Comment

Representation ID: 110

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Davison

Where new housing is being developed alongside existing development, it should address inadequacies in provision for the overall area including walking infrastructure (including seating), biodiversity including nature enhanced open space and incorporation of features to support nesting birds.

Object

Representation ID: 144

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Burman

I wish to lodge my objection to DLP H042. The plan to build houses on the land between Stourbridge Road and Crimond Rise. I have sent a fuller explanation of my objection to Cllr Simon Phipps by email yesterday. I have two primary objections to this plan:
It would decimate the rich variety of wildlife including badgers, foxes and grazing for horses.
The Road is already continually congested. There has already been numerous accidents. I give permission for you to see my email to Cllr Phipps which has more detail.

Comment

Representation ID: 243

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker

~>(B.2.) Development should not mean over-development. It must respect the scale, mass, character and heritage of the Town - and preserve and, if possible increase, our Green Open Spaces.
I do not want my Home Town to end up looking like a "mini-Brum".

~>(B.3.) Most people aspire to raising a Family in a House with a garden and having a Car.
Such people are the sound foundations on which diverse, sustainable Communities are built
- but there is inadequate catering for them in Brierley Hill now and from what I read in these policies, there would be little, if any, future improvement.
The proposals for Brierley Hill are for high-density to very high-density Housing - overwhelmingly
Flats - and inadequate provisions for Cars. With respect to the latter, it is delusional to assume that that would persuade people to opt in their droves to Public Transport and Bicycles.
It hasn't happened to date - and, human nature being what it is, it won't happen in the future. Unless family-friendly provisions are made, we stand no chance of building a stable Community.

Object

Representation ID: 288

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

The actual shortfall in housing will be significantly higher than DMBC suggest. That is because (i) the housing requirement must be increased above the baseline LHN to reflect the increased economic activity that is expected in the forthcoming plan period and provide for a suitable mix of housing, including affordable housing, and should be applied across an extended plan period to 2043, and (ii) the actual supply of housing in the plan period is likely to fall well below the figure expected by DMBC.
Plan shows acceptance that housing need will not be met. That is contrary to the provisions of the NPPF and fails all tests of local plan soundness, as well as the requirements of the DtC. Without significant amendments, the DLP will experience a protracted examination period that will require DMBC to identify additional allocation sites during the examination process to remedy the fundamental failings of the plan. That will delay the plan’s adoption and delivery of housing, which in the meantime will inevitably result in DMBC losing its marginal five year housing land supply position and leave the Borough open to speculative development until a sound plan is adopted.
Simply applying the base level LHN over the 20 year plan period would result in a housing need of 12,940 dwellings (c. 1,000 dwellings above the figure stated in Policy DLP1). The housing requirement will, however, be much higher than that.

Object

Representation ID: 289

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Following the collapse of the Black Country Plan, it was expected that DMBC could meet its housing need within its own jurisdiction but was unwilling to meet the housing needs of the neighbouring authorities. There, it is simply hypocritical for DMBC to now take the stance that it should not be held accountable for meeting its own housing needs, that it should not release Green Belt land for development, and that the residual unmet needs should be “exported through Duty to Co-operate.”
DTC paper overlooks neglects to mention that South Staffordshire are re-considering their contribution, that Cannock Chase’s plan has stalled with no sign that it will advance with the previous contribution retained, that Lichfield will now be restarting their plan (likely to be examined under the new planning system, without a formal DtC requirement) and that Shropshire’s contribution specifically towards Dudley’s unmet needs is limited to a maximum of c. 400 dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 294

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

WDH’s comments in response to Policy DLP10 clearly demonstrate that there is significant uncertainty surrounding the sources of housing delivery that are identified in the DLP, and that a buffer of 20% should be applied to the residual housing requirement (i.e. the housing requirement once finalised, minus residential deliveries and commitments with an appropriate non-implementation rate) to provide certainty in that regard. WDH’s comments highlight that, in applying a more realistic position to the DLP’s purported sources of supply, there will be a shortfall of 3,325 homes, which must be addressed through the DLP for it to be considered sound.
The supply is homogenous in nature, with an overdependence on brownfield sites within the urban area. The NPPF is clear however, that local plans should “identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability.” Brownfield sites can often be particularly complex and subject to delayed delivery and are likely to stifle the overall delivery of affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 295

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Table 8.1.

A lapse rate should be applied based on DMBC’s own assessment of sites with planning permission or prior approval. If done, the overall figure for the ‘current supply’ category would, therefore, be 2,717 dwellings, rather than 2,913 dwellings as currently stated in Table 8.1.

