Comment

Representation ID: 37

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Tompkins

2. There are a number of sites that will give a considerable number of dwellings. Would it not be a good idea to split these to be designed by local architects and developed not by the major house builders but local small/medium builders using more local labour. Im sure this would increase pride in the finished product.
3. In addition to the above I feel the numbers for self build plots is not enough as this relates to national standards.
4. I am aware that as a Local Authority you are hamstrung by present Government guidelines in what you can mandate housebuilders to build in terms of their design and energy efficiency and therefore give standard percentage figures for such items. I feel this is a missed opportunity (which you may be able to modify with a change of govdernment) as ALL new homes should be:
Passivhaus (or similar)-Fuel bills are negiligable and internal comfort much better than the standard new build (I have experienced such buildings on various study trips to Germany and Belgium etc and others in this Country). Additional build costs are not high. Refer to the recent Channel 4 Documentary "The Great Climate Fight" for an introduction to this issue.
b. Homes should be Lifetime Homes standard as such these are all adaptable and have have a floor area that allows for items like prams, pushchairs, wheelchairs etc. This also future proofs the building stock.
It would be good to see Dudley be leaders in this aspect!

Object

Representation ID: 106

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Brierley Hill Community Forum

pages 115-8
This section is about affordable housing.
The key issue here is that the document uses the expression “where financially viable” which basically gives developers the ability to wriggle out of their affordable housing requirements obligations by claiming that the scheme is not financially viable.
All private sector developers are adept at producing financial viability assessments which demonstrate that affordable housing is not financially viable.
On page 118 the document does talk about the necessity for developers to produce financial viability assessments and the possibility that this may be externally scrutinised but again this is identified as a possibility not a certainty.
Our view would be that the council should either be stating that any site which falls within the threshold needs to provide affordable housing irrespective of financial viability, or the council should be stating that all schemes which claim that that it's not possible to provide affordable housing for financially viability reasons should be subject to independent scrutiny l) at the developer's expense.
Otherwise the council is just making a rod for its own back because it will be engaged in perpetual arguments between developers who are experts at manipulating financial viability whereas planning officers are not.

Comment

Representation ID: 190

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Mark Woodall

It's important to realise that there are people who are extremely ill and require supported living facilities with the assistance of their local council. It's very difficult to even apply for social housing/local authority housing when you live on your own, have chronic heart failure, are approaching 60 years of age and need to apply (again) to be on the council housing waiting list. It's a huge horrendously long application, and quite off putting due to the amount of questions asked. I currently privately rent a bungalow as I need to live on one level, but the chances of me ever getting a local authority property similar is next to,impossible and causes untold stress and worry as my time runs out. There should be a separate subsidiary department within housing that concentrates solely on local residents who live alone, don't own property and cannot afford private sector rent, who are extremely ill and could benefit from living in a structured supported living 1 bedroom home, with wheelchair accessibility, a wet room rather than a standard bathroom, a link to Telecare for emergencies and a standardised care plan put in place before the potential resident deteriorates and puts further pressure on Social Services, care packages, attending carers etc and ultimately the council budget which currently is the biggest strain on council finances, year in year out. Maybe the housing developers in conjunction with the council could look at introducing a designated area of assisted living bungalows/low level apartments, side by side in one road of new developments. This would ensure all outside care agencies would be more cost effective logistically as their client base would be a collective rather than all over the borough in unsuitable accommodation even potential homelessness. It's a huge issue and needs to be done right first time round, set in stone as standard practice for the care of vulnerable poorly elderly residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 282

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Housing Association Planning Consortium (WMHAPC)

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

The current adopted Black Country Core Strategy Policy HOU3 ‘Delivering Affordable Housing’ seeks to secure 25% affordable housing on all sites across the Black Country of 15 dwellings or more. The emerging Dudley Local Plan is taking a stepped threshold approach to securing affordable housing through draft Policy DLP12. The WMHAPC does not object to this providing it is justified. However, there is concern with part 2(a) of draft Policy DLP12 which sets out that just 10% affordable housing is to be sought on all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones. Figure 8.1 of the Part 1 consultation document shows that a very large proportion of the Borough is designated as lower or medium value zones. Unless shown to be unviable through robust testing, the WMHAPC strongly encourages the Council to review part 2(a) of draft Policy DLP12 and look to require a higher level of affordable housing provision on these sites in order to boost the supply of affordable housing for those in need in the Borough.
The WMHAPC welcomes the site-by-site approach of development viability and affordable housing tenure that Policy DLP12 sets out at part 3. This allows for a policy position with a reasonable level of flexibility and will help to ensure that local housing needs are effectively met.
The WMHAPC welcomes the Council’s offer of further guidance in the form of a Supplementary Planning Document which will provide further information relating to “local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations” which will inform the tenure of homes provided. As part of this guidance, clarity regarding the type of local housing need evidence which appropriately signifies the tenure of affordable housing products to be provided should be set out.

