Comment

Representation ID: 936

Received: 21/11/2024

Respondent: Dennis R Whittaker

Mostly support but would need to know what is planned on a site by site basis.

Object

Representation ID: 1069

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

However, this change does not address the concerns raised by Taylor Wimpey in the regulation 18 consultation that the approach on a site-by-site basis. St Philips therefore objects to draft Policy DLP12 on the grounds of soundness as the policy should be implemented via plan-led viability testing.

Taylor Wimpey 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.

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.

As such, the draft Local Plan proposing for a viability assessment to be undertaken for all applications demonstrates a clear conflict with national policy [paragraph 58] 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.

Object

Representation ID: 1083

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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 and highly accessible 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 Dudley Housing Market Assessment.

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 differentiating between brownfield and greenfield sites and the proportion of accessible dwellings to be provided on each, it must be recognised that larger accessible homes require more land to accommodate them. As such, if this is the objective greenfield sites will not be able to accommodate development at the same density as brownfield sites.

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.

Barberry object to policy DLP12 on the basis that is it’s not effective and not consistent with national policy. The rationale for requiring different levels of wheelchair accessible housing according to the land value that can be achieved ignores the fact that people requiring a wheelchair accessible house do not all live in higher value areas. Similarly, the justification for differential affordable housing thresholds acknowledges that delivery of affordable housing is more likely in higher value areas. If this is the case, then Barberry contend that more sites, such as the land at Swindon Road, Wall Heath, should be allocated for development and which would be capable of making a policy compliant affordable housing contribution. Finally, the requirement to provide self build plots as part of new residential developments of more than 100 dwellings overstates the demand for self build within the Borough. A lower percentage would be appropriate and would likely satisfy the demand for self build.

Object

Representation ID: 1143

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Added to the points made in response to DLP11 around the inability of the draft DLP to deliver the homes generally needed in Dudley (as set out in draft Policy DLP10), draft Policy DLP12 highlights Dudley’s worsening housing affordability. It refers to the need for affordable homes in Dudley, as identified in the HMA which could be as high as nearly 400 dpa if realistic assumptions are made about affordability and proportions of household income to be spent on housing.
Policy DLP12 sets a sliding scale of requiring between 10% and 30% affordable housing from qualifying sites. To meet the need for
Dudley’s worsening affordability, and inability to deliver the affordable homes needed, provides another indicator to justify increasing the draft DLP’s planned housing supply further beyond the level it has identified through Policy DLP10 and above the minimum LHN – in order to deliver the affordable homes that are needed in Dudley over the DLP period.
All allocated sites should be tested to evaluate the likely level of affordable housing deliverable.

Comment

Representation ID: 1176

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Brierley Hill Community Forum

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 (scrutineers selected by the council) 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: 1215

Received: 05/12/2024

Respondent: Walsall Council

The policy should state that the value zones are as shown on figure 8.2 as they do not
appear to be defined anywhere else.

Object

Representation ID: 1226

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

. The LPA is taking forward a seemingly inflexible, heavily out-of-date, unsound, unreasonable, financially unsustainable and highly onerous affordable housing (30% affordable housing target) planning policy regime, an onerous Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and planning obligations policy regime into the emerging Local Plan Review (2024). These policies, such as affordable housing policy, are fixed and based on heavily out-of-date and no longer reliable 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 2022). This BCP Review not fit-for-purpose evidence base work is based on insufficiently robust and heavily out-of-date pre-COVID-19 economic data which is no longer defendable, reliable or sufficiently robust. This planning policy approach is therefore in direct conflict with guidance reinforced within paragraphs 31, 35 (indent b) and 86 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (December 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 within this Local Plan Representation now facing the construction industry. The LPA cannot continue to keep placing unreasonable, financially onerous and financially damaging planning policy demands on rural landowners and housing developers within the borough during a severe 300-year-economic-recession-event.

Comment

Representation ID: 1230

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: West Midlands Housing Association Planning Consortium (WMHAPC)

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Current Policy HOU3: Requires 25% affordable housing on developments of 15 or more dwellings.

Draft Policy DLP12: Proposes a sliding scale for developments of 10 or more dwellings:

10% in lower value zones
20% on brownfield sites in medium value zones
25% on greenfield sites in medium value zones
30% in higher value zones
Concerns: The WMHAPC is worried that the new policy might lead to less affordable housing, especially in lower and medium value zones, which cover a large part of the Borough.

