Object

Representation ID: 1111

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We suggest clarification in the nuance of climate and ecological change to meet the test of soundness, as ecological change can be positive (e.g., where poor quality habitat improves). It is also an opportunity to reiterate a focus on climate change resilience in the strategic priorities toward the aims of the Dudley Climate Action Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1112

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elaine and Patrick Hanley

Number of people: 2

"As my representation for Regulation 19 of the Dudley Local Plan Consultation we would
like to express our full support for the designations below for the Clockfields green space
and woodland:
1) Land at Clockfields SLINC
2) Tree Preservation Order TPO/0042/AMB
3) Recognition of central designated public open space as Amenity space
We would also like to request that the council reconsiders the decision for a possible Local
Green Space (LGS) designation at the site as submitted during the Regulation 18
consultation and fully support any additional protection measures and policies that could
further protect the site for the benefit of the local community and future generations such
as Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC).
We also request that the currently unmarked path from the end of Culverhouse Drive to
the canal be designated a formal Public Right of Way

Object

Representation ID: 1113

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Nature’s recovery at the heart of urban regeneration because this is key to good environments and healthy, prosperous, climate resilient communities. Having a strong level of green infrastructure network connected to wildlife corridors, in line with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, will contribute to meeting the duties and aims of the Revised NPPF (December 2023), the Environment Act 2021, and the adopted Black Country Core Strategy (2011) Policy CSP3 ‘Environmental Infrastructure’, Dudley Climate Change Action Plan, the Dudley Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2023-2028, 2023 Natural England Green Infrastructure Framework, and Nature Recovery Network for the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 1114

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Missed opportunities to specify the type of resilience, equitable access to nature, etc. Resilient natural environment and the benefits for people and climate resilience. Climate crisis mentioned, but then it’s not in the vision. In several places in the document “resilient” is mentioned, without a specification of the resilience to which this refers. Equitable access to green spaces and nature will help Dudley Council toward its ambitions of both the Dudley Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2023-2028, Dudley Climate Action Plan, and Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Establishing a Nature Recovery Network will help to address biodiversity loss, climate change, and wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 1115

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

In accordance with the NPPF and Guidance, all public authorities have a duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity and must “have regard” to relevant local nature recovery strategies in the process. Protecting and enhancing the natural environment through sustainable development, integrating green and blue infrastructure, protecting and enhancing nature, in line with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy Priorities, will aid Dudley Council in achieving the aims of the Dudley Climate Change Action Plan, the Dudley Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2023-2028, the 2023 Natural England Green Infrastructure Framework, and Nature Recovery Network for the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan (2018).

Object

Representation ID: 1116

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Nature’s recovery at the heart of urban regeneration because this is key to good environments and healthy, prosperous, climate resilient communities. Access to green spaces and nature will help Dudley Council toward its ambitions for both the Dudley Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2023-2028 and the Dudley Climate Action Plan. It is important that this access be equitable for all. This will contribute to achieving the Dudley Borough Economic Regeneration Strategy 2024 as well.

Comment

Representation ID: 1136

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

For Dudley, proposed NPPFs will mean a significant increase in the calculation of local housing need (LHN) where under the current standard method (described as not fit for purpose), local housing need amounts to 657 dwelling per annum and the new local housing need calculation would see a 143% increase to 1594 dwellings per annum. The introduction of the new standard method is undoubtedly a clear intention of the WMS.

Whilst transitional arrangements apply to Plans which have reached Regulation 19 stage which mean for Dudley (where its requirement is over 200 dpa below the new LHN), they can proceed to Examination within 18 months but need to address the shortfall in provision to the LHN at the earliest opportunity (para 227). Where the shortfall to the new LHN in Dudley is 937 dwellings more than the current LHN or some 143% greater, the increase is so significant as it is a complete waste of resource and efforts to progress a plan in these circumstances. Addressing the shortfall to the new LHN (937 dpa) amounts to an annual requirement more than the current housing requirement itself (657 dpa) and will mean housing needs and the economic benefits of the full housing need will be significantly delayed. The implications here go cross boundary where Dudley is part of a wider housing market area and a number of those plans will be progressing under the new calculation of LHN and wider unmet needs are fully expected to be a factor in accommodating growth.

The Regulation 19 plan makes no mention of this, although the HMA clearly does and recognises the significant implications of the change to the calculation of LHN. Progressing the Local Plan in the current circumstances is not appropriate.

Time and resource would be better spent in pursuing a new Local Plan in line with the new calculation of LHN in order to avoid the need for an immediate review of the plan to address a significant shortfall in need, and to deliver on housing needs and economic growth sooner. The draft Plan should be reviewed again, with a further Regulation 19 stage consultation to address the expected imminent increase in LHN for the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 1137

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

At this stage no Statements of Common Ground have been agreed notwithstanding that discussions have been ongoing for some considerable period of time with neighbouring authorities. Whilst some potential contributions to the Black Country and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBC HMA) have been offered through some Local Plans, even the plan acknowledges that these are still to be adopted and the offers may change. Moreover, these contributions made to the Black Country Authorities, Greater Birmingham/Black Country HMA or Black Country FEMA still need to be apportioned to each authority and may not be attributable to Dudley. In the case of one of the largest contributions from Shropshire Council, the Inspectors for that Examination have already highlighted that the Plan is likely to be found unsound and other contributions are subject to each local authority testing this through their local plan review and/or local plan examinations.

