Comment

Representation ID: 933

Received: 21/11/2024

Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker

Support apart from the failure to incorporate provision of adequate Car Parking at Healthcare facilities. Later in life, neither my late Mother nor two late Aunts were well enough to travel by Bus let alone walk or cycle, so I had to take them by Car. Now that I am old and fit for my age, even though I love walking, I can't walk to local Hospitals and need to use my Car. My Sister is in a similar position. Buses are not an option when one feels ill.

Object

Representation ID: 1284

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy highlights the importance of protecting healthcare facilities but should also support the repurposing of surplus healthcare buildings and land for non-healthcare uses, enabling reinvestment in other healthcare infrastructure. The land at Corbett Hospital, identified as surplus to healthcare needs, should be considered for residential redevelopment. The policy requires major residential developments to be assessed against existing healthcare capacity, but this requirement is unclear and potentially conflicts with national policy, as NHS capacity issues are typically addressed through consultation, not planning obligations. Legal precedents have shown that contributions to healthcare services should only be required when a clear funding gap linked to development impact can be demonstrated.

Object

Representation ID: 1319

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP9 on Healthcare Infrastructure is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Concerns with Criteria Three: HBF highlights a legal issue related to criteria three, referencing the High Court case R (University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust) vs. Harborough District Council. The case questions the legitimacy of requiring development contributions for acute healthcare services that are funded through general taxation, suggesting the policy may be legally problematic.

Viability Issues: While HBF does not repeat its detailed concerns about viability, they note that the viability issues could affect the wording of criteria eight, indicating that amendments may be needed in response.

Comment

Representation ID: 1358

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: CPRE West Midlands Group

Agent: CPRE Worcestershire

Policy DLP9 should encourage new healthcare facilities to be provided in or close to town and local centres, as this tends to enhance the viability of local retail centres. This encourages a person visiting their doctor or physiotherapist to pop into a nearby shop, rather than travelling to a larger retail centre further away. However, this should not prevent one healthcare facility being added adjacent to another existing one.

Object

Representation ID: 1370

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy highlights the importance of protecting healthcare facilities but should also support the repurposing of surplus healthcare buildings and land for non-healthcare uses, enabling reinvestment in other healthcare infrastructure. The land at Corbett Hospital, identified as surplus to healthcare needs, should be considered for residential redevelopment. The policy requires major residential developments to be assessed against existing healthcare capacity, but this requirement is unclear and potentially conflicts with national policy, as NHS capacity issues are typically addressed through consultation, not planning obligations. Legal precedents have shown that contributions to healthcare services should only be required when a clear funding gap linked to development impact can be demonstrated.

Support

Representation ID: 1478

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: NHS Black Country Integrated Care Board

Agent: Winterburn Heritage & Planning

Policy DLP 9 Healthcare Infrastructure
The ICB supports the Health Infrastructure section of the Local Plan in its expression of stakeholders committing to change at a whole systems level and to working together to achieve a sustainable and resilient Dudley, with citizens involved at every level of governance for health and wellbeing. This can be achieved by determining the right proportion of resource that is committed to delivering prevention, treatment and care for health and wellbeing through the following:


• The first priority should be to addressing the integration of health and care systems. It includes harnessing the available information and intelligence into a more complete picture. This will strengthen the relationships between the organisations involved, to develop more seamless and co-ordinated responses to health and wellbeing needs. It will also ensure that the community gets the best value and outcomes possible from the local health care economy and infrastructure.
• A commitment to addressing improvements to the determinants of health within South Staffs such as housing, education, employment, active lifestyles and transport.
• Evolving a population that is equipped with the right skills to be informed about health, care and wellbeing and also be able to access and navigate systems to appropriate self-care or services for themselves and others.

In summarising the key health impacts identified through the Policy drafting process, the ICB is of the opinion that the Draft Dudley Local Plan makes a positive contribution to addressing the identified health issues. Policy DLP 9 Healthcare Infrastructure in particular is supported for recognising the connection between housing development, local population change and their potential impact on the Primary and Secondary Healthcare Network.
It is acknowledged that developer contributions can affect the financial viability of certain developments and will therefore not always be appropriate or reasonable to apply. The ICB would not wish to support the imposition of a regime that would see the viability of development compromised by such contributions.

However, based on an independent viability assessment, the ICB suggests that developer contributions for Healthcare infrastructure could be deferred or discounted where this would not make the development unacceptable in planning terms. This would retain a degree of flexibility in applying the standard contributions/charges where affordability based on development viability is clearly demonstrated, without compromising the planning necessity for identified infrastructure and facilities.

Where developer contributions are deferred the ICB would support Dudley Council potentially applying clauses in Planning Obligations relating to deferred contributions, which will seek to recover all or part of the discount in circumstances where the financial climate and economic viability of the development improves. Here, any recaptured discount will be limited to the full standard developer contributions for the Healthcare infrastructure applicable at the time the planning obligation for a development was signed.

The ICB also would support the emphasis in the first paragraph of Policy HC14 and its requirement for Applicants to consult the ICB in advance of the submission of a planning application where a significant amount of housing is to be provided.

The ICB also supports the intention to produce separate guidance as part of an SPD, on the methodology used for calculating the appropriate level of developer contributions. To this end, a draft SPD is attached for the Council’s consideration.

Support

Representation ID: 1506

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: NHS Property Services Ltd

Draft Policy DLP9 aims to protect existing healthcare infrastructure, allowing for its loss only if part of a broader public service transformation plan. NHSPS supports the policy’s flexibility, particularly regarding the sale of redundant healthcare properties to fund new services. The policy also requires that major residential developments (10 or more units) assess the capacity of local healthcare facilities. If new development strains existing services, developers must contribute to healthcare provision, either on-site or off-site.

NHSPS welcomes the policy but requests continued collaboration with the NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) to refine healthcare needs and solutions in line with the Local Plan’s growth. They emphasize that healthcare providers should have flexibility in meeting new demands, including the provision of purpose-built healthcare infrastructure, and that NHS partners should work with the Council on mitigation measures.