Object

Representation ID: 300

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Table 8.1 Windfall Allowance

To satisfy the NPPF tests in relation to exporting unmet housing needs, it follows that the DLP must have identified all brownfield development sites that are available at this point in time. Therefore, whilst some new brownfield sites may become available, it is difficult to see how there would be additional capacity at this scale when the identification of such a number of brownfield sites both within the DLP and extant plans will inevitably have depleted the supply of available brownfield sites. Until such evidence has been prepared, it is suggested that a 50% reduction to the current windfall allowance should be applied, reducing the annual allowance to 90dpa. By excluding the first two years (as per the DLP), but applying the figure over the extended plan period between 2023 and 2043, that would result in a windfall supply of 1,620 dwellings; which is still a substantial quantum of delivery from such sites.
When applying the proposed deduction to the windfall allowance to reflect a more realistic level of delivery, it is likely that the DLP will actually deliver at most 6,898 dwellings (but likely fewer) against the residual housing requirement of 10,223 dwellings. That will result in a shortfall of at least 3,325 homes (but likely significantly higher once the housing requirement is uplifted).

Comment

Representation ID: 313

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 10 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
We have set out above our comments in respect of the proposed housing requirements and the Council’s strategy for meeting the housing need within its own administrative area. Notwithstanding this approach there is still a shortfall of 1,078 that are required but which sufficient land is yet to be identified to accommodate.
Putting the shortfall aside we have a number of concerns about the sources of housing land supply that the Council sets out in Table 8.1 of the Plan.
In respect of sites with planning permission or prior approval it is not clear whether an implementation allowance has been applied to this source of supply. Typically, a 10% of implementation allowance would be applied to such sites.
Table 7 of the SHLAA also identifies potential supply from occupied employment sites albeit that a 15% non-implementation allowance has been applied to this source. It is noted that reliance on redevelopment of existing employment sites was a key theme for delivering new houses through the adopted Black Country Core Strategy. However, the intended strategy was not wholly successful as issues relating to the release of multi-ownership employment sites did not result in significant new residential development coming forward. Furthermore, retention of employment sites in employment use proved commercially as viable, if not more viable, than developing for residential use. The outcome being that a number of employment sites that had been earmarked for residential development remained, and continue to remain, in employment use. It is questionable whether the same reliance on existing employment sites to deliver new residential development in the current Plan would have resulted in a different outcome. As such, the application of only a 15% non-implementation allowance seems on the low side and that a much higher non-implementation allowance should be applied. Due to the uncertainties associated with this source of supply coming forward and making any meaningful contribution to the supply of housing there is an argument to say it should be removed completely from the potential supply of new homes. A windfall allowance of 179 dwellings per year has also been allowed for. Whilst the Framework confirms that where an allowance is made for windfall sites as part of the anticipated supply there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. The windfall allowance that has been allowed for equates to nearly 25% of the total housing requirement which is a significant proportion of the overall supply that is expected to come forward on non-allocated sites. It is also noted that the windfall allowance is on top of the supply that is also identified on occupied employment land sites and other sites within town centres and the regeneration corridors.
In respect of occupied employment land sites such as those identified in Brierley Hill there is again a question mark over whether these will come forward and specifically when they will come forward for development. Whilst Table 8.1 indicates that these would not start contributing to the supply until 2028 there is no certainty that this source of supply will contribute to the overall supply of housing.
Table 8.1 also includes a centre uplift allowance which accounts for a number of sites increasing the density of development that that site is capable of accommodating. Whilst in theory this may be possible there is a question mark over whether this would actually deliver as intended. Due to the uncertainty that this will occur and the limited contribution it makes to the overall supply this element of the supply should also be removed.
A further source of supply is from a redevelopment of offices in Brierley Hill waterfront. This has been included on the basis that office demand has decreased following the Covid pandemic and that the office capacity would be available for redevelopment for housing through the plan period. There is a degree of uncertainty over whether this would happen or not and as such it cannot be guaranteed that the element of supply would be deliverable. If it did take place this would be considered a windfall and doesn’t need to be identified a separate source of housing in the supply.
Totalling up all the sources of supply in Table 8.1 equals 10,876 homes. This is the same number as the proposed housing requirement set out in the Plan. The Plan does not propose to over-allocate against the housing requirement in case for whatever reason certain sources of the supply do not come forward as expected. As it stands, all sources of the supply would have to come forward to meet the housing requirement. This risks the housing requirement not being met in full if sites do not come forward as anticipated. Clearly, if the Council were to over-allocate against the housing requirement this would identify additional sites for housing that could meet the Standard Method housing requirement that the Council are currently stating that they cannot meet in full. As it stands Barberry are concerned that the sources of supply that have been identified would not be sufficient to meet the housing requirement as proposed and that due to various reasons relating to non-implementation or delivery of certain sites/sources of supply there would be a shortfall in supply against the housing requirement. In order to address this, additional land will be made available to protect against any non-implementation that may occur.