The absence of progress on the DtC and a full understanding of wider needs within neighbouring Authorities is unsound. This is particularly important in the context of the development strategy for the Dudley Plan which has not exhausted all opportunities for meeting their own needs, nor understood the opportunities for accommodating needs from elsewhere. It should not be for Dudley to export its unmet needs or expect other authorities to review their Green Belt boundaries when they have not explored all their opportunities to accommodate full needs including themselves reviewing opportunities within the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 1153

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Gavin Sloan

Please can I make a representation to Regulation 19 of the local plan to request the Local Green
Space designation for the Clockfields open space be reconsidered for greater protection and or an
upgrade to SINC designation on the current Land at Clockfields SLINC

Comment

Representation ID: 1154

Received: 03/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Stuart Wyre

I would like to submit my representation to Regulation 19 of the local plan to ask that the Clockfields
green space and woodland be given further protection by reconsidering Local Green Space or SINC
designation please.

Object

Representation ID: 1160

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Lovett

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The report to full Council on 2 December demonstrates that the Council are seeking to fast-track this Plan through to examination and adoption in order to avoid the increase to local housing need, once the changes to the standard method are implemented (assuming this is done as the consultation version of the Framework suggested). What the report to Council does not consider, is how the responses to the statutory consultation will be considered and responded to. It is very clear that regardless of the content of those representations, that Council is seeking permission to roll on to the submission of the Plan as soon as it can. This is clearly not what consultation is intended for, and it is disappointing that the Council does not care what local residents, or businesses, think about the proposed approach.

The Council has plainly failed to reach agreement with neighbouring authorities regarding unmet housing needs, and yet is relying on neighbouring authorities to assist in meeting its housing shortfall. Planning guidance makes it clear that the Duty to Cooperate cannot be resolved retrospectively at examination, and there are numerous examples of plans that have failed at examination because of this. The Council should consider whether it is appropriate to waste taxpayers money on pursuing a Plan through examination, that plainly does not meet the requirements for plan-making based on national policy and legislation.

Finally, it is questioned why the Plan is SO LONG. Why are there so many policies? Why are the policies themselves so long? National policy sets out in Paragraph 16 of the Framework what Plans should do, and the Council should consider whether the Plan, in all its 700 pages, is meeting these requirements. It may be more appropriate to pursue some of these aspirations through SPDs or SPGs. The Plan as currently drafted is not accessible, it is not clearly written and unambiguous, and frankly it is not clear how it should be used to shape development in many cases.

Object

Representation ID: 1162

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Lovett

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Council should recognise the changing context of plan-making at a national level, in particular the
proposed changes to the standard method. Whilst this Plan could benefit from the transitional arrangements
and not plan for that higher level of housing need, the Council should consider whether this is really
appropriate and the best use of local resources. As the standard method will likely increase housing needs
substantially in the District, the Council will inevitably come under pressure to do an early or immediate
review once this Plan has been adopted in any case.
The proposed plan period is also considered to be inadequate, and has been based on the assumption
that the Plan will be adopted in 2026. Whilst this could be achievable, this is dependent on a quick
examination process, the timescales of which are not within the Council's control. It is considered that a
buffer of at least a further year or two should be added to the plan period to avoid this becoming an issue
once the Plan has been submitted for examination, with the additional housing and employment land required
for those extra year(s) also added prior to the submission of the Plan. This is critical in order that the Plan
appropriately plans for at least 15 years post-adoption, as required by the Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 1172

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

DUDLEY LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 22 PROCEDURE

St Modwen Homes notes page 3 of the Part One Local Plan document sets out next steps for the draft Local Plan. RPS question the Council's ability to consider the representations received on the final draft Plan. The consultation of the Publication Plan (Regulation 19) is ongoing until the 29th November 2024. Despite this, a Full Council meeting (2nd December 2024) is seeking Member approval to submit the Regulation 19 Plan and its supporting documentation to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public. On the assumption this is approved, this allows the Council and Officers 1 working day to reflect on and have regard to all of the consultation responses submitted. No matter how fast the Council wish to press ahead with Submission of the Plan, the revised NPPF and the transitional arrangements within are clear and cannot be avoided.

Object

Representation ID: 1173

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

Housing spatial growth options
As stated in the response from to DLP1, St Modwen Homes objects to the development strategy on the basis that it fails to seek to provide a sufficient quantum of housing in the plan period, especially in the context of the draft NPPF 2024 which sets out a clear signal of intent for Local Plans already at Regulation 19 stage. The approach by the Council will leave a significant shortfall of between c.13,000 to c.20,000 dwellings.