Comment

Representation ID: 315

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 12 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
The policy sets out the thresholds for providing affordable housing on different value zones throughout the Borough. It is not clear where the basis for the different thresholds has been derived from although it is assumed that this is down to the viability of specific sites in these areas being able to accommodate affordable housing.
The policy stipulates that on greenfield sites of medium value zones 20% affordable housing will be sought. It is noted that of the new allocations proposed in the Plan only 3.5% of the supply is on greenfield land. As such, there is very limited prospect that much affordable housing will come forward on these sites. Furthermore, the requirement to provide 10% affordable housing on previously developed sites on all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones is likely to raise issues with the viability of such sites being able to deliver this. On unviable sites it will reduce the ability of developers to deliver affordable housing leading to affordable needs going unmet.
We note that the Triangle site in Kingswinford, which is located in a higher value area, is relatively unconstrained and is a greenfield site. In light of the lack of constraints affecting the site it would be one such site that could potentially deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing (30%) making a significant contribution to the overall needs of the Borough. The provision of affordable housing in an area that is well related to the countryside and the opportunities that this offers for residents is considered a significant benefit in contrast to providing affordable homes in town or strategic centres that are less accessible to the countryside.
The site would also be capable of delivering houses of different types tenures rather than high density apartment schemes. Again, this would help meet identified needs as set out in the Black Country Housing Market Report.
In respect of National Wheelchair Accessibility Standards Barberry object to the differentiation in the requirement to provide wheelchair accessible houses according to the different value areas that the proposed houses are to be built in. A wheelchair user in a low value area would have the same requirement for a wheelchair accessible house as a wheelchair user in a high value area. Wheelchair users are not therefore going to be solely located in high value areas and their needs would need to be accommodated irrespective of the value area that the house was to be built in.
In light of the fact that the Plan seeks to differentiate the delivery of wheelchair accessible properties between lower and high value areas indicates that the Council acknowledge that delivery of wheelchair accessible properties will have an impact on the viability of these developments. The inference being that there is an additional cost involved and that this can only be sustained where a higher land value can be sustained from the development. If this is the case then additional sites in higher value areas should be allocated in order to deliver the policy requirements that the Council is seeking.
In respect of self build properties paragraph 8.20 confirms that there are currently 83 individuals on the self build and custom build register for Dudley. If each of these individuals were to construct a house it would equate to 0.76% of the total housing requirement for the Borough. The policy suggests that sites of more than 100 dwellings 5% of dwellings should be made available for self build or custom build housing. Barberry consider that a 5% requirement is in excess of the actual numbers of people on the self build register which is set out above equates to less than 1% of the total housing needed. Barberry suggests that a 1% requirement on sites of 100 or more housing would be a more appropriate figure.

Comment

Representation ID: 325

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are also not clear on how many of the proposed (at least) 10,876 will be affordable and whether this includes windfall sites (the allowance for which is high, given the rhetoric in the plan about wanting to reduce speculative applications).

There is no clear evidence on how many affordable homes Dudley have ‘lost’ through Right to Buy/Acquire and whether the evidence on affordable housing need truly reflects this. Is the need therefore net of these losses, or is this data not available?

We are aware that Dudley MBC has not provided data to the government on the state of their affordable housing, having found to have breached government standards on social housing in April 2023.

1 . The Regulator of Social Housing (RoSH) issued a regulatory notice to the council as a result. The difficulty here is that it is clear from the data that RoSH have produced that a significant number of homes in Dudley do not reach decent homes standards. In the meantime, Dudley MBC have a housing waiting list of nearly 4,000 (as at April 2022)
2 , despite the proliferation of poor affordable housing stock. It is abundantly clear that affordable housing is not only needed in the future, but there exists a very real and pressing problem with existing stock. We are not clear that this is reflected in the SHMA data, which looks only at affordable housing need going forwards, based on population growth, migratory patterns, housing need/waiting list and house price to earnings data. The reality is that there are a significant number of people poorly housed in Dudley now who also need a new affordable home.

Policy DLP12 clearly shows that providing more affordable housing to meet the need set out in the Black Country SHMA (2021) of 32.7% within the Borough is going to be virtually impossible. Requiring 10% affordable housing on brownfield sites is clearly going to work in only the minority of sites where, in our experience, such sites can rarely support affordable housing at all – let alone the impact of vacant building credit, which of course can (and often does) reduce the requirement to zero.

Object

Representation ID: 354

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP12 – Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible & Self-Build Housing
3.5.
The draft Policy DLP12 establishes the Council’s intention to determine the appropriate type and tenure of affordable housing provision on a site by site basis with regard to the local housing needs and the latest available evidence. However, the draft Policy continues on, in point 4, to identify a recommended tenure split. As noted in Section 2 of these representations in respect of the overall Development Strategy, the affordable housing need in the Borough is significant and it is critical that the Plan advocates an approach that seeks to address this positively.
3.6.
It is considered that the Policy as currently drafted provides a confusing and contradictory approach, suggesting that on the one hand, the Council wants to ensure provision of affordable housing accords with the needs of existing and future residents in line with the most recently available information. However, conversely, the policy suggests a prescriptive split of tenures. This conflicts with the requirement in the Framework for policies to be clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. It would be preferable for the Council to suggest an evidence-based approach that allows for deviation from a set tenure split, as this would enable developments to respond current and anticipated affordable housing needs. This would also ensure that the type and tenure can best respond to local context, whereby there may be circumstances where certain types of affordable housing are better suited and would better address local needs. Pursuing a highly prescriptive approach can result in challenges in securing Registered Providers or accessing grant funding, which can ultimately challenge the overall delivery of a scheme or the affordable housing elements.
3.7.
It is therefore recommended the draft Policy DLP12 is revised to remove reference to the tenure split set out in criteria 4 of the policy. Alternatively, at the very least, the policy should identify that this is an indicative tenure split and the split is to be agreed on a site by site basis, based on the most recently available evidence ensuring that it is consistent with national policy in regards to plan-making. This will help to ensure that affordable housing delivery is achievable in developments and helps to address the high level of affordable housing needs within the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 382

