Comment

Representation ID: 29

Received: 30/11/2023

Respondent: Elaine Stafford

Provision of healthcare - 'working with DEVELOPERS' to ensure HEALTH FACILITIES where needed
This needs to be PROVIDED and be READY as properties start to be occupied (not sometime NEVER!)

The true cost to the community education by increased population at all levels 0 years - 18 years should be born by developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 84

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr David KIMBLEY

The infrastructure around Kingswinford is already a significant issue. No account seems to be taken of the cumulative effect of a number of smaller developments. The pollution in the area is already high due to the traffic congestion and numerous attempts to resolve this with new traffic lights has not eased the problem.

Comment

Representation ID: 90

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Graham Wright

Unless the infrastructure of the borough is upgraded prior to any development of any sort then no plan is sustainable.
Traffic, especially around Stourbridge to Kingswinford (A491) is apalling at any time and any further development in this area will only compound the frustration that people suffer day in day out.
This is also the case from Scotts green island, Dudley to the Cot lane junction at Summerhill, Kingswinford.

Support

Representation ID: 310

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 6 Infrastructure Provision
Barberry support the intention that all new development should be supported by the necessary on and off site infrastructure to serve the needs of those occupying new development. In providing new infrastructure to meet the needs of future residents the request to fund them must ensure that the resulting development is viable and that the development can support the requirements being requested.

Object

Representation ID: 368

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Cllr Peter Drake

COSELEY INFRASTRUCTURE

As an elected member for Coseley East I have general concerns regarding the housing allocations for my ward.

Coseley is already struggling in terms of its infrastructure, which barely copes with the existing demand. This infrastructure (including roads, parking, doctors, dentists, primary and secondary school places, green spaces) is in my opinion insufficient and in need of investment and modernisation.

Further housing is potentially allocated for areas such as Whitegates Road, Legge Lane, Budden Road, Norton Crescent. These neighbourhoods already have congested roads, lack of parking spaces, lack of doctors, no waste or recycling facilities in close distance; there is no secondary school in Coseley to handle the inevitable surge in child numbers that the housing would bring. The needs and requirements of many more hundreds of additional residents could not be met with current infrastructure.

I welcome new and affordable housing in Coseley. But if there is no accompanying infrastructure improvements it will create intolerable pressures that will negatively and severely impact on the quality of life for people living here.

Support

Representation ID: 377

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 6 Infrastructure Provision
WL support the intention that all new development should be supported by the necessary on and off site infrastructure to serve the needs of those occupying new development. In providing new infrastructure to meet the needs of future residents the request to fund them must ensure that the resulting development is viable and that the development can support the requirements being requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 395

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF note that criteria four allows for flexibility in relation to proposed development not meeting its on-site and off-site infrastructure only in exceptional circumstances. HBF note that a viability appraisal for the Dudley Local Plan was published in Nov 23 but it is unclear how this has influenced this consultation version of the Local Plan. HBF also have significant concerns about the viability report itself, which are detailed more fully in our


response to Policy DLP12 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and
Self-Build / Custom-Build Housing.
HBF request that the Aspinall Verdi Viability Appraisal is fully checked and reviewed by the Council (and/or their consultants) to ensure it is correct, internally consistent and reflects the findings of the Dudley specific viability appraisal that have been undertaken. Once this has been undertaken HBF would request that the fourth criteria of the policy is then revisited, to ensure it reflects the findings of the viability appraisal. HBF suggest additional
flexibility in the policy wording is likely to be needed. It should not be necessary for developers to have to go through the process and cost of a site-specific viability appraisal when the evidence at the plan-making stage has already shown it to be unviable.

Comment

Representation ID: 431

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

How will DLP ensure these new developments have the infrastructure to ensure these new homes/ neighbourhoods are sustainable?

Support

Representation ID: 447

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 6 Infrastructure Provision
We support the intention that all new development should be supported by the necessary on and off site infrastructure to serve the needs of those occupying new development. However, any infrastructure requests must ensure that the scheme remains viable and that the development can support the requirements being requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 596

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Request that flood risk infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure is added infrastructure definition list (para 6.20).

The ultimate responsibility for maintaining watercourses rests with the landowner. We would expect that where future proposals are reliant on an existing flood defence asset that developers would engage early with us and ensure the Flood Risk Assessment takes account of this asset (level of protection/condition/residual risk) within the assessment.