The DLP approach through DLP1 is flawed. The Sustainability Appraisal fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).

There is seemingly no rationale for the three housing options appraised, other than that they “have been identified through consultation and close working with stakeholders, considering the most recent stakeholder comments received in response to the Regulation 18 DLP consultation and the use of the Council’s supporting evidence base document ‘Options to the Preferred Strategy’.” (para 5.2.2) Notwithstanding this, the DLP’s approach is flawed.

Firstly, the preferred option, option 3, is effectively a duplication of Option 2, especially if the potential (and unconfirmed) contributions to Dudley (table 4.2 of the Duty to Co-operate Statement, October 2024) do not ultimately get agreed or confirmed. The result would be greater shortfall in housing supply. Option 3 is somewhat disingenuous as it refers to meeting its housing requirement whilst proposing a element to be exported out of the Borough. Also in this respect, the PPG1 confirms that the reasonable alternatives are to be identified “taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme”. Consequently, it is not within the remit or scope of the SA to appraise the sustainability credentials of exporting housing growth outside of the administrative area of the Dudley Borough. Indeed the SA confirms: “The high- level assessment of housing growth is limited, as the options relate to broad distribution of housing within the borough and a proportion to be exported through DtC, resulting in uncertain impacts being identified for some SA Objectives”. Which the Council are obviously used to given the previous working together of the Black Country Authorities under the preparation of the Black Country Plan.
This option should therefore be removed, and the SA be amended to clarity that the growth options presented by the Council are therefore Option(s) one or two.

By omitting a growth option that aligns more closely with the likely growth required under the draft NPPF 2024, for example an option with a range of between 23,698 (1,394 dwellings per annum x 17 years) and 27,098 (1,594 dwellings per annum x 17 years). The DLP has artificially omitted a reasonable and realistic alternative which is highly likely to become the position required to be undertaken once confirmed in the next couple of months. This approach would be more positive and less negative in sustainability impacts, whilst still meeting the objectives of the DLP.

Consequently, the SA as currently prepared is unsound as the DLP has failed to identify and test the sustainability implications of a growth option within a range of between 11,169 and 27,098 dwellings as a reasonable alternative.

DUTY TO COOPERATE
In the absence of any signed statements of common ground, RPS disagrees that the DLP is fulfilling the Duty requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 1174

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

GREEN BELT STUDY


Whilst the Stage 2 Harm Assessment has considered the sub-parcel at a smaller scale, which is more broadly
aligned to the promoted site ID 379, the assessment of harm of ‘Very High’ has effectively been derived from
an average of the scorings identified at Stage 1, therefore ultimately being skewed by the Stage 1 findings.

This is a fundamental flaw in the methodology of the Green Belt Study which results in a failure to account for
a more localised assessment of how sub-parcels and promoted sites perform against the Green Belt purposes.
As a result of this shortcoming, the land of Uffmoor which abuts a clear edge of woodland forming a strong
defensible boundary, would have otherwise been selected for Green Belt removal, has artificially been omitted.
Further issue is held with the lack of an update to the Green Belt Study as a whole. Indeed, due to Green Belt
study being out of date it fails to reflect upon newly consented development within the Green Belt south of
Manor Way. Two applications to note particularly include two battery energy storage system developments
(Ref. P23/0940 and 3341383), which fundamentally change the characteristics of the Green Belt in these
locations and the surrounding area. Furthermore it was found that very special circumstances exist which
justify development in the Green Belt. In the appeal case, the Inspector assessed the site’s contribution to
checking urban sprawl. Repeating the same exercise for Uffmoor, it is clear that the effect is also limited, as
the conurbation of Birmingham on the east of the M5 is not immediately apparent from the site, or indeed from
other viewpoints to Halesowen given the trees along Manor Way. Similarly due to its distance from Halesowen
and lack of adjacency to Birmingham, Uffmoor makes little contribution to preventing the merging of that town
with any other town.
The Green Belt Study methodology should be reviewed and amended to address these issues, and the land
at Uffmoor should be proposed for removal from the Green Belt and allocated for housing accordingly.

see attachement for full assessment

Comment

Representation ID: 1186

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Wall Heath & Kingswinford Green Belt Group

none

Object

Representation ID: 1192

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Land South of Racecourse Lane

1.Land located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge should be removed from the Green Belt boundary within the Local Plan Review, and should be allocated as a major new sustainable urban extension to deliver major new housing development for the various reasons highlighted below. This is a key issue and forms the main focus of Goldfinch Town Planning Services Local Plan Representation (November 2024).