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 12 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
The policy sets out the thresholds for providing affordable housing on different value zones throughout the Borough. It is not clear where the basis for the different thresholds has been derived from although it is assumed that this is down to the viability of specific sites in these areas being able to accommodate affordable housing.
The policy stipulates that on greenfield sites of medium value zones 20% affordable housing will be sought. It is noted that of the new allocations proposed in the Plan only 3.5% of the supply is on greenfield land. As such, there is very limited prospect that much affordable housing will come forward on these sites. Furthermore, the requirement to provide 10% affordable housing on previously developed sites on all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones is likely to raise issues with the viability of such sites being able to deliver this. On unviable sites it will reduce the ability of developers to deliver affordable housing leading to affordable needs going unmet.
We note that the Worcester Lane, which is located in a higher value area, is relatively unconstrained and is a greenfield site. In light of the lack of constraints affecting the site it would be one such site that could potentially deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing (30%) making a significant contribution to the overall needs of the Borough. The provision of affordable housing in an area that is well related to the countryside and the opportunities that this offers for residents is considered a significant benefit in contrast to providing affordable homes in town or strategic centres that are less accessible to the countryside.
The site would also be capable of delivering houses of different types and tenures rather than high density apartment schemes. Again, this would help meet identified needs as set out in the Black Country Housing Market Report.
In respect of National Wheelchair Accessibility Standards WL object to the differentiation in the requirement to provide wheelchair accessible houses according to the different value areas that the proposed houses are to be built in. A wheelchair user in a low value area would have the same requirement for a wheelchair accessible house as a wheelchair user in a high value area. Wheelchair users are not therefore going to be solely located in high value areas and their needs would need to be accommodated irrespective of the value area that the house was to be built in.
In light of the fact that the Plan seeks to differentiate the delivery of wheelchair accessible properties between lower and high value areas indicates that the Council acknowledge that delivery of wheelchair accessible properties will have an impact on the viability of these developments. The inference being that there is an additional cost involved and that this can only be sustained where a higher land value can be sustained from the development. If this is the case then additional sites in higher value areas should be allocated in order to deliver the policy requirements that the Council is seeking.
In respect of self-build properties paragraph 8.20 confirms that there are currently 83 individuals on the self-build and custom build register for Dudley. If each of these individuals were to construct a house it would equate to 0.76% of the total housing requirement for the Borough. The policy suggests that sites of more than 100 dwellings 5% of dwellings should be made available for self-build or custom build housing. WL consider that a 5% requirement is in excess of the actual numbers of people on the self build register which is set out above equates to less than 1% of the total housing needed. WL suggest that a 1% requirement on sites of 100 or more housing would be a more appropriate figure.