Comment

Representation ID: 323

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are concerned by the assumption that the substantial unmet need will somehow be mopped up by other authorities in the GBBCHMA or FEMA areas. The reality will be that over a thousand homes will need to be added to South Staffordshire and/or Bromsgrove’s total housing requirement. Bromsgrove DC have paused their plan indefinitely, pending a review of whether all of their infrastructure needs can be somehow met in the next iteration of their Local Plan. South Staffordshire have also had a long pause in plan preparation with their latest consultation planned for 2024, but with no clear steer on whether the c.4K unmet need they were originally proposing to take (from Birmingham and the Black Country, but unhelpfully not disaggregated) will remain within it.

Neighbouring South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove may look at the strategy being employed by Dudley and refuse to release Green Belt to accommodate another authority’s need if they are being met with resistance to Green Belt releases in their own authority area, particularly in light of recent NPPF updates. We simply have no idea where the unmet need will be going.

Object

Representation ID: 332

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

As drafted the DLP raises some very serious concerns over its inability to meet Dudley’s minimum housing needs over the Plan period, and by some considerable margin. It simply does not fully grapple with the scale of unmet need it has identified. In doing so it fails to address in any tangible way how the homes needed in Dudley during the DLP period can ever be delivered and fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.
1.83 This fundamental concern is exacerbated where those sites that are relied upon in the draft DLP, as set out in its Table 8.1, are unlikely to deliver even the 10,876 net new homes it anticipates over the Plan period, such that the true extent of unmet need within Dudley is likely to be significantly greater than the already substantial 1,078 homes it acknowledges.
1.84 It is exacerbated further still where Dudley’s neighbouring authorities lack suitable growth locations to meet their own needs, or Dudley’s unmet needs, and are in any event constrained heavily by their own Green Belts, such that they would need to release sites within their own Green Belts to meet Dudley’s unmet needs.
1.85 There is also a distinct lack of flexibility to deliver the 10,876 homes identified in Table 8.1 of the draft DLP. This also necessitates identifying additional housing sites to provide flexibility in Dudley’s housing supply over the DLP period.
1.86 With this in mind, it is important to consider that a Green Belt review is a “once in a generation” occurrence and Green Belt boundaries should endure well beyond the Plan period. Despite this, and the inability of the heavily brownfield-centric strategy to meet Dudley’s minimum housing needs being a recurrent strategic planning issue, which requires significant bold intervention, Green Belt release sites are not being considered at all through the draft DLP.
1.87 With brownfield opportunities becoming exhausted, and in any event failing to deliver, the DLP must identify Green Belt release sites to help meet its minimum housing needs during its planned period, and beyond, and to avoid the need for another Green Belt review in the near future.
1.88 The concerns raised above in reference specifically to Policy DLP10 are far reaching and point to a fundamental failing of the draft Plan to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.
1.89 In terms of a remedy for these shortcomings, at a basic level, Policy DLP10 requires amendment to identify significantly more deliverable and developable housing sites and to achieve that Green Belt release sites must be identified.
1.90 However, and crucially, the draft Plan fails to address in any tangible way how the minimum number of homes needed in Dudley during the DLP period can ever be delivered, and this exacerbates the very serious shortcomings within Dudley and the Black Country generally. This is a recurring strategic planning issue and requires significant bold intervention including a step-change in approach to avoid the new homes that are needed in Dudley being unprovided over the DLP period.
1.91 This is a fundamental point. The DLP must do everything possible to meet as much of its minimum requirement as possible within Dudley. It must also demonstrate convincingly how it will ensure any remaining requirement will be taken up. As drafted, it fails resoundingly on both counts.

