Comment

Representation ID: 930

Received: 21/11/2024

Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker

Quote from preamble, "Assuming that proposals for improved public transport, walking and cycling are delivered, it is not anticipated that the development of new housing and employment land will have a significant additional impact." I the real world that is completely unrealistic. Walking is OK up to a mile, Cycling up to two miles or so - and neither are sensible in bad weather or for those with mobility problems. Buses are unreliable and time-inefficient - and no one who can drive and afford to run a Car is going to wait for then on the cold and/or rain.

Object

Representation ID: 995

Received: 26/11/2024

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Sport England wishes to see a paragraph added to the justification in respect of meeting identified needs for sport and recreation.

Sport England objects to the drafting of part 2 of the associated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which could be addressed by adding appropriate reference(s) to address the needs for sport in line with proposed policy DLP38.

Support

Representation ID: 1035

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Sandwell Council

Sandwell MBC considers the policy to be sound. We support the policy, including the justification text, para 6.24, that refers to the pooling of developer contributions, between Dudley MBC and other local authorities, where there is a cross-boundary impact.
Where housing, employment and gypsy/traveller allocations are in Sandwell’s immediate proximity, Dudley will need to take into account any cross-boundary infrastructure matters (in particular highways and education), as detailed planning applications are taken forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 1067

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: CPRE Worcestershire

Agent: CPRE Worcestershire

CPRE Worcestershire welcomes the decision of Dudley MBC not to review the boundary of its Green Belt.
We would be very concerned about any possibility of the Green Belt boundary between Pedmore and Hagley
being altered, as this is a mere 500m wide along Worcester Lane Pedmore and zero along one side of
Stourbridge Road, Hagley continuing Hagley Road, Stourbridge.
Being such a narrow strip of Green Belt, this has a particularly important role in meeting one of the five
purposes of Green Belt, that of keeping settlements apart.

Support

Representation ID: 1140

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

The plan however fully acknowledges that financial viability has always impacted on the extent of planning obligations that can be secured in Dudley particularly in areas suffering from poor ground conditions. The viability of development going forward is likely to be more challenging within this new local plan as it will be introducing requirements for sustainable design and stringent requirements to adapt to and mitigate against climate change. Whilst the plan is suggested to be informed by a Viability and Delivery Study, it is clearly the fact that viability impacts will vary significantly between sites and their location – infrastructure requirements normally required to allow development to proceed are unlikely to be viable in many locations.
It is not evident from the plan or the evidence base that a full understanding of the viability implications of the development strategy for the plan has been fully considered.
Major reliance is placed upon significant development in a number of focused locations and no detailed viability appraisals have been undertaken of such developments. As the plan is so heavily reliant upon such sites it is essential that viability appraisals accompany such proposals at this Plan making stage.
Moreover, the Plan should fully understand the implications which may arise from the inability of such sites to meet the full infrastructure requirements as set out in this policy. Development which does not deliver the required infrastructure to support it (even due to viability reasons), should not be considered to be sustainable.
The viability evidence supporting the Plan is not sound. The plan viability methodology uses typologies, meaning a number of individual sites may not viable because their site specific issues are outside the parameters used of a typology that was tested. Typologies are not an effective mechanism to understand the complex viability of urban area sites within Dudley which are variable and challenging to deliver.

Comment

Representation ID: 1229

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: West Midlands Housing Association Planning Consortium (WMHAPC)

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

The WMHAPC welcomes the Council’s support for developments that would deliver the necessary infrastructure to communities. We also support the Council’s approach at criterion 4, which states that in exceptional circumstances in which a proposed development cannot meet its on-site or offsite infrastructure needs where viability will be significantly impacted will need to be evidenced at early stages of engagement with the Council and a Viability Assessment would be required. Whilst the current policy wording is helpful, it is not clear on what will be the outcome will be should the Viability Assessment conclude that the development will be deemed unviable with the inclusion of infrastructure contributions. To strengthen the policy, the WMHAPC recommends that the level of financial contribution towards the provision of infrastructure should be exempt or reduced for schemes of 100% affordable housing in order to practically deliver the affordable homes without compromising on viability.
The Council should explore joint approaches and alternative funding mechanisms such as S106 agreements of neighbouring developments to aid in the improvement and development of new infrastructure of 100% affordable housing projects.