2. Goldfinch Town Planning Services continues to have significant planning policy concerns that Dudley Council’s Planning Policy Team is accommodating and taking forward completely undeliverable and unrealistic housing site allocations within the emerging Local Plan Review (2024/ 2025), 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 set out in paragraph 35 (indent c) of the Revised NPPF (2023) are perfectly 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…”
3. Land located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge should be fully removed from the Green Belt boundary within the Local Plan Review (2024/
2025) and should be allocated as a major new sustainable urban extension to deliver thousands of new homes to help relieve pressures and protect the environmental quality of the Dudley Borough’s inner urban area. Developing this site for major new housing development would help to boost the supply of new housing in a highly sustainable and deliverable site location - consistent with guidance reinforced within paragraph 60 of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).
Robust, defendable and up-to-date photographic evidence contained in this Local Plan (October 2024) Representation to the council’s Regulation 19 consultation report, and our earlier representations made to the council’s Regulation 18 consultation report, demonstrates that the Green Belt farmland located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge is of a very low quality from a Green Belt landscape perspective, climate change resilience and mitigation perspective (e.g. given its intensively farmed character and severe shortage of existing tree cover) and biodiversity perspective, and has no significant or special historic environment landscape value. It forms an area of sterile intensively farmed countryside, where many features have since been removed from the farmland rural landscape over the last 70 years, due to intensive farming practices. Including miles of previous extensive hedgerow networks crossing pasture farmland, mature veteran and ancient trees from



hedgerow networks, removal of woodland copses, lowland heathland, wetlands, etc. This area has no special landscape merit. It should therefore be fully removed from the Green Belt boundary and developed for a major new housing-led sustainable urban extension south of Stourbridge.

5. This site meets a range of sustainability criteria for major new housing development, given its immediate proximity to already long-established major residential communities located within the Norton area (on its northern boundary), its excellent access to good quality public transport connections, and its close proximity to a main town centre location - Stourbridge Town Centre. Importantly, releasing this area from the Green Belt boundary within the Local Plan Review and developing this area for major new housing development would also help to relieve significant urban cramming pressures and poor-quality environmental conditions currently affecting the environmental quality of the heavily constrained and congested Dudley Borough inner urban area. As well as helping to significantly improve the resilience of the inner urban area to cope with future climate change pressures as discussed further below.
6. Given that the Green Belt farmland located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge has no special rural landscape merit or historic environment landscape value, it does not therefore meet and robustly satisfy the Green Belt purpose as set out under paragraph 143 (indent d) of the Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (December 2023). Continuing to defend this site on Green Belt landscape planning policy grounds is not a robust or defendable planning policy position to take within the emerging Local Plan Review going forwards.
7. Paragraph 143 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF states that: “…Green Belt serves five purposes: (indent d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns…”
8. In preparing the council’s emerging Local Plan Review, the council’s planning policy team has failed to shape into its plan-making approach the significant shift in central government (London) policy which now provides increasing levels of planning policy weight and support for developing lower quality areas of Green Belt for major new housing development. The Plan-making approach being taken forwards by the council’s planning policy team within the Regulation
19 Local Plan consultation report (October 2024) therefore strongly conflicts with soundness tests set out under paragraph 35 (indents a and b) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023) which confirm 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 a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, see ks to me e t th e a rea ’s o b ject ively assessed needs… (indent b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence…”
9. The position is clear, the council’s emerging Local Plan Review is not positively prepared and is not based on the most proportionate evidence – given its substantial planning policy failure to reflect the very recent planning policy shift towards utilising lower quality parts of the Green Belt countryside for major new housing development, introduced by the recently elected new Labour



government (London). The emerging Local Plan Review is failing to reflect the very latest central government (London) housing and Green Belt policy. The emerging Local Plan Review (2024) is not based therefore based on proportionate evidence and therefore conflicts with planning policy tests specified under paragraph 35 (indent b) and 31 of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).
10. The plan-making approach also conflicts with guidance set out under paragraph
31 of the Revised NPPF (December 2023) which confirms that: “…The preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence…” The plan-making approach is not up-to-date given its substantial failure to reflect very recent changes towards Green Belt policy as discussed above.

. Need: There is a NEED for this development proposal (to deliver a major new build housing-led urban extension on land located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge) given the severe and chronic housing shortage currently affecting the Dudley Metropolitan Borough. For a number of year’s the borough has suffered from long-standing housing shortfalls and significant delivery problems associated with bringing forward major urban brownfield land within the inner urban area for major new housing development. Due to significant site constraints, difficult ground conditions, flood risk pressures, contaminated land, mine shafts, totally excessive and completely unrealistic historic environment expectations, onerous affordable housing and CIL planning policy requirements, and significant vehicular access problems. The land located at Old Wharf Road on the northern edge of Stourbridge Town Centre and Daniels Land located opposite the Copthorne Hotel in Brierley Hill Strategic Centre provide robust and defendable evidence and are both good examples of the site constraints affecting existing major housing site allocations (identified in previous Local Plan Reviews) within the inner urban area. Which have been allocated for housing for a number of years and already have planning consent for a number of years. But which have both consistently failed to come forward over the last 23 years.

