Object
Part Two: Centres and Site Allocations (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 35
Received: 06/12/2023
Respondent: Churchbridge Estates Ltd
Agent: Arctech Partnership LLP
Site allocation reference in Draft Dudley Local Plan: DLP BH 002
Waterfront Way West
The landowner objects to the change of allocation and wants the present allocation as a Development Opportunity Block to be maintained in the new Local Plan.
Outline permission granted P18/1520 for student accommodation however, it is believed the cost of the development led to the proposed development being abandoned by the developer.
Landowner granted outline planning (P19/1625) for a maximum density of 61 units (speculative application).
Site has been available for sale however, scheme consistently deemed financially non-viable which relates directly to density/development cost issues. Landowner believes issues could be resolved if the density was to be increased.
Landowner has received interest in the site purchase for Use Class Orders B, C, E and F.
Proposed designation of housing allocation is too narrow to achieve success in ensuring the site development.
Landowner requests the present land allocation definition of Development Opportunity Block remains in order for maximum flexibility to be maintained in assisting the potential of the site development.
Comment
Part Two: Centres and Site Allocations (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 236
Received: 05/01/2024
Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker
Outline Planning permission to build a block of Flats on it was granted on 17th. November 2020 via
Planning Application No. P19/1625.
Reserved Matter Application P22/1589 was registered on 22nd. November 2022 for a four-storey building comprising 48 Flats. There
were various problems with respect to building design and the size of the Flats and it was withdrawn on 14th. March 2023.
• I have no objection to some sort of Housing on that site as long as there is adequate Car Parking provision -- and no adverse effect on Residents of the Landmark" building Flats opposite. However, as a proposal for 48 Flats got nowhere, I can not see one succeed for 61 Flats in a necessarily taller building.