We are aware of four community flood risk management schemes affecting Dudley which would potentially benefit from partnership funding: River Stour Halesowen, Illey Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme, Wordsley and Lye and Wordsley Brook.

It’s possible that Policy DLP6 will also be reliant on the delivery of infrastructure from Severn Trent where limited capacity currently exists, whether this is upgrades to the sewer network or receiving wastewater treatment works and development will need to be phased accordingly. Policy DLP6 needs to capture

Comment

Representation ID: 679

Received: 25/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Property Services Ltd

We support the general approach to infrastructure delivery set out within Policy DLP6, and welcome
the acknowledgement in paragraph 6.23 that additional GP consulting rooms may be required in
certain areas of the borough depending on the scale and nature of housing growth. To better reflect
the NHS Long Term Plan to develop integrated services locally, it would be preferable to refer to the
need for additional primary healthcare facilities rather the narrower focus on GP consulting rooms
as this does not reflect the full impact of population growth on healthcare services infrastructure in
the locality.
As set out above, given health infrastructure’s strategic importance to supporting housing growth
and sustainable development, it should be considered at the forefront of priorities for infrastructure
delivery. The provision of healthcare services to meet the needs of new residents is essential
infrastructure and should be given a significant amount of weight in decision-making. To ensure that
healthcare mitigation is appropriately weighted in situations when a viability assessment
demonstrates that development proposals are unable to fund the full range of infrastructure
requirements, healthcare facilities should be identified as a key priority in the supporting planning
documents and planning guidance referenced in part (3.) of the policy

Comment

Representation ID: 699

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

The Trust also requests cross-referencing to Canal Policy DLP36 within the justification text to this introductory section on infrastructure (ACTION REQUEST) to aid infrastructure improvements.

The Trust is keen to continue proactive engagement with the Council on project delivery utilising the funding sources, and others, listed within para 6.14. (ACTION REQUEST)

The Trust requests mention of the canal network in the context of the justifying text to para 6.20 of Policy DLP6 Infrastructure Provision, given the ability of our network to contribute to the successful delivery of many of these infrastructure elements (ACTION REQUEST)

Support

Representation ID: 729

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Police Crime Commissioner for West Midlands (PCCWM)

Agent: Tyler Parkes

Under Infrastructure, Paragraph 6.10 should add ‘Policing facilities’ to the bullet point list of
infrastructure investment required to support development and a growing population.
The PCCWM supports Policy DLP6 Infrastructure Provision subject to recognition that provision
of policing infrastructure is eligible under S106 obligations and CIL. The PCCWM would welcome
confirmation in relation to this. It is also important that any studies into viability also take this into
consideration. [Support]

Object

Representation ID: 730

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Police Crime Commissioner for West Midlands (PCCWM)