Comment

Representation ID: 401

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF information suggests that complying with the current new part L is costing
£3500 per plot. The Future Homes Standard Part L in 2025 is anticipated to cost up to £7500+ per plot. There will also be the addition of the Building Safety Levy that is coming in pay for cladding. This will be a per plot basis around the UK, and initial values are around £1500- £2500 per plot. These costs appear to have not been considered in the viability appraisal. Other factors that need to be taken into account include increasing costs of materials and labour due to inflation and the costs of mandatory BNG, which are still emerging as the off-site market is yet to be established. Although the initial price of statutory credits is now known this national fallback option has been deliberately highly priced to discourage their use. Whilst this intention is understandable, at present the lack of functioning local markets for off-site credits causes viability problems because HBF members experience to date suggests that any scheme that needs to rely on statutory credits becomes unviable. HBF have numerous concerns about the whole plan viability study, including the omission of some key policy costs. For example, an realistic and evidenced allowance for mandatory BNG needs to be includes within the viability assessment of the Local Plan.
The costs of BNG should have been considered as part of the planning obligations and should be specified as a single specific item. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity net gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment, some of which are unknown at this time. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery. As this is an emerging policy area and the market
for off-site provision, and statutory credits are not yet known, any figure used
for BNG costs will need to be kept under review as BNG implementation progresses and a greater understanding of actual costs become available. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment should clearly set out how it considered the implications of mandatory BNG and how it arrived at the most up to date BNG costs information available to use.
At a very basic level viability can be improved by reducing costs or increasing values. Sometimes, therefore changing the type of affordable housing provided can help to improve viability of a specific site, and the plan should recognise this. In this situation there could be a change of the percentages of different types of affordable housing provided, but the headline figure of how much affordable housing is provided would remain the same. Flexibility in the policy is important to allow for these kind of considerations.
The geographical distribution of development may impact on the Plan’s ability to deliver affordable housing where it is most needed. HBF notes that the level of open-market housing provided may also impact on the amount of affordable housing that can be developed.
. It will be also be important to understand if there any geographically specific viability considerations, such as whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in particular areas in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing in that location in a way that remains viable. Similarly, brownfield city centre sites tend to be most suited for apartments or retirement living. There will therefore be a need to include green fields allocations which are more likely to deliver family housing and a higher percentage of affordable housing, in order to provide flexibility in the housing land supply and ensure a range of housing types and tenures is provided. This adds further weigh to the need to consider Green Belt release(s).The HBF does not comment on individual sites, other than to say the Plan should provide for a wide range of deliverable and developable sites across the area in order to provide competition and choice and a buffer to ensure that housing needs are met in full. The soundness of strategic and non- strategic site allocations, whether brownfield or greenfield, will be tested in due course at the Local Plan Examination. As HBF said in response to Policy DLP6 Infrastructure Provision, additional flexibility in the policy wording is needed to address issues of viability. It should not be necessary for developers to have to go through the process and cost of a site-specific viability appraisal when the evidence at the plan- making stage has already shown it to be unviable. Criteria 2, also needs amending to address this point.
Criteria 3 of the policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan policy status to SPDs that have yet to written, which is not appropriate and contrary to national guidance. Planning policy must be made through the Local Plan process and Borough Wide Design Guides that are subject to the requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process.
This policy seeks to require 20% of homes in lower value areas to meet to meet M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of Building Regulations and
15% in higher value areas to meet M4(3) (Wheelchair user dwellings) and all the remaining to meet M4(2) on schemes of more than 10 homes.
The requirements to meet Part M4(2) will be superseded by changes to residential Building Regulations. The Government response to ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’ states that the Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through the Building Regulations. The requirement to address this issue is planning policy is therefore unnecessary.
HBF are of the view that this matter should be left to Building Regulations, however if a policy were to be needed, the wording needs to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards. M43a sets out standards for wheelchair adaptable housing, where M43b relates to wheelchair accessible housing which can only be required on affordable housing where the Council has nomination rights. Any such requirements would also need to be fully considered from a viability perspective.
The PPG sets out some of the circumstances where it would be unreasonable to require M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings. Such factors include
flooding, typography and other circumstances. HBF note that some flexibility is provided in criteria six but suggest additional flexibility is needed to reflect other site-specific characteristics. HBF would also question the viability evidence in support of these policy, in light of our concerns about the viability appraisal (which are set out elsewhere within our representation).
In relation to Self-Build and Custom Build Plots, the policy requires sites of 100 or more dwellings, to provide at least 5% as serviced plots for self and custom build, if there is evidence of demand. If after twelve months of a thorough an proportionate marketing exercise the plot remains unsold, the requirements falls away.HBF does not consider that requiring major developments to provide for self- builders is appropriate. Instead, the HBF advocates for self and custom-build policies that encourage self and custom-build development by setting out where it will be supported in principle. The HBF considers that Councils can play a key role in facilitating the provision of land as set in the PPG. This could be done, for example, by using the Councils’ own land for such purposes and/or allocating sites specifically for self and custom-build homebuilders- although this would need to be done through discussion and negotiation with landowners.
It is considered unlikely that the provision of self and custom build plots on new housing developments can be co-ordinated with the development of the wider site. At any one time, there are often multiple contractors and large machinery operating on-site from both a practical and health and safety perspective, it is difficult to envisage the development of single plots by individuals operating alongside this construction activity.
HBF agree that if demand for plots is not realised, it is important that plots should not be left empty to the detriment of neighbouring properties or the whole development. The timescale for reversion of these plots to the original housebuilder should be as short as possible from the commencement of development because the consequential delay in developing those plots presents further practical difficulties in terms of co-ordinating their development with construction activity on the wider site. There are even greater logistical problems created if the original housebuilder has completed the development and is forced to return to site to build out plots which have not been sold to self & custom builders. Therefore, if the current policy requirements are retained HBF would support the suggestion that any unsold plots remaining after a six-month marketing period revert to the original developer. The policy should be changed from twelve to six months.
As the whole plan viability methodology uses typologies, this means there may be individual sites that are not viable, for example if the costs or vales of a specific site fall outside the parameters used of a typology that was tested. Some site will be on the very margins of viability and other sites may already be unviable even without a change of circumstances. HBF therefore support the recognition of the potential ned for flexibility in relation to site specific viability issues. As such overage clauses may not be appropriate in all cases, and the Plan should allow for such circumstances.

Comment

Representation ID: 429

Received: 19/01/2024

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Labour does want assurances that proper consideration is given to social need. Labour is of the view that where council land is sold / redeveloped (regardless of current use) first consideration should be given to meet the need for Housing for Social Rent. Exceptions should only be approved by Full Council. In this context other forms of ‘affordable rent’ should be considered an exception.

References in the plan relating to Policy DLP12 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build / Custom-Build Housing, should breakdown the 60% allocation to indicate the split between social rent and affordable rent. This split should be periodically reviewed in line with current local housing need, assessed against relevant criteria applicable at the time. This is to ensure that the Council meets it’s obligations to those who cannot afford so-called ‘affordable rent’ as in practice this is simply a rent discounted from the market rent and in many cases is far from genuinely affordable.

To put that in context, social rent is set through the National Rent Regime in England at around 50% of market rents.