Affordable Housing Breakdown: Draft Policy DLP12 suggests:

25% First Homes
25% Shared Ownership
50% Social Rent or Affordable Rent
Issues with First Homes: The WMHAPC believes the 25% requirement for First Homes could limit other affordable housing types and suggests referencing the latest housing needs assessment for flexibility.

Accessibility Requirements: The draft policy includes targets for wheelchair-accessible and adaptable homes, but there are concerns about the viability of these targets on certain sites.

The WMHAPC supports some changes, like the increased requirement for Shared Ownership, but urges the Council to reconsider aspects that might reduce the overall provision of affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 1249

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Churchill Retirement Living

Agent: Planning Issues Ltd

Since the Regulation 18 consultation, held in November 2023, the Council have published their Dudley Local Plan Viability Study (November 2023) and Addendum Report (September 2024). The Addendum Report recently published is welcomed given its specific review of Older Persons Housing.
The Viability Report Addendum undertakes viability on both older persons housing and extra care schemes in three value zones, the schemes are all comprised of 60 units.
Paragraph 8.62 stipulates:
Across all the schemes, negative RLVs ranging from -£3,950,000 to - £3,023,000 per acre, meaning that all the schemes produce a large deficit when compared to the BLV's. This therefore means that all the schemes are fundamentally unviable. (our emphasis added)
Paragraph 11.13 further confirms:
Given the results of our viability appraisals in section 8 confirming that Older Persons's housing to be fundamentally unviable, we recommend that affordable housing provision is not included on retirement living and extra care schemes.

When reviewing the wording of Policy DLP12, it is greatly welcomed that the Council have proposed under Point 2) older person's homes for retirement living/sheltered housing and extra care as defined in the PPG are excluded from providing affordable housing. This considers the findings of the viability review recently undertaken and is therefore sound.

However, Point 3) of draft Policy DLP12 goes on to state "The Council will engage proactively with developers of older persons housing to seek to meet the identified affordable housing needs of the borough, including via partnership working and identifying funding and grant programs" This subsequent point therefore entirely contradicts the earlier exclusion of older persons housing in providing affordable housing within the three value zones. This would also be considered contrary to PPG guidance which states:

"Policy requirements should be clear SO that they can be accurately accounted for in the price paid for land. To provide this certainty, affordable housing requirements should be expressed as a single figure rather than a range."

Having gone to the extents of testing the typology at the plan making stage, to then contradict the findings seems to be a wasted exercise and contrary to the PPG which clearly requires that local plan policy should be clear and accurate, by way of providing expressed single figures rather than a range.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommend the following amendment to draft policy DLP12 to ensure accordance with national guidance and the Council's own viability findings.
"The Council will engage proactively with developers of older persons housing to seek to meet the identified affordable housing needs of borough, including via partnership working and identifying funding and grant programs"

Object

Representation ID: 1250

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Praxis Group

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy DLP12, linked to DLP1, fails to address the identified affordable housing need, which requires 23.5% of housing to be affordable. Several factors contribute to this shortfall:

Sites below the threshold won't provide affordable housing, increasing the pressure on higher-threshold sites to meet the 23.5%.
Affordable housing targets for most sites are set at 10-20% based on lower and medium-value brownfield sites.
Even with all sites meeting policy, the affordable housing rate would only reach 10-20%, with some sites failing due to viability issues.
To address this unmet need, the housing requirement should be increased, or Green Belt land should be considered to deliver more affordable homes. Both options should be explored.

Object

Representation ID: 1254

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: St Phillips Land Limited

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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.

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.

Viability Assessment
The Council has not provided an updated viability assessment as part of the regulation 19 consultation. As such, St Philips comments raised in the regulation 18 consultation via a review by CBRE still stand. A summary of CBRE’s review of the Viability Assessment is provided as follows.

Object

Representation ID: 1291

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 draft policy on affordable and accessible housing is deemed contradictory and ambiguous, particularly regarding the tenure split and site-specific decisions on affordable housing, which should be clarified. The requirement for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant housing is not adequately justified, as the policy fails to consider site-specific factors or evidence of actual need, potentially placing an undue burden on viability. The proportion of M4(2) and M4(3) compliant housing, especially for M4(3) dwellings, is considered excessive and not sufficiently supported. The Council is advised to reconsider the policy, focusing on more appropriate housing types, such as specialist housing for older people, and ensuring the policy is justified and positively prepared.