Object

Representation ID: 343

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Wood Abbey

Agent: NCL Development

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

Comment

Representation ID: 353

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP10 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
3.1.
Consistent with the figures identified in draft Policy DLP1, this policy confirms that the Council is planning to deliver at least 10,876 new homes in the plan period 2023-2041. Table 8.1 in the supporting text confirms the sources of supply, which includes current supply of sites under construction, as well as sites with planning permission; as well as housing allocations; windfall allowances; and ‘additional capacity’. A small allowance for losses is also identified, to account for estimated housing demolitions across the plan period. The supporting text also acknowledges that the Plan is only aiming to meet 90.98% of local housing need, identifying that 96.4% of housing is expected to be delivered on brownfield land.
3.2.
As noted in Section 2 of these representations, it is considered that the Council’s approach to housing is fundamentally flawed. The Council should be planning to meet the Borough’s objectively assessed needs as a minimum, with national policy in Paragraph 35 of the Framework advising that this is necessary in order to ensure that a Plan is sound. In particular, draft Policy DLP10 indicates that the majority of the Borough’s housing need will be met through sites with existing planning permission and site allocations whilst draft Policy DLP10 also establishes that the development of sites for housing will be required to demonstrate a comprehensive approach, making the best use of land and not prejudicing neighbouring uses. It is however considered that the Council’s approach to proposed site allocation DLP H017 on land off Thorns Road fundamentally conflicts with draft Policy DLP10.
3.3.
As identified within Sections 1 and 2 of these representations, the Local Plan review proposes to reduce the extent of land allocated for development off Thorns Road, omitting the existing car park and Sunrise Medical industrial building from proposed allocation DLP H017. This represents a conflict with the extent of land currently allocated under site reference H13.17 of the adopted Local Plan, but will also fail to secure a comprehensive redevelopment of the site. This approach is contrary to the existing approach to the release of employment land, whereby Policy DEL2 of the Black Country Core Strategy seeks to ensure a comprehensive approach to development, to ensure that best available use of land is made and not prejudicing existing and neighbouring uses. This is the approach that has been taken by Harworth Group, which is seeking to bring forward the redevelopment of the site on a phased basis, starting with the initial land promoted under planning application P22/1363 that is currently being considered by the Council. It is the intention that over time, the entirety of the site will be brought forward for redevelopment, removing the potential for conflict between residential and commercial uses in the future and delivering a sustainable residential development on the site.
3.4.
The extent of land proposed to be allocated under DLP H017 would leave the existing industrial operations at Sunrise Medical as established and enclosed by new residential development at three elevations. The proposed omission of the Sunrise Medical industrial unit from the proposed allocated site extent is not justified and has the potential to conflict with the new residential community sought to be established by the Council in this location. It will also prejudice the potential for future residential development to be pursued on the Sunrise Medical site, when that site is no longer required to accommodate employment uses and is available for redevelopment, as this would represent a direct policy conflict, despite the Council previously acknowledging the site as a whole as suitable for redevelopment.

Object

Representation ID: 380

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 10 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
We have set out above our comments in respect of the proposed housing requirements and the Council’s strategy for meeting the housing need within its own administrative area. Notwithstanding this approach there is still a shortfall of 1,078 that are required but which sufficient land is yet to be identified to accommodate.
Putting the shortfall aside we have a number of concerns about the sources of housing land supply that the Council sets out in Table 8.1 of the Plan.
In respect of sites with planning permission or prior approval it is not clear whether an implementation allowance has been applied to this source of supply. Typically, a 10% of implementation allowance would be applied to such sites.
Table 7 of the SHLAA also identifies potential supply from occupied employment sites albeit that a 15% non-implementation allowance has been applied to this source. It is noted that reliance on redevelopment of existing employment sites was a key theme for delivering new houses through the adopted Black Country Core Strategy. However, the intended strategy was not wholly successful as issues relating to the release of multi-ownership employment sites did not result in significant new residential development coming forward. Furthermore, retention of employment sites in employment use proved commercially as viable, if not more viable, than developing for residential use. The outcome being that a number of employment sites that had been earmarked for residential development remained, and continue to remain, in employment use. It is questionable whether the same reliance on existing employment sites to deliver new residential development in the current Plan would have resulted in a different outcome. As such, the application of only a 15% non-implementation allowance seems on the low side and that a much higher non-implementation allowance should be applied. Due to the uncertainties associated with this source of supply coming forward and making any meaningful contribution to the supply of housing there is an argument to say it should be removed completely from the potential supply of new homes.
A windfall allowance of 179 dwellings per year has also been allowed for. Whilst the Framework confirms that where an allowance is made for windfall sites as part of the anticipated supply there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. The windfall allowance that has been allowed for equates to nearly 25% of the total housing requirement which is a significant proportion of the overall supply that is expected to come forward on non-allocated sites. It is also noted that the windfall allowance is on top of the supply that is also identified on occupied employment land sites and other sites within town centres and the regeneration corridors.
In respect of occupied employment land sites such as those identified in Brierley Hill there is again a question mark over whether these will come forward and specifically when they will come forward for development. Whilst Table 8.1 indicates that these would not start contributing to the supply until 2028 there is no certainty that this source of supply will contribute to the overall supply of housing.
Table 8.1 also includes a centre uplift allowance which accounts for a number of sites increasing the density of development that that site is capable of accommodating. Whilst in theory this may be possible there is a question mark over whether this would actually deliver as intended. Due to the uncertainty that this will occur and the limited contribution it makes to the overall supply this element of the supply should also be removed.
A further source of supply is from a redevelopment of offices in Brierley Hill waterfront. This has been included on the basis that office demand has decreased following the Covid pandemic and that the office capacity would be available for redevelopment for housing through the plan period. There is a degree of uncertainty over whether this would happen or not and as such it cannot be guaranteed that the element of supply would be deliverable. If it did take place this would be considered a windfall and doesn’t need to be identified a separate source of housing in the supply.
Totalling up all the sources of supply in Table 8.1 equals 10,876 homes. This is the same number as the proposed housing requirement set out in the Plan. The Plan does not propose to over-allocate against the housing requirement in case for whatever reason certain sources of the supply do not come forward as expected. As it stands, all sources of the supply would have to come forward to meet the housing requirement. This risks the housing requirement not being met in full if sites do not come forward as anticipated. Clearly, if the Council were to over-allocate against the housing requirement this would identify additional sites for housing that could meet the Standard Method housing requirement that the Council are currently stating that they cannot meet in full. As it stands WL are concerned that the sources of supply that have been identified would not be sufficient to meet the housing requirement as proposed and that due to various reasons relating to non-implementation or delivery of certain sites/sources of supply there would be a shortfall in supply against the housing requirement. In order to address this, additional land will be made available to protect against any non-implementation that may occur.

