to be found across the Functional Economic Market Area. Of further note are the issues raised with provision for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation identifying a shortfall of up to 32 pitches.
Bromsgrove District Council remains committed to the Duty to Cooperate and will continue to engage in discussions.
Bromsgrove is an authority which is heavily constrained by Green Belt and any significant future development for either housing or employment needs will require removing land from the Green Belt. With the current uncertainties around the role that Green Belt land is expected to play for future development needs, caused by the as yet unconfirmed reforms to the NPPF originally announced in December 2022, officers of the Council are unable to comment further at this stage as to the validity or otherwise of the approach taken by Dudley MBC with this draft Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 685

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: National Highways

Based on our review of the Regulation 18 consultation, we note that the draft Local Plan consultation document outlines that there is a requirement to deliver 72 hectares of employment land and 11,954 dwellings over the plan period. We note that the housing and employment requirement have primarily been identified based on the National Standard method on housing projections and Economic Development Need Assessment (EDNA) respectively.
While the housing demand stands at 11,954 dwellings, supply for 10,876 dwellings is expected to come through the adoption of the upcoming Local Plan, thereby leaving an unmet need for 1078 homes. The quantum of employment land intended to be delivered through the Local Plan is 25ha, with a shortfall of 47ha. We appreciate that the Council aims to meet the additional housing and employment requirements by working with the neighbouring and other relevant local authorities under the Duty to Cooperate. National Highways welcomes further information on this once the Council identifies the working arrangement and we look forward to understanding the impacts from these developments on the SRN in the area.
We note that the housing and employment supply identified in the Draft Local Plan has considered the existing planning applications, sites under construction, and windfall allowance. Table 5.1 of the Draft Local Plan indicates how the full housing and employment land requirements for the Dudley Borough will be met through the identified sites. Whilst the housing strategy set out for the ‘The Growth Network’ and ‘Outside the Growth Network’ totals to 5,300 dwellings, the housing allocations included in Table 6.1 is summing up to 4,391 dwellings, thereby having a difference of c.900 dwellings. We have noted a similar difference for the employment site allocations also, with 17.54ha set out in Table 5.1 and 14.02ha from Table 8.1 of the DLP. National Highways would need these numbers clarified and would expect more information to be provided on this.

Comment

Representation ID: 688

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

The Trust welcomes the inclusion of the canal network within the ‘Spatial Strategy Plan: Dudley Borough, and specifically also the retention and enhancement of a canal-specific policy (Policy DLP36) within the Reg 18 DLP. As such we do not seek necessarily the addition of replica canal-specific wording within every other relevant policy wording within the DLP. However, we request cross-referencing to Policy DLP36 within relevant justification text as identified in the requests below as a means of identifying the needs and opportunities of the waterway network in delivering Dudley’s overall vision.

In Policy DLP1 Development Strategy, the Trust welcomes mention of c) Protecting Dudley’s character and environmental assets including heritage assets, natural habitats and open spaces, and d) Minimising and mitigating the likely effects of climate change as components of spatial strategy which seeks to deliver this growth and sustainable patterns of development.

Object

Representation ID: 726

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Police Crime Commissioner for West Midlands (PCCWM)

Agent: Tyler Parkes

Policy DLP1 Development Strategy, P54, strengthen wording of: '2.a. Delivering high quality
development in the existing urban area supported by infrastructure to meet the needs of
communities and businesses supported by the integration of Secured by Design principles.
[Suggested changes in bold and underlined). [Objection]

Comment

Representation ID: 790

Received: 30/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

DLP1. Clause 2) c we support a reference to heritage within this policy and are keen to ensure that it is the significance of heritage assets, including their setting that are protected and to understand how the Plan has a ‘positive strategy’ for the historic environment. Clause 3) we are keen to understand what impacts there may be for the historic environment and how these are being considered.