Object

Representation ID: 1322

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP12: Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible, and Self/Custom Build Housing is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Affordable Housing:
HBF welcomes the recognition of potential viability issues in delivering affordable housing but stresses that viability must be integral to the plan-making process.
Concerns are raised about the Viability Assessment, which does not account for key costs, such as compliance with new Part L regulations (adding £3,500–7,500 per plot), Building Safety Levy, and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).
The plan should incorporate more flexibility in the type and percentage of affordable housing to improve site viability, allowing adjustments based on location-specific needs.
There are concerns about the geographical distribution of affordable housing, suggesting more flexibility and the inclusion of greenfield allocations to support the delivery of family housing and higher percentages of affordable housing.
National Wheelchair Accessibility Standards:
HBF questions the necessity of planning policies on wheelchair accessibility (M4(2) and M4(3)), arguing that this should be addressed through Building Regulations rather than local policy.
If the policy is retained, it needs to differentiate between M4(3) wheelchair adaptable and accessible housing and consider viability concerns. The plan should allow for site-specific flexibility based on factors such as topography and flooding.
Self/Custom Build Housing:
HBF opposes the policy requiring 5% self-build plots in developments of 100+ homes, suggesting a more supportive approach by allocating land for self-build projects through negotiations with landowners or using Council-owned land.
There are practical and logistical concerns about integrating self-build plots with the wider site development, especially concerning construction coordination and health and safety. HBF recommends reducing the marketing period from 12 to 6 months before unsold plots revert to the original developer.
Financial Viability Assessments:
HBF highlights that the typology-based viability methodology used in the plan may not accurately reflect the viability of individual sites, and supports the need for flexibility in addressing site-specific viability issues without relying on overage clauses.

Object

Representation ID: 1348

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Seven Capital

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

To meet the growing demand for affordable housing in the Borough, more greenfield sites should be developed. Concerned that achieving the target of 32.7% affordable housing, as outlined in the Black Country SHMA (2021), will be nearly impossible under existing policies. The Dudley HMA (2024) suggests that 23.5% of new housing should be affordable, but the Viability and Delivery Study shows that the feasibility of this varies greatly depending on land value and use. A sliding scale for affordable housing, ranging from 10%-30%, is proposed, but concerned that the affordability targets, particularly on brownfield sites in medium-value areas, will be unrealistic. Vacant Building Credit can reduce the requirement to zero. Question whether the Council has adequately assessed the ability of brownfield sites to deliver affordable housing; a more accurate evidence base, including data on right-to-buy losses and stock condition, should be prepared to support the plan- need picture of net affordable housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 1362

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: CPRE West Midlands Group

Agent: CPRE Worcestershire

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The threshold should be lower, being related to the affordable housing target, so that on all but the smallest sites the developer will be obliged to provide at least one affordable house.
Where the threshold is 10, there is a perverse incentive for developers to bring forward sites capable of accommodating 10 houses (including 3 affordable, where the target is 30%) as a site for 9 houses (with none affordable). In view of the national shortage of houses for rent, we presume that Dudley MBC wishes to maximise the delivery of affordable houses.
In medium and higher value zones, the threshold should be 3-5 according to the target: if the target is 25%, the threshold should be 4, so that on a site of 4 houses, one will be affordable. Where it is 30%, the target should be 3, again with one affordable.

Object

Representation ID: 1377

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 draft policy on affordable and accessible housing is deemed contradictory and ambiguous, particularly regarding the tenure split and site-specific decisions on affordable housing, which should be clarified. The requirement for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant housing is not adequately justified, as the policy fails to consider site-specific factors or evidence of actual need, potentially placing an undue burden on viability. The proportion of M4(2) and M4(3) compliant housing, especially for M4(3) dwellings, is considered excessive and not sufficiently supported. The Council is advised to reconsider the policy, focusing on more appropriate housing types, such as specialist housing for older people, and ensuring the policy is justified and positively prepared.

Object

Representation ID: 1446

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

**Summary:**

The draft policy on affordable and accessible housing is considered contradictory and ambiguous. Specifically, the policy inconsistently addresses the tenure and type of affordable housing. While criteria 4 suggests a flexible, site-by-site approach to determining affordable housing, criteria 5 proposes a fixed tenure split, which could limit the policy’s responsiveness to changing needs. It is recommended that the policy be modified to ensure clarity and flexibility, as required by national guidelines.