Comment

Representation ID: 399

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF request that the standard method LHN should be the minimum starting point for establishing the housing requirement and the Council should then fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing. HBF suggests that these considerations should result in a higher housing requirement for Dudley which set be set out in the Local Plan. Only then should consideration around deliverability and housing land supply come into play, the housing requirement should be established first. HBF conclude that insufficient sites are being allocated to meet the housing needs of Dudley and allocation of further sites, including greenfield and Green Belt sites are needed. For the plan to be effective and justified, a clear explanation of this approach and the reasoning behind for it is needed. As HBF is of the view that the overall housing requirement for Dudley should be higher, it follows that our view is that the numbers in each phase should be higher too. HBF note that para 8.6 states “Together, these discounts provide sufficient flexibility in the housing land supply to meet any unforeseen circumstances”. HBF would strongly disagree. The discounts applied reflect the reality of development and as such the discounted houses are not expected to be brought forward. As such this does not provide any flexibility in relation to housing numbers, flexibility and a range and choice in sites can only be
provided through additional allocations (or windfalls), not discounting of sites that will not forward in practice.
HBF are very also concerned that the Council is expecting to deliver 97% of their new housing on brownfield land, and question how realistic this is. HBF remain unclear about the rationale behind, and plans that will create, a loss of current housing of 360 over the Plan period. The text is relation to this policy appears silent on this issue.HBF also suggests further thought should be given to the interaction between employment sites and housing suggesting there is a need for housing and employment to be considered together, and implications of not meeting with the housing and employment need of the borough present the exceptional circumstances required to justify Green Belt release.HBF notes that NPPF (para 72, Dec 2023) only permits an allowance for windfall sites if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available and will continue to be a reliable source of supply. HBF are also of the view that any buffer provided
by windfall sites should be in addition to the buffer added to the housing need figures derived from the Standard Method to provide choice and competition in the land market. However, by including windfalls within the Plan’s housing requirement supply, any opportunity for windfalls to provide some additional housing numbers and flexibility is removed. Windfalls do not provide the same choice and flexibility in the market as additional allocations. It should also be possible to see from Housing Trajectory how much reliance is being made on windfalls, and from when. To be both justified and effective the Housing Trajectory should include break down the housing numbers into different sources of supply. It should also be possible to see when the demolitions are expected and if and how they relate to regeneration projects.In relation to windfall, HBF are concerned about the Councils reliance on windfall in place of allocating housing sites. The Plan currently includes 2685 homes on windfall sites, with 358 in the first phase from 2023-2028. HBF are of the view that any allowance for windfall should not be included until the fourth year of a housing trajectory, given the likelihood that dwellings being completed within the next three years will already be known about (as they are likely to need to have already received planning permission to be completed within that timeframe).