Agent: Tyler Parkes

Following on from the previous point, and in relation to paragraph 6.20, the WMPCC would wish
to see the addition of, ‘Policing facilities’ added to the list of eligible infrastructure. [Suggested
changes in bold and underlined). [Objection]
This is compatible with legislation and national planning policy, as follows – Section 17 of the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states, ‘Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it
shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions
with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the 15 need to do all
that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area’.
The PCCWM therefore has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an efficient and
effective police force for the area. Dudley Council is also statutorily required to consider crime
and disorder and community safety in the exercise of its duties with the aim of achieving a
reduction in crime.
The NPPF, September 2023, Paragraph 2 states that the NPPF must be taken into account in
preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning
policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory
requirements.
Paragraph 7 of the NPPF explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the
achievement of sustainable development and Paragraph 8 confirms that achieving sustainable
development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives: an economic, a
social and an environmental objective. These objectives include supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to
meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built
environment.
Paragraph 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) includes, inter alia, a requirement
for policies to deliver sufficient provision for infrastructure, including those related to security,
with Paragraphs 16, 26 and 28 indicating that this could be delivered through joint working with
all partners concerned with new development proposals.
Section 8 of the NPPF “Promoting health and safe communities”, Paragraph 92, identifies that
planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which are
safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder and the fear of crime, do not undermine the
quality of life or community cohesion.
Paragraph 130 (f) of the NPPF calls for the creation of safe places where crime and disorder, and
the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.
Annex 2 (NPPF) identifies the police as “Essential local workers”, defined as “Public sector
employees who provide frontline services including health, education and community safety” It is
also especially noteworthy that Part 10A Infrastructure Levy: England of the Levelling Up and
Regeneration Act 2023 confirms at Section 204N (3) relating to Infrastructure Levy regulations
that “infrastructure” includes “(h) facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services”.
It should also be noted that it is the case that increases in local population and the number of
households do not directly lead to an increase in funding for the Police Service (WMP) from
Central Government. It is therefore necessary to secure CIL and/or S.106 contributions for
infrastructure due to the direct link between the increased demand for policing services and
changes in the physical environment due to new housing and economic growth, which have
permanent impacts on future policing and demands upon WMP. Securing contributions towards
policing enables the same level of service to be provided to residents of new developments,
without compromising the existing level of service for existing communities and frontline services.
Put simply, the consequence of no additional funding is that existing infrastructure will become
severely stretched and thereby have a severe adverse impact on the quality of the service that
WMP are able to deliver.
The High Court judgement of Mr Justice Foskett in The Queen and Blaby DC and Others [2014]
EWHC 1719 (Admin) is a clear example of the case for S106/CIL contributions towards Police
infrastructure. In that case, a development of 4,250 dwellings, community and retail
development, schools and leisure facilities was proposed, the judgement reads: “It is obvious that
a development of the nature described would place additional and increased burdens on local
health, education and other services including the police force.” (Para 11).
The judgement goes on to comment that: “Those who, in due course, purchase properties on this
development, who bring up children there and who wish to go about their daily life in a safe environment, will want to know that the police service can operate efficiently and effectively in
the area. That would plainly be the “consumer view” of the issue.” (Para 61). “I am inclined to the
view that if a survey of local opinion was taken, concerns would be expressed if it were thought
that the developers were not going to provide the police with a sufficient contribution to its
funding requirements to meet the demands of policing the new area.” (Para 62).
To ensure that levels of service can be maintained for both existing residents in the wider Dudley
Borough area, developer contributions through the mechanism of CIL and/or S.106 Obligations for
Police infrastructure are considered essential.
It is the case that, Planning and S78 Appeal decisions have long recognised that the infrastructure
requirements of the Police are perfectly eligible for consideration and can be allocated financial
contributions through S106 Obligations which accompany qualifying planning permissions for
major development (residential and commercial alike), with the Planning Inspector in PINS appeal
reference APP/X2410/A12/2173673) stating that:
“Adequate policing is so fundamental to the concept of sustainable communities that I can see no
reason, in principle, why it should be excluded from purview of S106 financial contributions…”.

Support

Representation ID: 774

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: National Trust

Policy DLP6 Infrastructure Provision
We are supportive of the proposed approach towards infrastructure provision, including planning contributions required towards local infrastructure improvements necessary to mitigate the impact of development on the local area. We welcome the inclusion of publicly accessible open space in the definition of infrastructure as set out in paragraph 6.20.

We note that paragraph 6.24 acknowledges that “Where the combined impact of several developments creates the need for infrastructure, it may be necessary for developer contributions to be pooled to allow the infrastructure to be secured in a fair and equitable way. Pooling may take place both between developments and also between Dudley and other local authorities where there is a cross-authority impact.” We consider that this is a sensible approach to take towards given the housing pressure in the West Midlands conurbation and the related pressure that will negatively impact on green infrastructure and open spaces.
Where new development is supported, we would expect that contributions towards open space and green infrastructure should be prioritised on the basis that access to open space is essential to the health and wellbeing of residents. The 8 Hills Regional Park could contribute significantly towards the access that residents have to open spaces within Dudley and nearby. Where the Regional Park could fulfil this need in Dudley, we would welcome the opportunity to be included within the Infrastructure Funding Plan so that the benefits that 8 Hills could deliver are enhanced and maintained for long term access.

Comment

Representation ID: 795

Received: 30/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

DLP 6 Page 86. We would welcome heritage being included in this list so that there are opportunities for heritage enhancement.

Support

Representation ID: 833

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Sport England

Support parts 1, 2 and 3 of the policy and para 6.24. Request additional paragraph that references providing contributions towards playing pitches and built sports facilities to meet the needs of new development in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS.