Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Object

Representation ID: 460

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Draft Policy DLP1 (Development Strategy)
2.1 Taylor Wimpey objects to draft Policy DLP1 on the basis that it seeks to provide 10,876
dwellings in the plan period against a Local Housing Need (“LHN”) of 11,954, leaving a
minimum shortfall of 1,078 dwellings. The DLP has failed to provide sufficient land to meet
the minimum housing need, as per National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”)
paragraph 11(b). Paragraph 68 requires that the Council will need to ensure that additional
housing land should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their
availability, suitability and likely economic viability to deliver specific deliverable site for
the first five years of the plan period and deliverable sites of broad locations to meet needs
for year 6-10 and 11-15 of the plan period.
2.2 The Council has not done this and consequently Policy DLP1 in relation to housing land
supply are not sound.
2.3 Not only is this approach fundamentally flawed and entirely contrary to the requirement of
NPPF paragraph 35(c), but it is completely misaligned with “the Government’s objective of
significantly boosting the supply of homes” (NPPF paragraph 60).
2.4 Principally, Taylor Wimpey considers that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the
redrawing of Green Belt boundaries around the urban edge to release land to meet housing
needs. In this context, case law within Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council
& Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) (21 April 2015) confirms that the acuteness and
intensity of housing need constitutes a matter for consideration in determining whether
exceptional circumstances exist.
2.5 Taylor Wimpey also wishes to draw upon the significant issues raised by the Inspector in
the examination into the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan. Submitted for examination in May
2017, the plan as submitted did not provide for a sufficient housing land supply to meet the
Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (‘FOAHN’). Following stages 1 and 2 of the hearing
sessions, the Inspector issued a 'Green Belt review' note in December 2017 setting out its
initial thoughts relating to the soundness of the plan in the context of the Green Belt Review
findings:
2.6 “The Council has suggested that it is unable to meet its housing need because of Green Belt
restrictions among other concerns. In my concluding remarks to the Hearing sessions into
Strategic Matters, I pointed out that I did not consider the development strategy put
forward in the plan to be sound, in part because there was insufficient justification for the
failure to identify sufficient developable sites within the Green Belt. That is largely
because the phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its
findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by
development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to
smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes
without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how
land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might
reasonably be considered further.” (page 1) [Emphasis added]
2.7 Following conclusion of the examination hearings over three years, the Inspector raised
fundamental issues relating to the soundness of the plan and, amongst other matters,
requested the Council to provide additional sites to make up the supply of housing land to
meet the FOAHN. The Inspector later published its ‘Supplementary Conclusions and
Advice’ note in June 2021, setting out:
2.8 “14. The sites that passed the site selection process but were not submitted to the
Examination, appear to have been rejected primarily because the Land Use Consultants
(LUC) stage 3 GB study concluded that they would cause high or moderate/high harm to
the GB and/or they would erode the green gaps between excluded villages. At the same
time, the Council also resolved to no longer support a number of Regulation 19 sites that
the LUC report had similarly concluded would cause high harm to the GB, including some
that had already been examined and found to be potentially sound.
2.9 15. Whilst the harm to the GB’s purposes is certainly a significant consideration in the
assessment of a site’s appropriateness for allocation, other than in locations that were
specifically classified as “essential GB”, it is not a trump card. It is undoubtedly an
important starting point for the assessment, but it is nevertheless only one of a number of
factors that should be appropriately weighed in the exceptional circumstances’
consideration and then in the overall soundness balance. Whilst site selection should have
regard to the extent of the harm to the GB, sustainability and accessibility factors, as well
as other planning considerations, also warrant weight in this balance.”
2.10 In short, it is critical that the Council avoids a similar fate to that experienced by Welwyn
Hatfield. The Local Plan should identify sufficient land and site to ensure that it is able to
deliver the minimum housing need provided for with the Standard Method. Given the
constrained urban nature of the borough this should inevitably include the release of land
from the Green Belt.