Comment

Representation ID: 407

Received: 18/01/2024

Respondent: Cllr Adam Davies

Evidence shows that Brierley Hill has a disproportionately high number of one and two bedroom flats when compared to other areas of the Dudley borough. This starkly contrasts with the immediately surrounding areas such as Kingswinford, Wordsley and Stourbridge.

We strongly believe that the housing need in Brierley Hill is for more family homes (typically three and four bedrooms) not more flats (typically one/two bedroom).
The document proposes to build almost a thousand more flats within the Brierley Hill area over the next 20 years.
We see that this type of housing results in a higher level of transient population, who tend to only reside in the area for a shorter period of time.

Whereas a more settled community, with families laying down roots and investing their children's future in the area, builds a stronger, healthier and more economically resilient community.

We would therefore like to see the plan include an increase in the number of houses with three and four bedrooms, which will allow growing families to remain in the area of Brierley Hill, continuing to positively contribute to the economic and social outcomes of the area.
We feel this needs to be considered as a priority when planning the future allocation of housing, so this imbalance can be improved.

Comment

Representation ID: 469

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Policy DLP10 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
2.4.Given that 96.4% of the proposed allocations are on brownfield land and just 3.6% of the supply on greenfield, we would question whether these developments will be able to deliver the infrastructure requirements stipulated elsewhere given the likely viability constraints impacting these sites. Whilst we support the ‘brownfield first’ approach, we consider that where possible, those allocations should be made larger to improve their viability.

2.5. We also note that there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial number of sites within Dudley Borough that have not come forward because of persistent viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post-remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.

Object

Representation ID: 480

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Worcestershire

West Midlands CPRE objects to this Policy in line with our objection to Policy DLP 1. We consider there is additional housing supply as set out in the attach report which we commissioned. This would include, in particular a higher level of windfalls in Table 8.1 and create a supply of at least 11,895.

Object

Representation ID: 496

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

2.21 As stated previously, the minimum amount of new homes to be delivered under the plan period is short by circa 1,000 homes, so policy DLP10 confirms the plan can accommodate 90.98% of the Borough’s current housing need.
2.22 The DLP Viability Assessment (November 2023) provides an appraisal of priority sites as identified by the Borough in the DLP Part Two to determine their viability and contribution towards housing needs of the plan. These are:
• Ketley Quarry (Policy DLPKQH)– 650 dwellings
• Land at Waterfront Way (Policy DLPBHPS1) – 600 dwellings
• Daniel’s Land (Policy DLPBHPS2) – 300 dwellings
• Land at King Street / Flood Street (Policy DLPDPS1) – 120 dwellings
• Land at Trindle Road / Hall Street / Birdcage Walk (Policy DLPDPS2) – 280 dwellings

2.23
Out of the five sites, only Ketley Quarry is assessed as viable, with the other four deemed ‘marginal’. As noted in in page 109 in the DLP Viability Assessment, the appraisal incorporated generalised remediation costs which may not be fully representative of the costs required to remediate the Ketley Quarry Site.

2.24 The four other sites are in areas of ‘low value brownfield’ and require large infrastructure and site remediation costs to unlock the site, as well as overcoming other significant constraints. This is confirmed by paragraph 10.15 in the DLP Viability Assessment which states that for Dudley to achieve its housing need it is likely grant funding will be required to facilitate development - particularly on Brownfield sites with an industrial legacy to overcome and/or in a low value market area. NPPF paragraph 11 underscores the need for strategic policies to, at a minimum, address objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses. The DLP falls short of meeting its own needs, and if allocated sites, such as those listed above, fail to materialise, the housings shortfall would be even more significant.

2.25 Exceptional circumstances have been established given all brownfield development opportunities have been exhausted and yet the borough’s housing needs are still not proposed to be met in full. It is evident that the Council should thoroughly evaluate its Green Belt boundaries to accommodate its current development needs. The Borough should diversify its housing supply strategy by considering a carefully selected mix of brownfield, greenfield, and Green Belt sites for development such as Racecourse Lane and Worcester Lane.

2.26 This approach will enable the Borough to minimise its risk of further housing supply shortfalls and maximise its potential to meet its housing needs. This would align with NPPF paragraph 60, which emphasises the need for a sufficient and diverse range of land available for development to meet the Government's objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

Object

Representation ID: 537

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Need to identify and investigate the reasons why specific housing sites such as Daniels Land within the Brierley Hill AAP and Old Wharf Road within the Stourbridge AAP have both failed to consistently come forward over the last 10 years, despite being both allocated for new housing development in previous Dudley Borough Local Plan Reviews. What barriers are in place preventing new housing land delivery for this specific site locations? Both these sites already have planning consent from consents extending back a number of years for major new residential development. Both sites have failed to consistently come forward during successive Local Plan Reviews. As stated further above, Goldfinch Town Planning Services has concerns that the LPA is accommodating and taking forward undeliverable housing site allocations within the emerging Local Plan Review (2023/ 2024) which directly conflict with deliverability focused guidance reinforced in paragraphs 16 (indent b) and 35 (indent c) of the Revised NPPF (2023).