The policy also introduces a requirement for a certain proportion of M4(2) and M4(3) compliant housing, aimed at improving accessibility. However, this requirement has not been sufficiently justified. According to Planning Practice Guidance, such policies should be evidence-based, considering factors like site-specific challenges and the actual need for these standards. The policy’s current provisions may impose unnecessary burdens on the deliverability and viability of housing, especially with the significant proportion of M4(3) dwellings, which may not be justified.

The policy fails to acknowledge that other housing types, such as specialist housing for older people, may be more suitable for addressing accessibility needs. It is recommended that the Council reconsider the requirements of Policy DLP12, ensuring they are justified, reasonable, and align with the principles of sound planning.

Comment

Representation ID: 1507

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: NHS Property Services Ltd

NHSPS supports Draft Policy DLP12 but suggests that the Council consider the need for affordable housing for NHS staff and other healthcare workers in the local area. The recruitment and retention of NHS staff depend on their ability to afford housing near their workplace. As new housing developments grow, there will be a need for more healthcare services, requiring a larger NHS workforce. NHSPS recommends that the Council:

- Engage with local NHS partners to assess housing needs for NHS staff.
- Factor the need for affordable housing for NHS staff into housing assessments and relevant studies.
- Consider site allocation policies for affordable housing near major healthcare employers to support workforce availability.

Object

Representation ID: 1613

Received: 12/12/2024

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

WL objects to Policy DLP12, which outlines thresholds for affordable housing, wheelchair accessible housing, and self-build properties.

Affordable Housing: The policy proposes 20% affordable housing on greenfield sites in medium-value zones. However, since only 3.5% of new allocations are on greenfield land, there is limited potential for affordable housing delivery. The policy also requires 10% affordable housing on previously developed sites, which may impact site viability and result in unmet housing needs.

Wheelchair Accessible Housing: WL objects to the differentiation in wheelchair accessible housing requirements based on land value zones. They argue that wheelchair users should have access to suitable housing regardless of the area’s value. Differentiating these requirements based on land value could limit the availability of accessible homes in lower-value areas, where needs are just as important.

Self-Build Housing: The policy’s 5% self-build requirement on sites over 100 dwellings is seen as excessive given the small number of individuals on the self-build register (83 people). WL suggests a 1% requirement would be more appropriate to meet the actual demand.

WL believes the policy is ineffective and inconsistent with national policy, particularly due to its reliance on land value in determining housing accessibility and affordable housing provision. They argue for allocating more sites, like Worcester Lane, that can meet policy requirements for affordable and wheelchair-accessible housing. Additionally, WL recommends reducing the self-build requirement to better match actual demand.

Object

Representation ID: 1624

Received: 08/01/2025

Respondent: Heyfield Developments

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Our concern with Policy DLP12, perhaps go beyond DLP12 and links back to DLP1. However, it is in DLP12 where the issue becomes apparent and so we have set out our comments here.

The issue is that the plan does not plan to meet the affordable housing need identified, but there is little, if any, acknowledgement of this.

The reason we have concluded the Dudley Local Plan will not meet the affordable housing need, is that for this to happen 23.5% of the housing requirement would need to be affordable. However, the plan does not allow for this for the reasons set out below:

• Sites below the threshold will not deliver affordable housing, which increases the percentage of sites above the threshold that need to be delivered as affordable homes for the 23.5% to be met.
• A range of affordable housing targets are set, but in practice most sites will be in the lower and medium value areas on brownfield sites. This means the majority of site will be brought forward with a starting requirement of 10% and 20% respectively.
• Even if we assume all sites came forward based on the policy requirements, the blended rate on sites above the threshold would be somewhere between 10 and 20%, and slightly closer to 20 to allow for a small number of sites meeting the higher affordable housing requirement.
• However, not all sites will come forward, because the policy recognises some sites will still not be able to meet these requirements and the amount of affordable housing they deliver will be discounted based on the viability of the scheme.
With the affordable housing need not being met, we would have expected more to have been done to explore a higher housing requirement to meet the affordable housing need and / or exploring the release of Green Belt, which can deliver a substantially higher proportion of affordable homes (50% being the requirement in the draft version of the amended NPPF).

We consider both options should be explored and the substantial benefit of delivering affordable housing weighed against the potential negative effects of delivering this additional numbers / different sites, which would be limited.