Goldfinch Town Planning Services would suggest that the emerging Local Plan Review could be significantly strengthened and improved from a nature conservation new habitat creation planning policy perspective, by emphasising the important role that new high quality housing development schemes can play in helping to promote and deliver new on-site nature conservation habitat features, integral for helping to support the delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) across the Dudley Metropolitan Borough.
54. Up-to-date photographic evidence within this Local Plan Representation provides robust and defendable evidence to demonstrate that extensive areas of Green Belt farmland located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge has particularly suffered from significant environmental damage as a result of
70 years of successive intensive farming practices. Which have all resulted in the removal of miles of hedgerow networks, removal of woodland copses and blanket tree removal across vast areas of southern Green Belt countryside, loss of wetland habitat features, mature veteran and ancient trees, wildflower meadows, etc. This has all created a vast, open, sterile, prairie style “severely ecologically damaged and heavily eroded rural landscape,” which now has no significant biodiversity interest.
55. There is therefore an significant opportunity to replace some of the threatened wildlife habitat features that have already been lost from this area of countryside, within a future new-build residential site layout coming forward as part of a future major housing-led sustainable urban extension, to help deliver net gains for biodiversity, consistent with the planning policy approach strongly encouraged in paragraphs 8 (indent c), 124 (indent a), 180 (indent d), 185 (indent b), and paragraph 186 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (December
2023).
56. Guidance in paragraph 186 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023) is perfectly clear in its view that development proposals whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be strongly supported by Local Planning Authorities.
57. This biodiversity enhancement approach discussed above is also strongly supported and encouraged by guidance from the Birmingham and Black Country Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), which, alongside the Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust, are both highly supportive of new build housing development proposals which include measures which actively seek to support the recovery of vulnerable and highly fragile populations of Priority Wildlife Species, and the recovery of priority wildlife habitat features across the wider Birmingham and Black Country sub-region. These measures are also likely to be supported by ecologists working within Dudley Council’s own Countryside Services Team and by ecologists working within the Council’s Planning Policy and Development Management Teams.
58. Dudley Council’s Planning Policy Team cannot continue to ignore planning
policy guidance set out within paragraph 186 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF



(December 2023), which confirms that: “…Development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature where this is appropriate…”
59. There is therefore a sufficiently robust, clear and compelling planning policy case to release the area of Green Belt farmland located south of Racecourse Lane, Norton, Stourbridge for a major new housing-led sustainable urban extension, in order to help deliver substantial new nature conservation habitat creation/ green infrastructure benefits and climate change resilience features (via significant new tree planting and wetland habitat creation features), within an area of currently severely ecologically damaged intensive farmland.

Support

Representation ID: 1199

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Halesowen Abbey Trust

The Trust supports the Plan, particularly in respect of the Green Belt and the environment

Object

Representation ID: 1200

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Evidence base
We object to the continued poor quality of the evidence base being used by the council’s planning policy team to support Local Plan preparation.

The council has not even got an up-to-date, defendable or sufficiently robust Green Infrastructure (GI study) background technical evidence base study document in place to support the emerging Local Plan Review preparation. This is an alarming situation given that important wildlife sites directly located within strategically important landscape-scale green infrastructure networks (wildlife corridors) are being actively promoted for complete destruction for new housing development within the emerging Local Plan Review. The plan-making approach strongly conflicts with green infrastructure/ wildlife corridor focused guidance set out under paragraph 185 of the Revised NPPF (December 2023). We continue to maintain our view that the inner urban area is being completely over-loaded within increasingly unsustainable levels of new development, in direct conflict with the “Sustainability” tests of Soundness set out under paragraph 35 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023). The council is taking forward an insufficiently robust, not fit-for-purpose and not planning policy compliant Local Plan Review forwards to the later Examination in Public (EIP) stage.

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which provides the critically important planning policy foundations underpinning and supporting Dudley Council’s emerging Local Plan Review (2023/ 2024) is not being informed by sufficiently robust, defendable, planning policy compliant or credible green infrastructure background technical evidence. In particular, robustly-based wildlife corridor focused green infrastructure assessments (GI studies) as expected by paragraph 185 of the Revised NPPF (2023). The SA process has also failed to robustly consider reasonable alternatives in respect of releasing land in lower quality areas of Green Belt countryside within the Dudley Borough for new housing development. Finally, the emerging SA has failed to shape into its approach the substantial recent planning policy shift introduced by the recently elected new Labour government, which has placed increasing planning policy emphasis on releasing lower quality areas of Green Belt for major new housing development. Any reasonable person would therefore take the view that the SA's assumptions are therefore based on flawed, insufficiently robust, not defendable and missing evidence. The council’s planning policy team “Needs to get the balance right” and address these substantial failings within the SA approach. This is all now too late for this now advanced Reg 19 Local Plan Review. The spatial distribution approach towards new development within the emerging Local Plan Review is not based on a platform of sufficiently robust or defendable evidence. The LPA is taking forward an unsound Local Plan Review which fails to satisfy various tests of soundness specified under paragraph 35 of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).