Affordable rental properties are homes let at least 20% below local market rents. Intermediate rental properties are let at rates set between market rents and social rents. With rents in the private sector at their current levels, affordable rent is anything but genuinely affordable for a
huge proportion of our population.

Comment

Representation ID: 449

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 12 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
All flatted/apartment schemes should be exempt from self-build and custom build hosing
requirements. It is not possible to have a self-build flat/apartment.

Object

Representation ID: 461

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Draft Policy DLP12 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible
and Self-Build / Custom-Build Housing)
2.81 Taylor Wimpey objects to draft Policy DLP12 on the grounds of soundness as the policy
seeks to address viability on a site-by-site basis rather than through plan-led viability
testing.
2.82 It is noted that within draft policy DLP12 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and
Self-Build/Custom-Build Housing), paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Financial Viability
Assessments section state that;
“On sites where applying the affordable housing or wheelchair accessibility requirements
can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such
housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to
achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the
development to gain planning permission.
Financial viability assessments conforming to national guidance will be required to be
submitted and, where necessary, independently appraised by an appropriate professional
appointed by the local planning authority at the cost of the applicant. Flexible
arrangements will be sought through planning agreements, wherever possible, to allow
for changing market conditions in future years. Any viability assessment should be
prepared on the basis that it will be made publicly available other than in exceptional
circumstances, and in such circumstances an executive summary will be made publicly
available.” (Emphasis added)
2.83 This indicates that an application-led viability assessment will be required on a site-by-site
basis.
2.84 However, the NPPF clearly indicates in paragraph 58 that;
“Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development,
planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to
the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a
viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability
assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in
the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to
date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All
viability assessments, including any undertaken at the plan-making stage, should reflect
the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised
inputs, and should be made publicly available.” (Emphasis added)
2.85 As such, the draft Local Plan proposing for a viability assessment to be undertaken for all
application demonstrates a clear conflict with national policy which indicates it’s at the
applicant’s discretion to produce a viability assessment under Particular circumstances, and
not on a site-by-site basis. This point is reinforced by paragraph 15 of the NPPF which
states that “the planning system should be genuinely plan-led” and not led on a site-by-site
basis. 2.86 Taylor Wimpey therefore objects to draft Policy DLP12 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair
Accessible and Self-Build/Custom-Build Housing) and find the Draft Policy to be unsound
as the reliance on application led viability testing within the draft Dudley Local Plan would
appear contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF.
2.87 The deliverability of Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build/Custom-Build
Housing is critical to deliver as part of the plan strategy to meet identified needs and should
be able to be achieved on sites identified for delivery through the draft Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 499

Received: 22/01/2024

Respondent: St Phillips Land Limited

Agent: Lichfields

Draft Policy DLP12 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build / Custom-Build Housing)

2.110 St Philips objects to draft Policy DLP12 on the grounds of soundness as the policy seeks to address viability on a site-by-site basis rather than through plan-led viability testing.

2.111 It is noted that within draft policy DLP12 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build/Custom-Build Housing), paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Financial Viability Assessments section state that;

“On sites where applying the affordable housing or wheelchair accessibility requirements can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Financial viability assessments conforming to national guidance will be required to be submitted and, where necessary, independently appraised by an appropriate professional appointed by the local planning authority at the cost of the applicant. Flexible arrangements will be sought through planning agreements, wherever possible, to allow for changing market conditions in future years. Any viability assessment should be prepared on the basis that it will be made publicly available other than in exceptional circumstances, and in such circumstances an executive summary will be made publicly available.” (Emphasis added)

2.112 This indicates that an application-led viability assessment will be required on a site-by-site basis. However, the NPPF clearly indicates in paragraph 58 that;

“Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All
viability assessments, including any undertaken at the plan-making stage, should reflect the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.” (Emphasis added)

2.113 As such, the draft Local Plan proposing for a viability assessment to be undertaken for all applications demonstrates a clear conflict with national policy which indicates it’s at the applicant’s discretion to produce a viability assessment under Particular circumstances, and not on a site-by-site basis. This point is reinforced by paragraph 15 of the NPPF which
states that “the planning system should be genuinely plan-led” and not led on a site-by-site basis.

2.114 St Philips therefore objects to draft Policy DLP12 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build/Custom-Build Housing) and finds the Draft Policy to be unsound as the reliance on application-led viability testing within the draft Dudley Local Plan would appear contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF.

2.115 The deliverability of Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build/Custom-Build Housing is critical to deliver as part of the plan strategy to meet identified needs and should be able to be achieved on sites identified for delivery through the draft Local Plan.

Draft Dudley Local Plan Viability Assessment

2.116 As noted above, CBRE have reviewed the Council’s VA; however, a summary of CBRE’s review of the VA is provided as follows.

Brownfield Land Value Analysis

Absence of Transparency

2.117 When identifying sites for assessment, the VA has not disclosed the parameters of their search nor set out a schedule of comparable evidence, which fails the necessary requirement for transparency.

2.118 AV has not cited any tangible comparable evidence and does not provide a formal analysis of evidence to detail how the market comparable evidence (or information drawn from previous documents) has been translated into the BLVs adopted. This falls short of the requirements set out within PPGV11.