Object

Representation ID: 557

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP10 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

4.1.
Consistent with the figures identified in draft Policy DLP1, this policy confirms that the Council is planning to deliver at least 10,876 new homes in the plan period 2023-2041. Table 8.1 in the supporting text confirms the sources of supply, which includes current supply of sites under construction, as well as sites with planning permission; as well as housing allocations; windfall allowances; and ‘additional capacity’. A small allowance for losses is also identified, to account for estimated housing demolitions across the plan period. The supporting text also acknowledges that the Plan is only aiming to meet 90.98% of local housing need, identifying that 96.4% of housing is expected to be delivered on brownfield land. Whilst in principle this is to be supported if suitable viable and deliverable sites can be identified, it should be recognised that the reliance on brownfield land is likely to impact the level of affordable housing that is capable of being delivered within the Borough, as often brownfield sites will face greater challenges in respect of abnormal costs and viability. It can also impact the type of housing that is delivered, whereby greenfield sites can play an important role in securing a sustainable mix of housing that provides for all types of household needs and provides affordable forms of accommodation.

4.2. As noted in Section 2 of these representations, it is considered that the Council’s approach to the housing requirement is fundamentally flawed. The Council should be planning to meet the Borough’s objectively assessed needs as a minimum, with national policy in Paragraph 35 of the Framework advising that this is necessary in order to ensure that a Plan can be found sound. It is therefore considered that the Council should revisit the sources of supply, in particular the proposed allocations, in order to at least plan to meet the objectively assessed needs in full, and identify a buffer in addition to that. This should include sites that the Council has overlooked, such as Land at Corbetts Hospital, which are considered to be suitable and available to accommodate some residential development to help meet the emerging Plan’s housing requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 573

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP10 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
4.1.
Consistent with the figures identified in draft Policy DLP1, this policy confirms that the Council is planning to deliver at least 10,876 new homes in the plan period 2023-2041. Table 8.1 in the supporting text confirms the sources of supply, which includes current supply of sites under construction, as well as sites with planning permission; as well as housing allocations; windfall allowances; and ‘additional capacity’. A small allowance for losses is also identified, to account for estimated housing demolitions across the plan period. The supporting text also acknowledges that the Plan is only aiming to meet 90.98% of local housing need, identifying that 96.4% of housing is expected to be delivered on brownfield land. Whilst in principle this is to be supported if suitable viable and deliverable sites can be identified, it should be recognised that the reliance on brownfield land is likely to impact the level of affordable housing that is capable of being delivered within the Borough, as often brownfield sites will face greater challenges in respect of abnormal costs and viability. It can also impact the type of housing that is delivered, whereby greenfield sites can play an important role in securing a sustainable mix of housing that provides for all types of household needs and provides affordable forms of accommodation.
4.2.
As noted in Section 2 of these representations, it is considered that the Council’s approach to the housing requirement is fundamentally flawed. The Council should be planning to meet the Borough’s objectively assessed needs as a minimum, with national policy in Paragraph 35 of the Framework advising that this is necessary in order to ensure that a Plan can be found sound. It is therefore considered that the Council should revisit the sources of supply, in particular the proposed allocations, in order to at least plan to meet the objectively assessed needs in full, and identify a buffer in addition to that. This should include sites that the Council has overlooked, such as Land at Corbetts Hospital, which are considered to be suitable and available to accommodate some residential development to help meet the emerging Plan’s housing requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 584

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: South Staffordshire Council

Housing Provision
The standard method currently calculates a total future housing requirement figure of 11,954 dwellings across the plan period (2023-2041). Dudley currently anticipates being able to deliver 10,876 dwellings across the plan period, leaving a shortfall of 1,078 dwellings. It is the stated intention of DMBC to export this shortfall through Duty to Co-operate arrangements. Given that Dudley is situated within a Housing Market Area (HMA) geography primarily composed of net exporting metropolitan authorities and rural shire authorities comprising significant amounts of green belt it is unclear how readily this surplus requirement will be absorbed through duty to cooperate arrangements within the HMA. South Staffordshire considers that Dudley should seek to maximise delivery within its own administrative boundaries. As the plan making process proceeds forwards, continued efforts to increase capacity through site regeneration, housing renewal schemes, increased densification and the release of town centre sites should be ongoing with the aim of reducing the net requirement to be exported to other authorities.