The emerging Sustainability Appraisal (SA) supporting background technical evidence base accompanying the emerging Local Plan Review and policies contained within the 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 10,470 new homes solely within the inner urban area.

Object

Representation ID: 1203

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Greenfield allocations

There is an increasing shortage and significant under-supply of urban green space natural green space areas, particularly within heavily urbanised parts of Halesowen, Stourbridge, central Dudley, Brierley Hill and Cradley Heath areas. This important urban green space planning policy issue has not been sufficiently taken into account by the LPA. The plan-making approach is therefore insufficiently robust, not planning policy compliant, not fit-for-purpose, potentially vulnerable to later challenge, and contains significant gaps in green infrastructure focused technical evidence base coverage. The emerging Local Plan Review is promoting environmentally damaging and unsustainable patterns of development within the local area.
15. Dudley Council’s Planning Policy Team has completely neglected and disregarded the importance of ecological networks within heavily urbanised areas within its Local Plan preparation approach. The now advanced preparation stage emerging Local Plan Review (Reg 19) (Autumn 2024) is not based on a platform of sufficiently robust, fit-for-purpose or credible evidence,
and fails the “Sustainability” tests of Soundness set out under paragraph 35
(indent d) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).

33. There has been a significant material change and huge shift in material planning policy circumstances now facing the local area given the issues discussed above. Dudley Council’s Planning Policy Team has failed to shape these critically important issues into its Local Plan preparation, which is now at the final and very advanced Regulation 19 stage. The emerging now advanced Local Plan Review is “not Positively prepared”, does not take into account “Reasonable alternatives” and is not based “on Proportionate evidence” - therefore failing various ‘Soundness’ tests specified under paragraph 35 (indents a and b) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).
34. There is absolutely no point in Dudley Council declaring a climate change and ecological emergency and taking forward a climate change action plan, if the council’s planning policy team has absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever promoting sustainable patterns of new development within its own emerging Local Plan Reviews (Development Plan Reviews).
35. We are concerned that Dudley Council has made a pledge within its climate change and ecological emergency to improve the climate change resilience of the local area, without a clear, effective and committed pathway to delivery. This is resulting in the delivery of a Local Plan without a Plan. The council should not be supporting the destruction of sensitive urban woodlands within heavily urbanised parts of the borough, if it is serious about delivering on its multiple and varied climate change resilience pledges. The failure to consider low quality Green Belt locations for new housing development within the council’s Local Plan Review is making the climate change resilience position far worse, given that huge areas of sensitive urban green space areas and urban woodlands are being proposed for destruction within the inner urban area within the council’s Local Plan Review. These urban green space areas provide a vital contribution towards helping to reduce flood risk by reducing surface water run-off pressures during severe rainfall storm events, removing and helping control levels of urban air pollution, promoting carbon storage and helping to reduce the worsening effects of the Black Country Urban Heat Island Effect (promote urban cooling) during summer heatwaves. These urban green space areas also play a key role in helping to tackle the long-standing “out-of- control adult and childhood obesity crisis and epidemic” which continues to affect the Dudley Metropolitan Borough as discussed further above. Based on recent press reports coverage in local press arenas, it is also noted that the council is under severe financial pressure and financial strain with the risk of declaring itself effectively bankrupt, which is likely to potentially further hinder its ability to deliver on its various multiple climate change pledges. There still however needs to be a detailed audit and review undertaken by the LPA to identify why specific failings have taken place in respect of the council’s climate change resilience action plan, and failure to deliver on the multiple pledges made. The council cannot continue to let down local communities in respect of these important issues.
36. The loss of extensive urban woodlands and other natural green space areas within the Dudley Metropolitan Borough inner urban area as a result of an environmentally irresponsible proposed severe urban cramming spatial development distribution planning policy approach being taken forwards within the council’s emerging Local Plan Review as discussed in extensive detail above, will materially harm and damage the residential amenity of established residential occupiers within long established residential communities that directly overlook these various natural green space sites, being proposed for



development. This will result in irreversible harm (given the severe urban green space landscape impacts), damage and adversely affect their residential amenity and outlook. The proposals being taken forwards within the now advanced Regulation 19 (final Local Plan consultation) emerging Local Plan Review will therefore materially harm the ability of these established residential occupiers to be able to continue to enjoy their homes and property peacefully, therefore conflicting with protecting their human rights as set out under Article
1 of the Human Rights Act (1998). The significant increase in harmful levels of traffic-related urban air pollution will also conflict in protecting thousands of local residents ‘Right to Life’ in densely populated parts of the borough, therefore contravening their human rights as specified under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act (1998). The proposed spatial planning policy distribution approach towards new development being forced-through by the LPA as discussed above, will also make thousands of local residents living within heavily urbanised parts of the borough more vulnerable to the more severe effects of climate change – which will be significantly amplified and more intense within heavily urbanised parts of the borough. Including surface water run-off flash flooding incidents, the effects of urban air pollution on health, and hotter summer temperatures. The position is perfectly clear, the emerging Local Plan Review is having a damaging impact on the Human Rights of those local residents who live within densely populated and heavily urbanised parts of the Dudley Metropolitan Borough.