Object

Representation ID: 1235

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

70. The emerging Local Plan Review does not contain an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The Plan-making approach is therefore not based on proportionate evidence and therefore fails Soundness tests specified under paragraph 35 (indent b) of the Revised NPPF (December 2023).

Support

Representation ID: 1288

Received: 06/12/2024

Respondent: Worcestershire County Council

The Dudley Borough Spatial Strategy (Section 5) focusses on growth and development across the borough. WCC will continue to be interested in the regional connections, monitoring, and mitigation measures for the largest Regeneration Corridors (RC) and those closest to the WCC highway and transport network. Namely:
•
RC2 - Dudley to Brierley Hill to Stourbridge
•
RC3 – Stourbridge to Lye
•
RC4 – Lye to Halesowen
We support Dudley Council’s policy (Policy DLP6 3d para 6.19) to secure infrastructure provision from future planned development and new guidance for integration with infrastructure within adjoining local authority areas, and that the Plan acknowledges the importance of delivering new homes in places with good sustainable transport and access to key residential services (para 8.8).

Object

Representation ID: 1318

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP6 on Infrastructure Provision is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

SPD Concerns: HBF objects to criteria three, which attempts to give Local Plan policy status to Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) that have not yet been written. This is seen as inappropriate and contrary to national guidance, as planning policies should be established through the Local Plan process, with public consultation and independent scrutiny.

Infrastructure Flexibility: HBF notes that criteria four allows flexibility for developments not meeting infrastructure requirements only in exceptional circumstances, but it is unclear how this will affect the Local Plan.

Viability Appraisal Issues: HBF highlights concerns with the viability appraisal for the Dudley Local Plan, which was published in November 2023. Despite providing feedback, the appraisal has not been updated, raising doubts about the robustness of the evidence base and the soundness of policies that depend on it. HBF believes the plan's viability, deliverability, and soundness remain unproven.

Affordable Housing Requirements: HBF points out inconsistencies in the viability report regarding affordable housing targets. The appraisal recommends the same affordable housing targets for both greenfield and brownfield sites, but then provides a justification for maintaining a 10% requirement in lower-value areas, even though earlier analysis suggested viability.

Request for Review: HBF requests a thorough review of the viability appraisal to ensure accuracy and consistency. They also ask that once the appraisal is verified, the fourth criteria of the policy be revisited to reflect the findings. HBF suggests additional flexibility may be needed in the policy, so developers do not need to conduct site-specific viability appraisals when the evidence already shows a policy to be unviable.

Support

Representation ID: 1401

Received: 21/11/2024

Respondent: National Trust

We continue to be supportive of the proposed approach towards infrastructure provision and we are pleased to see that it is acknowledged that infrastructure investment will be required to support development, including public open space, as set out in paragraph 6.10.

Comment

Representation ID: 1455

Received: 10/12/2024

Respondent: Police Crime Commissioner for West Midlands (PCCWM)

Agent: Tyler Parkes

Support addition to paragraph 6.10

6.20 which forms the reasoned justification to Policy DLP6 does not specifically refer to policing facilities while referring to a wide range of other infrastructure. The PCCWM objects to this glaring omission and its inconsistency with paragraph 6.10

The PCCWM considers it essential that, ‘Policing infrastructure and services’ to paragraph 6.20

The definition and support for infrastructure should be explicitly set out in the Local Plan, to meet national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, and it should be clearly set out that contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of facilities and equipment for Police services - see full rep for details.

As the statutory Development Plan, it is the purpose of the draft Dudley Local Plan to confirm the types of infrastructure which will be required to provide sustainable development in the Borough during the plan period and the Policy DLP6 and supporting text should be amended as suggested above to specifically include reference to Police infrastructure. Without these changes, the PCCWM objects.

Support

Representation ID: 1504

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: NHS Property Services Ltd

Draft Policy DLP6 requires that all new developments be supported by necessary infrastructure to meet their needs, minimize environmental and community impacts, and ensure sustainability. Development proposals will only be permitted if all required infrastructure and mitigation measures are provided, which will be secured through planning obligations, the Community Infrastructure Levy, or other mechanisms.

NHSPS supports the policy but requests continued collaboration with the NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) to refine healthcare needs and solutions to match the planned growth. They emphasize that healthcare providers should have flexibility in addressing healthcare demands, including the possibility of new, purpose-built healthcare facilities. The NHS should work with the Council to develop appropriate mitigation measures, which could involve financial contributions, new infrastructure, or other forms of support.