2.119 Given this lack of transparency, it is unclear how AV has arrived at the Existing Use Values
('EUVs') stated and applied when calculating BLV.

CBRE Market Evidential Cross-check

2.120 CBRE has undertaken independent research of brownfield land values in the Council’s area. This has included both the asking prices of brownfield sites available on the market in September 2023 and land transactional evidence.

2.121 There is an apparent scarcity of brownfield land entering the market, and land for industrial uses such as storage is in demand across the West Midlands.

2.122 As such, secondary industrial and storage land is being marketed and transacted at considerably higher prices than Aspinall Verdi’s EUV and BLV assumptions. CBRE has identified no sites on the market below £250,000 per gross acre.

2.123 CBRE's analysis concludes that existing low-grade and secondary active industrial sites will generate land values in excess of £500,000 per gross acre, without a premium applied for residential development potential.

2.124 By comparison, CBRE is aware that in the wider West Midlands market, secondary industrial land trades for in excess of £500,000 per gross acre and up to £1 million per gross acre for sites of circa 1 to 3 acres.

2.125 Ultimately, AV's adopted 'starting point' for setting BLVs, predicated on EUVs at £250,000 to £300,000 per gross acre is demonstrably too low and represents an unrealistic basis for the preparation of viability assessment evidence, which if relied upon could pose a risk to the deliverability of the DLP.

Flawed Correlation of Brownfield EUVs with Residential Value Zones

2.126 Aspinall Verdi’s methodology applies lower brownfield EUVs (£250,000/gross acre) in designated ‘low’ and ‘medium’ residential value zones but then applies a higher brownfield EUV in the designated ‘high’ residential value zone.

2.127 Aspinall Verdi has not put any evidence forward to justify applying a lower EUV in a 'low' and 'medium' value zone, than in a 'high' residential value zone. Put simply, there is no evidential correlation between the residential value zones and the EUV of brownfield land.

2.128 CBRE advocates that, in reality, 'higher' value commercial brownfield locations are typically in the 'lower' value residential zones. Aspinall Verdi’s methodology is flawed and needs to be addressed.

Net to Gross Efficiency of Brownfield Sites

2.129 Aspinall Verdi has assumed a net-to-gross efficiency of 100% for brownfield sites to reflect the net developable area available for residential redevelopment.

2.130 However, this assumption is not substantiated by Aspinall Verdi and is without evidential underwrite. CBRE contends this is an unrealistic proposition.

2.131 Based on recent planning permissions, CBRE concludes that a more realistic gross-to-net site efficiency on brownfield sites redeveloped for residential use would be c.75%.

2.132 Additionally, with the introduction of the mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain requirement for sites seeking planning permission from January 2024, it is expected that brownfield site efficiencies will decrease further.

Uplift Multiplier

2.133 Aspinall Verdi adopts an uplift multiplier (‘landowner premium’) of between 5-10% over perceived EUVs.

2.134 Firstly, CBRE states that the multipliers adopted represent the lowest CBRE has seen proposed nationally within any viability assessment prepared for the purpose of informing Local Plan policies.

2.135 Secondly, this multiplier conflicts with multipliers typically advocated and supported at the planning application stage and via planning appeals. CBRE states that the typical adopted range is between 10% and 40%, with the application of a 20% premium in excess of brownfield site EUVs representing the industry ‘norm’.

2.136 CBRE have not identified any evidence justifying the uplift multipliers adopted by Aspinall
Verdi, or any market sense-check.

2.137 Therefore, it is requested that the methodology and evidence to justify the uplift multipliers is provided by Aspinall Verdi for further comment.

Market Sense Check - Planning Policy Compliant Residential Developments

2.138 CBRE has undertaken a search of recent planning permissions in the borough to determine the deliverability of 'Policy Compliant' residential developments on brownfield sites (i.e., delivering the target 25% affordable housing provision on all sites of 15 dwellings or more and providing other required planning obligations) to ascertain if this represents a commercially realistic proposition in recent years.

2.139 Officer Reports and Planning Committee records confirm that the majority of brownfield residential developments have faced viability challenges. In fact, grant funding has been awarded and utilised in some instances to deliver a greater proportion of affordable housing units and support deliverability on brownfield land.

2.140 The Officer Report to the Planning Committee for the recently consented residential development of 72no. units on the former quarry and tip at Bourne (Ref: P20/1306) confirm that a viability assessment was prepared and was independently verified. It was determined that no affordable housing provision or any other Section 106 contributions would be provided.

2.141 CBRE has been unable to further investigate site-specific viability challenges on other sites within Dudley as, contrary to the NPPF, Financial Viability Assessments and independent reviews have not been published by DMBC online.

2.142 CBRE requests that this information is disclosed and is made accessible within the public domain if Aspinall Verdi is to place any reliance on it.

2.143 AV reports on the basis of two 'scenarios', which are referred to as 'worst-case' and
'pragmatic'. CBRE consider AV's terminology misleading, and these 'scenarios' should be retitled as 'baseline' and 'optimistic' scenarios respectively. Within the optimistic ('pragmatic') scenario, AV has:

a reduced construction costs to a lower range across all site typologies; and

b reduced the developer's target profit margin. CBRE notes this now falls below margins accepted via Appeal Decisions determined during 2023 since which time market conditions have continued to deteriorate.