. The LPA is not promoting climate change resilience measures within its proposed spatial planning policy approach being taken towards the distribution of new development. We are alarmed that the council’s planning policy team considers it appropriate to re-develop established urban woodlands within heavily constrained urban areas for new housing development. The plan making approach being taken forward by the LPA strongly conflicts with climate change resilience focused national planning guidance set out under paragraphs
157 to 159 of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).
61. There is an increasing shortage and significant under-supply of urban green space natural green space areas, particularly within heavily urbanised parts of Halesowen, Stourbridge, central Dudley, Brierley Hill and Cradley Heath areas. This important urban green space planning policy issue has not been sufficiently taken into account by the LPA within the policy shaping exercise or the accompanying Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The plan-making approach is therefore insufficiently robust, not planning policy compliant, not fit-for-purpose, potentially vulnerable to later challenge, and contains significant gaps in green infrastructure focused technical evidence base coverage. The emerging Local Plan Review is promoting environmentally damaging and unsustainable patterns of development within the local area.
62. The Local Plan Review policy shaping and approach taken towards new housing site allocations is not supported by a sufficiently robust and up-to-date Green Space Audit (Open Space Needs Assessment), contrary to guidance within paragraph 102 of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).
63. Dudley Council’s Planning Policy Team has completely neglected and disregarded the importance of ecological networks within heavily urbanised areas within its Local Plan preparation approach. The now advanced preparation stage emerging Local Plan Review (Reg 19) (Autumn 2024) is not based on a platform of sufficiently robust, fit-for-purpose or credible evidence, and fails the “Sustainability” tests of Soundness set out under paragraph 35 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).

Object

Representation ID: 1206

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Covid 19

The global coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) previous recent lock-down restrictions across the UK has highlighted and placed into very sharp focus the continued importance and relevance of urban green space areas to the health and well-being of local communities – from both a physical and mental health well-being perspective. These important “pandemic -related factors” have been given absolutely no consideration or material planning policy weight whatsoever by the council’s planning policy team when shaping policies within it’s emerging Local Plan Review, and when forcing through the proposed urban cramming spatial distribution approach being taken towards new development within heavily urbanised parts of the Dudley Metropolitan Borough. Which contain areas of sensitive urban green space. The Council’s planning policy approach on these matters therefore fails the “Sustainability” tests of soundness as specified under paragraph 35 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023), as well as a range of health-focused guidance set out under paragraphs 8 (indent b), 96 (indent c) and 102 of the Revised NPPF (December
2023).
31. The global coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) represents one of the worst global health pandemic events to affect the United Kingdom (UK) within the last
100 years. The emerging Local Plan Review has failed to shape these
“pandemic-related factors” into is policy approach

Object

Representation ID: 1208

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Clowes Development LTD

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Vision Point 4 seeks to deliver sustainable urban growth to meet the needs of communities and businesses and it is supported by Strategic Priority 4 regarding the fostering of economic growth and development. Strategic Priority 4 seeks to deliver conditions to support growth, including ‘ensuring a supply of employment land to contribute towards meeting the Borough’s strategic needs.
To deliver the Vision and Objectives, the Plan must plan to meet both its economic and housing needs in full and this should be set out clearly in the Vision. For reasons set out in later sections of this representation the Plan is not currently identifying sufficient land to meet its economic needs. The Plan will therefore be unsound as it cannot be positively prepared if it doesn’t meet its own needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 1212

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Walsall Council

The statement “Those development needs that cannot be accommodated within the
Dudley administrative area will be exported to sustainable locations in neighbouring local
authority areas” would not appear to be effective. Whilst the delivery of the authority’s
needs may require provision outside the area, a policy cannot make proposals for
development outside the area of the authority.

Object

Representation ID: 1214

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) undertaken as part of the supporting background technical evidence base for the emerging Local Plan Review is insufficiently robust, given that it has failed to adequately consider the impacts of substantial built urbanising development encroachment and habitat fragmentation within established wildlife corridor networks, due to the proposed severe urban cramming development approach being forced-through by the council’s planning policy team within the emerging Local Plan Review within the borough. The HRA is also not informed by a sufficiently robust, defendable, reliable and fit-for-purpose Green Infrastructure (GI study) technical evidence base study, as required by paragraph 185 of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).

Comment

Representation ID: 1216

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Walsall Council

Several policies refer to viability assessments. It may be helpful to provide standard
wording to describe the circumstances when these will be required and how they should
be carried out. This will provide consistency.

