Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Object

Representation ID: 287

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

DMBC’s refusal to consider the release of land from the Green Belt for development to meet the housing needs of the Borough is extremely concerning. That results in a DLP that fails each of the tests as set out in NPPF Paragraph 35. It is not positively prepared, is not justified, is not effective, and is not consistent with national policy. That is, the DLP is fundamentally unsound in NPPF terms. In the context of the significant unmet needs that would otherwise arise, there are clearly exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt land, and DMBC should therefore undertake a pragmatic review of the Green Belt boundaries in the Borough e.g. Bromwich Lane, Pedmore.

Object

Representation ID: 288

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

The actual shortfall in housing will be significantly higher than DMBC suggest. That is because (i) the housing requirement must be increased above the baseline LHN to reflect the increased economic activity that is expected in the forthcoming plan period and provide for a suitable mix of housing, including affordable housing, and should be applied across an extended plan period to 2043, and (ii) the actual supply of housing in the plan period is likely to fall well below the figure expected by DMBC.
Plan shows acceptance that housing need will not be met. That is contrary to the provisions of the NPPF and fails all tests of local plan soundness, as well as the requirements of the DtC. Without significant amendments, the DLP will experience a protracted examination period that will require DMBC to identify additional allocation sites during the examination process to remedy the fundamental failings of the plan. That will delay the plan’s adoption and delivery of housing, which in the meantime will inevitably result in DMBC losing its marginal five year housing land supply position and leave the Borough open to speculative development until a sound plan is adopted.
Simply applying the base level LHN over the 20 year plan period would result in a housing need of 12,940 dwellings (c. 1,000 dwellings above the figure stated in Policy DLP1). The housing requirement will, however, be much higher than that.

Object

Representation ID: 289

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

Following the collapse of the Black Country Plan, it was expected that DMBC could meet its housing need within its own jurisdiction but was unwilling to meet the housing needs of the neighbouring authorities. There, it is simply hypocritical for DMBC to now take the stance that it should not be held accountable for meeting its own housing needs, that it should not release Green Belt land for development, and that the residual unmet needs should be “exported through Duty to Co-operate.”
DTC paper overlooks neglects to mention that South Staffordshire are re-considering their contribution, that Cannock Chase’s plan has stalled with no sign that it will advance with the previous contribution retained, that Lichfield will now be restarting their plan (likely to be examined under the new planning system, without a formal DtC requirement) and that Shropshire’s contribution specifically towards Dudley’s unmet needs is limited to a maximum of c. 400 dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 290

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

The proposed 2041 end date is predicated on DMBC’s expectation as per the July 2023 Local Development Scheme (LDS) that the CLP will be adopted in Spring 2026. However, the timescales as set out in the LDS are extremely challenging, and itself recognises that the timely adoption is dependent on the timescales for the DLP’s examination. Given the scale and complexity of the DLP, which is effectively considering a range of matters that are currently covered by three tiers of adopted plans (the Black Country Core Strategy, Dudley Development Strategy and individual Area Action Plans), it is more likely that the plan will be adopted in late 2027 / 4 2028. To meet the requirements of NPPF paragraph 22, the plan period should therefore be extended to 2043, and the approach taken in strategic policies should be reviewed on that basis, most notably by increasing the housing requirement and identifying additional development sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 291

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

The DLP suggests a plan period between 2023 and 2041; although it is noted that the employment land development calculations take account of commitments between 2020 and 2022.

Object

Representation ID: 292

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

Contrary to the requirements of the NPPF paragraph 66, Policy DLP1 does not set a housing requirement for the plan area. This is a fundamental failing of the DLP. Policy DLP1 instead makes reference to the quantum of housing that DMBC consider will be delivered in the plan period (at 10,876 net new homes). That figure that is disputed by WDH (see their response to Policy DLP10), but notwithstanding that, the DLP must clearly set out a housing requirement within Policy DLP1.
Housing Market Assessment does not provide a judgement as to whether there is justification to plan for a level of growth in excess of the SM-derived LHN. Therefore, an updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is required, and must account for the significant evidence that suggests that such an uplift is necessary. It is evident that the region will experience significant investment and economic activity in the coming years as a result of that aspirational strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 293

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

Current Housing Market Assessment identifies an annual affordable housing need of 867 dpa (which equates to over 20% of the LHN) and also highlights (at Figure 8.1) that the highest overall requirement is for 3-bedroom houses, followed by 4-bed houses, then 2-bed and 1-bed houses. However, the spatial strategy relies heavily on supply from within strategic centres, and Policies DLP11 and DLP12 expect such locations to deliver 100% flats with a ‘low’ indicative amount of housing suited to families, and just 10% affordable housing. That further demonstrates that an uplift above the LHN is required, and that greenfield sites (including Green Belt land) should be allocated to realise the required level of affordable housing delivery and an appropriate mix of houses of all sizes across the Borough. There is, therefore, very clear justification for DMBC to set a housing requirement that exceeds the SM derived LHN.

Object

Representation ID: 294

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

WDH’s comments in response to Policy DLP10 clearly demonstrate that there is significant uncertainty surrounding the sources of housing delivery that are identified in the DLP, and that a buffer of 20% should be applied to the residual housing requirement (i.e. the housing requirement once finalised, minus residential deliveries and commitments with an appropriate non-implementation rate) to provide certainty in that regard. WDH’s comments highlight that, in applying a more realistic position to the DLP’s purported sources of supply, there will be a shortfall of 3,325 homes, which must be addressed through the DLP for it to be considered sound.
The supply is homogenous in nature, with an overdependence on brownfield sites within the urban area. The NPPF is clear however, that local plans should “identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability.” Brownfield sites can often be particularly complex and subject to delayed delivery and are likely to stifle the overall delivery of affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 295

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

Table 8.1.

A lapse rate should be applied based on DMBC’s own assessment of sites with planning permission or prior approval. If done, the overall figure for the ‘current supply’ category would, therefore, be 2,717 dwellings, rather than 2,913 dwellings as currently stated in Table 8.1.

Object

Representation ID: 296

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd on behalf of William Davis Homes

It is clear that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ present to justify the release of Green Belt land for development in accordance with NPPF paragraph 141. That is, the emerging DLP and previous local plans have clearly maximised the potential of “suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land” and sought to optimise the density of development within such sites as per NPPF paragraphs 141a and 141b. Furthermore, it is clear that surrounding local authorities could not meet Dudley’s unmet housing needs within their own jurisdiction given that all surrounding authorities are constrained by Green Belt and, in the case of most authorities, are likely to be unable to meet their own housing needs as a result. In that regard, even by pursuing the approaches proposed in NPPF paragraph 141 (clauses a to c), a substantial shortfall in housing supply will still persist across the plan period.

The DLP continues to rely on the 2019 Black Country Green Belt Study (BCGBS) and the associated Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (BCLSA) despite WDH having highlighted multiple times that the reports are underpinned by significant methodological flaws and therefore that a number of promoted sites in the Green Belt have previously been rejected based on flawed justification. WDH’s concerns in that regard are reiterated in response to Policy DLP10.
The conclusions of the BCGBS’s Stage 1 assessment of Parcel B60 are wildly inaccurate as they have been directly informed by an unsuitable methodology that sought to assess a very large and varied Green Belt parcel, rather than breaking the parcel down into smaller parcels that more accurately reflect the clear variations in character and Green Belt contribution, as demonstrated in an appeal in St Albans.