2.144 The impact of AV's optimistic ('pragmatic') adjustments increases the viability of site typologies, albeit not significantly, with all sites in the Low Value Zone remaining unviable and undeliverable, and the majority of sites in the Medium Value Zone remaining
'marginal', meaning that they still cannot fully comply with DLP policies.

2.145 CBRE understands that AV's recommendations to Dudley for setting policies within the DLP are predicated upon the results of the optimistic ('pragmatic') scenario, rather than the baseline (i.e., current market) scenario, which represents a more realistic assessment of current market conditions.

2.146 The impact will be that policy costs introduced on brownfield development sites will be unduly burdensome, which will either render sites undeliverable or preclude developers from bringing forward developments through the planning system that are in compliance with the adopted Plan.

2.147 In ES 23 of the VA, AV states that the viability threshold of sites within the designated
'Lower Value' zones is such that they cannot viably provide 10% affordable housing, based on the evidence in the VA. Despite this, it is recommended to the Council that the affordable housing target of 10% is applied in the Lower Value zones (or others where sites are unviable), with Dudley reliant on NPPF paragraph 65.

2.148 ES 29 of the VA proceeds by stating that:

"In order for the Dudley to achieve its housing targets it is likely that 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."

2.149 This is expanded upon further in ES 31 and ES 32 whereby AV recommend that the results of the viability testing under the optimistic ('pragmatic') scenario demonstrate sites in the Lower Value zones or brownfield sites would require gap funding via public sector grant awards of £100,000+ per affordable housing unit in order to secure their viable delivery with affordable housing provision in accordance with Policy DLP12.

2.150 This is also the case in Medium Value market areas, where sites are also demonstrably unviable on a policy-compliant basis. Paragraph ES 32 of the VA confirms that grant awards of £40,000 - £60,000 per affordable unit would be required to secure the viable delivery of sites with affordable housing provision in accordance with Policy DLP12.

2.151 It is therefore considered that the preparation of policies in the DLP utilizing AV’s evidence base presents a high risk of failing the test of soundness, as per NPPF paragraph 35.

2.152 Having conducted a detailed review of the VA, CBRE has identified a series of technical deficiencies in the adopted methodology and inputs as discussed in Appendix 4. In addition, several requests for clarification from AV are made, where evidenced justification is lacking.

Policy Costs Applied within the VA

2.153 CBRE considers that there are a series of flaws in the costs of DLP policies applied to the viability assessment by AV. These serve to understate the development costs that will be incurred by development site typologies within the borough in the current market. This poses a material risk that the results overstate the financial viability of sites.


• Draft Policy DLP32 - Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

• Draft Policy DLP12 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build/ Custom-Build Housing

• Draft Policy DLP16 - Education Facilities

• Policy DLP85 - Contaminated Land

• Policy DLP42 - Energy Infrastructure

2.155 CBRE conclude that the costs for draft Policies DLP32 have been underestimated and recommends that AV should adjust the costs for inflation. This would result in an increase in the costs to present-day rates.

2.156 Regarding the cost associated with draft Policy DLP16 and DLP 85, it is not explained how this figure is calculated for the purpose of testing or whether it represents an up-to-date assessment of costs.

2.157 In terms of draft Policy DLP42, CBRE proposes that the VA should be updated to test a minimum rate of £10,000/unit, on the assumption that a cost towards the lower end of the spectrum may be achievable via technological advancement and the securing of economies of scale by volume housebuilders. However, CBRE is mindful that small to medium enterprises and regional-scale developers are less likely to be able to secure such economies.

2.158 CBRE notes that the VA makes no allowance for off-site highway reinforcement works and instead points to a sensitivity analysis for reliance. CBRE expects that most sites of modest scale and above will create traffic impacts that will necessitate off-site works to mitigate. As a result, it is expected that the exclusion of any allowance in the VA will contribute to an unduly optimistic position on viability outcomes.

Comment

Representation ID: 530

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Churchill Retirement Living

Agent: Churchill Retirement Living

The consultation has not made a Local Plan Viability Assessment (LPVA) publicly available. There is therefore no evidence demonstrating that the affordable housing requirements proposed viable. By limiting the opportunities for comment of the Local Plan Viability Assessment we are of the view that the Council has deviated from national guidance and the Local Plan is not considered positively prepared, justified, effective and crucially is consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 538

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

The LPA is taking forward a seemingly inflexible, heavily out-of-date, unsound and highly onerous affordable housing planning policy regime, an onerous Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and planning obligations policy regime into the emerging Local Plan Review (2023). These policies, such as affordable housing policy, are fixed and based on planning policy assumptions made a number of years ago now as part of the evidence base work previously undertaken for the now collapsed Black Country Plan (BCP) Review (Autumn 2021). This BCP Review evidence base work is based on insufficiently robust and heavily out-of-date pre-COVID-19 economic data which is no longer defendable. This planning policy approach is therefore in direct conflict with guidance reinforced within paragraphs 31 and 82 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (2023). Future Policy formulation and policy shaping needs to remain significantly more responsive to the adverse economic landscape now facing housing developers operating across the Black Country sub-region for the various economic factors discussed above now facing the construction industry. The LPA cannot continue to keep placing unreasonable and financially onerous planning policy demands on rural landowners and housing developers within the borough during a 300-year-economic-recession-event.