Comment

Representation ID: 1233

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: West Midlands Housing Association Planning Consortium (WMHAPC)

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

As we have previously noted on the last consultation, it remains that the Draft Local Plan fails to recognise rural exception sites in meeting housing needs. The inclusion of a rural exception site policy would help to bring forward housing in constrained rural areas of Dudley to meet identified local housing needs. The WMHAPC therefore strongly encourages the inclusion of a rural exception site policy in helping to meet affordable housing needs.
Paragraph 82 of the NPPF (December 2023) requires that:
“In rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs. Local planning authorities should support opportunities to bring forward rural exception sites that will provide affordable housing to meet identified local needs, and consider whether allowing some market housing on these sites would help to facilitate this.”
Rural exception sites are an exception to inappropriate development within the Green Belt as set out by paragraph 154 of the NPPF (December 2023).
Housing Associations are well placed to aid in the delivery of rural exception sites and as set out within Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 67-015-20210524) the Council “may wish to consider establishing or strengthening working relationships with relevant groups including” housing associations. Bringing rural exception sites forward will assist in meeting the housing needs shortfall identified by the Draft Local Plan whilst also ensuring the housing needs of Dudley’s residents are being met.

Object

Representation ID: 1234

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

64. The public consultation approach undertaken by Dudley Council’s Planning
Policy Team has been unfair and inadequate, resulting in substantial prejudice.
65. The public consultation approach has accommodated a number of failings. The public consultation approach is not considered to be fit-for-purpose or sufficiently robust. This is damaging towards local community confidence in the Local Plan making process, and alienates key stakeholders who feel excluded from the Local Plan-making process, due to the removal of key pieces of information from the public domain (e.g. Local Plan Representations made by other key stakeholders).
66. Large numbers of local residents, local businesses, landowners, housing developers, property investors, and other key stakeholders were completely unaware of the Autumn 2024 Regulation 19 Local Plan consultation.
67. Representations made by housing developers, private sector landowners, local businesses, property investors, planning consultants, local communities and other key stakeholders have been deliberately with held from the public domain by the council’s planning policy team as part of this Regulation 19 (Autumn
2024) and the earlier Regulation 18 (Autumn 2023) Local Plan public consultation stages. The approach lacks sufficient transparency, is unfair and unreasonable, and has placed key stakeholders at a considerable disadvantage as they have not been able to view comments and concerns raised by other stakeholders. As stated above, the public consultation approach undertaken by Dudley Council’s Planning Policy Team has been unfair and inadequate, resulting in substantial prejudice. We object to the way that key stakeholders have been excluded and obstructed from the Local Plan making process by a failed and ineffective public consultation approach.
68. The ‘Local Plans Consultation Portal’ (Opus Consult) is unclear, not fit-for purpose and highly confusing for members of the public and other key stakeholders. This creates a restrictive approach and forms a barrier to effective community engagement, in direct conflict with paragraph 16 (indent c) of the Revised NPPF (2023). These types of public consultation portals which are both highly ineffective, take far too long in terms of timescale for members of the public to use, and are unnecessarily complex, and are not effective ways for Local Planning Authorities to consult local communities for Local Plan Reviews. LPA’s should now therefore start to finally begin to accept that these types of public consultation portals are completely ineffective, as well as a considerable waste of local Council Tax payers money. Given that these IT systems are very expensive to maintain due to the high financial service charges costs from the private sector IT companies that own and manage these consultation portals. The public consultation approach undertaken by the LPA is therefore ineffective, is inadequate, results in substantial prejudice – particularly towards those key stakeholders described above.
69. The public consultation approach taken towards this Regulation 19 consultation (Autumn 2024) and the earlier Autumn 2023 Regulation 18 consultation has not proved “effective” or fit-for-purpose, and has therefore failed to respond robustly to guidance reinforced within paragraph 16 (indent c) of the Revised NPPF



(2023), which is perfectly clear that: “…Plans should: (indent c) be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan- makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees…”

Comment

Representation ID: 1237

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Walsall Council

It would be helpful i the policies map included the policy numbers that relate to each of the designations, with site references for allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 1239

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Council’s economic regeneration approach for the borough lacks sufficient ambition. The Plan is not being Positively prepared in direct conflict with Soundness tests set out under paragraph 35 (indent a) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023). Proposals which will harm the local areas economic outlook and recovery, and which will discourage new business inward investment opportunities should not be supported by the LPA within the emerging Local Plan Review.

Comment

Representation ID: 1243

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Bromsgrove District Council

Bromsgrove District Council questions the timing of this consultation bearing in mind the recently published reforms to the planning system. Should these reforms remain largely unaltered following the consultation, we fail to see how the plan as it is currently drafted will be able to be found sound. The transitional arrangements would require substantial changes to the plan which would require further consultation before any submission could take place. Irrespective of the planning reforms there are still concerns with the plan as it stands