Support

Representation ID: 619

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Brockmoor Properties Limited

Agent: Glen Dimplex Group

Policy DLP10 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth)

Brockmoor Properties Limited support the policy requiring 'at least' 10,876 net new homes over the plan period, with the majority to be delivered through existing permissions or allocations within the Plan. Whilst the Brockmoor CBRE 2Foundry sites' have draft housing allocations , we consider that the policy should also recognise the role of Regeneration Corridors and other urban areas as locations appropriate for housing development as set out in Policies DLP1 and DLP2.

Comment

Representation ID: 703

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

The inclusion of the canal network within relevant allocation maps helpfully enables developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly, ideally at pre-application stage. The Trust therefore requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct.

Object

Representation ID: 731

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Police Crime Commissioner for West Midlands (PCCWM)

Agent: Tyler Parkes

Moving onto Section 8 Housing, the PCCWM would like to suggest a strengthening of paragraph
8.2 through the following addition, ‘New housing will be of a well-designed high build quality,
meeting national space and water efficiency standards, achieving high levels of energy efficiency,
and adapting to climate change and integrating ‘Secured by Design’ and ‘Park Mark principles.’
[Suggested changes in bold and underlined). [Objection]

Comment

Representation ID: 797

Received: 30/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

DLP10/Table 8.1. At this time, we have not had the opportunity to comment on the specific site allocations included within the Plan. We will look at these in the new year and would then welcome a meeting with the Council to feedback our comments and discuss the heritage impact assessment of the proposed sites. For interest, I attach a link to Historic England Advice Note 3: Site Allocations in Local Plans which you may find useful. https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/

Object

Representation ID: 846

Received: 31/01/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

The DLP raises some very serious concerns over its inability to meet Dudley’s minimum housing needs over the Plan period, and by some considerable margin. It simply does not fully grapple with the scale of unmet need it has identified. In doing so it fails to address in any tangible way how the homes needed in Dudley during the DLP period can ever be delivered and fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.

This fundamental concern is exacerbated where those sites that are relied upon in the draft DLP, as set out in its Table 8.1, are unlikely to deliver even the 10,876 net new homes it anticipates over the Plan period, such that the true extent of unmet need within Dudley is likely to be significantly greater than the already substantial 1,078 homes it acknowledges.

It is exacerbated further still where Dudley’s neighbouring authorities lack suitable growth locations to meet their own needs, or Dudley’s unmet needs, and are in any event constrained heavily by their own Green Belts, such that they would need to release sites within their own Green Belts to meet Dudley’s unmet needs.

There is also a distinct lack of flexibility to deliver the 10,876 homes identified in Table 8.1 of the draft DLP. This also necessitates identifying additional housing sites to provide flexibility in Dudley’s housing supply over the DLP period.

With this in mind, it is important to consider that a Green Belt review is a “once in a generation” occurrence and Green Belt boundaries should endure well beyond the Plan period. Despite this, and the inability of the heavily brownfield centric strategy to meet Dudley’s minimum housing needs being a recurrent strategic planning issue, which requires significant bold intervention, Green Belt release sites are not being considered at all through the draft DLP.

With brownfield opportunities becoming exhausted, and in any event failing to deliver, the DLP must identify Green Belt release sites to help meet its minimum housing (and employment) needs during its planned period, and beyond, and to avoid the need for another Green Belt review in the near future.

The concerns raised above in reference specifically to Policy DLP10 are far reaching and point to a fundamental failing of the draft Plan to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework. In terms of a remedy for these shortcomings, at a basic level, Policy DLP10 requires amendment to identify significantly more deliverable and developable housing sites and to achieve that Green Belt release sites must be identified.

However, and crucially, the draft Plan fails to address in any tangible way how the minimum number of homes needed in Dudley during the DLP period can ever be delivered, and this exacerbates the very serious shortcomings within Dudley and the Black Country generally. This is a recurring strategic planning issue and requires significant bold intervention including a step change in approach to avoid the new homes that are needed in Dudley being unprovided over the DLP period.

This is a fundamental point. The DLP must do everything possible to meet as much of its minimum requirement as possible within Dudley. It must also demonstrate convincingly how it will ensure any remaining requirement will be taken up. As drafted, it fails resoundingly on both counts.