Object

Representation ID: 558

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP12 – Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible & Self-Build Housing

4.3. The draft Policy DLP12 establishes the Council’s intention to determine the appropriate type and tenure of affordable housing provision on a site by site basis with regard to the local housing needs and the latest available evidence. However, the draft Policy continues on, in point 4, to identify a recommended tenure split. As noted in Section 2 of these representations in respect of the overall Development Strategy, the affordable housing need in the Borough is significant and it is critical that the Plan advocates an approach that seeks to address this positively.

4.4. It is considered that the Policy as currently drafted provides a confusing and contradictory approach, suggesting that the Council wants to ensure provision of affordable housing accords with the needs of existing and future residents in line with the most recently available information. However, conversely, the policy suggests a prescriptive split of tenures. This conflicts with the requirement in the Framework for policies to be clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. It would be preferable for the Council to suggest an evidence-based approach that allows for deviation from a set tenure split, as this would enable developments to respond current and anticipated affordable housing needs. This would also ensure that the type and tenure can best respond to local context, whereby there may be circumstances where certain types of affordable housing are better suited and would better address local needs. Pursuing a highly prescriptive approach can result in challenges in securing Registered Providers or accessing grant funding, which can ultimately challenge the overall delivery of a scheme or the affordable housing elements.

4.5. It is therefore recommended that draft Policy DLP12 is revised to remove reference to the tenure split set out in criteria 4 of the policy. Alternatively, at the very least, the policy should identify that this is an indicative tenure split and the split is to be agreed on a site by site basis, based on the most recently available evidence ensuring that it is consistent with national policy in regards to plan-making. This will help to ensure that affordable housing delivery is achievable in developments and helps to address the high level of affordable housing needs within the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 574

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP12 – Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible & Self-Build Housing
4.3.
The draft Policy DLP12 establishes the Council’s intention to determine the appropriate type and tenure of affordable housing provision on a site by site basis with regard to the local housing needs and the latest available evidence. However, the draft Policy continues on, in point 4, to identify a recommended tenure split. As noted in Section 2 of these representations in respect of the overall Development Strategy, the affordable housing need in the Borough is significant and
it is critical that the Plan advocates an approach that seeks to address this positively.
4.4.
It is considered that the Policy as currently drafted provides a confusing and contradictory approach, suggesting that the Council wants to ensure provision of affordable housing accords with the needs of existing and future residents in line with the most recently available information. However, conversely, the policy suggests a prescriptive split of tenures. This conflicts with the requirement in the Framework for policies to be clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. It would be preferable for the Council to suggest an evidence-based approach that allows for deviation from a set tenure split, as this would enable developments to respond current and anticipated affordable housing needs. This would also ensure that the type and tenure can best respond to local context, whereby there may be circumstances where certain types of affordable housing are better suited and would better address local needs. Pursuing a highly prescriptive approach can result in challenges in securing Registered Providers or accessing grant funding, which can ultimately challenge the overall delivery of a scheme or the affordable housing elements.
4.5.
It is therefore recommended that draft Policy DLP12 is revised to remove reference to the tenure split set out in criteria 4 of the policy. Alternatively, at the very least, the policy should identify that this is an indicative tenure split and the split is to be agreed on a site by site basis, based on the most recently available evidence ensuring that it is consistent with national policy in regards to plan-making. This will help to ensure that affordable housing delivery is achievable in developments and helps to address the high level of affordable housing needs within the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 683

Received: 25/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Property Services Ltd

We suggest the Council consider the need for affordable housing for NHS staff and those employed
by other health and care providers in the local authority area. The sustainability of the NHS is largely
dependent on the recruitment and retention of its workforce. Most NHS staff need to be anchored at
a specific workplace or within a specific geography to carry out their role. When staff cannot afford
to rent or purchase suitable accommodation within reasonable proximity to their workplace, this has
an impact on the ability of the NHS to recruit and retain staff.
Housing affordability and availability can play a significant role in determining people’s choices about
where they work, and even the career paths they choose to follow. As the population grows in areas
of new housing development, additional health services are required, meaning the NHS must grow
its workforce to adequately serve population growth. Ensuring that NHS staff have access to suitable
housing at an affordable price within reasonable commuting distance of the communities they serve
is an important factor in supporting the delivery of high-quality local healthcare services. We
recommend that the Council:
• Engage with local NHS partners such as the local Integrated Care Board (ICB), NHS Trusts
and other relevant Integrated Care System (ICS) partners.
•
Ensure that the local need for affordable housing for NHS staff is factored into housing needs assessments, and any other relevant evidence base studies that inform the local plan (for example employment or other economic policies).
•
Consider site selection and site allocation policies in relation to any identified need for affordable housing for NHS staff, particularly where sites are near large healthcare employers.

Comment

Representation ID: 856

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

The Council must therefore that an up-to-date Viability Assessment is undertaken to inform
the future versions of the plan. The new Viability Assessment must include a number of typologies
that includes older person’s housing and if older person’s housing is found to be not viable an
exemption must be provided within the plan in order to prevent protracted conversations at the
application stage over affordable housing provision and delaying the provision of much needed older
persons housing.