2.11 NPPF paragraph 11(b) requires Dudley to provide for its objectively assessed need for
housing as a minimum, as well as any unmet needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
authorities. Table 5.1 of the DLP states that the shortfall (1,078 dwellings) is to be exported
through the Duty to Co-operate. Taylor Wimpey does not consider this to be a sound
approach and explains why in detail below.
2.12 The significant unmet housing need within the Greater Birmingham and Black Country
Housing Market Area (“GBBCHMA”) has not been acknowledged by draft Policy DLP1. In
consideration, it is unlikely that Dudley’s shortfall will be accommodated by neighbouring
authorities.
2.13 Paragraph 8.4 of the DLP states that the housing supply will accommodate 90.98% of
current local housing need up to 2041 (homes) with 96.4% of the supply on brownfield land
and 3.6% of the supply on greenfield land. Approximately 3,000 dwellings will be provided
through the delivery of windfall sites.
2.14 Taylor Wimpey also raises concern in regard to the deliverability of brownfield land and
considers the stated supply to be an inaccurate figure. The shortfall of housing within
Dudley is likely to be to a greater degree than what has been stated within the DLP. 2.15 The DLP’s approach through draft Policy DLP1 is flawed on several grounds, and these are
set out as follows and below:
1 Local Housing Need: The Local Housing Need has not been met within the spatial
strategy which is the minimum housing need. The Council has not assessed whether a
housing requirement greater than the Local Housing Need is justified.
2 GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need: The DLP fails to acknowledge the unmet
housing need arising from the GBBCHMA when seeking to export Dudley’s housing
shortfall.
3 Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate: The Duty to
Cooperate has not been fulfilled and the unmet housing need identified has been
deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(c). Dudley has not
assessed the reasonable alternatives capable of meeting the minimum housing need.
4 Sustainability Appraisal: The Draft Sustainability Appraisal fails to consider all of
the options available to meet the LHN as well as the GBBCHMA’s unmet need, and
therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).
5 The Deliverability of Brownfield Land: The proposed supply of brownfield land
and windfall sites is an unrealistic strategy. In reality, the shortfall of housing land is
greater than what has been stated within the DLP.
6 Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release: The DLP does not seek to
identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for
housing. The DLP does not recognise that exceptional circumstances for the release of
land from the Green Belt exist.
Local Housing Need
2.16 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound. Draft Policy DLP1 has not considered whether a housing
requirement greater than the LHN is justified. The proposed spatial strategy is unjustified
and so there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether the LHN will be met.
2.17 In this context, paragraph 11b of the NPPF is clear that:
“Strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
areas, unless:
1 the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular
importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or
distribution of development in the plan area; or
2 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole”
2.18 The NPPF also states that:
“To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be
informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in
national planning guidance…” (Para 61) 2.19 It has already been acknowledged that the LHN for Dudley over the upcoming Local Plan
Period (2023-41) is 11,954 dwellings as calculated by the Standard Method. When
compared to the housing target set for the Borough (10,876 dwellings), a shortfall of 1,078
homes is created.
2.20 Taylor Wimpey considers that draft Policy DLP1 is currently unsound as the proposed
spatial strategy is unjustified and so it is uncertain as to whether the LHN will be met. As
discussed below, draft Policy DLP1 (3) aims to export the shortfall to neighbouring
authorities but fails to acknowledge the severe unmet need within the Housing Market
Area. The uncertainty associated with the allocated and emerging contributions from
neighbouring authorities means that Dudley’s shortfall will likely be deferred rather than
dealt with. The Council must identify additional land in order to meet this unmet need and
Taylor Wimpey considers the release of Green Belt land to be the most suitable option.
2.21 The DLP will therefore need to revise its minimum housing target in order to meet the
LHN, and should consequently seek to plan for a minimum of 11,954 dwellings. This would
equate to 664 dwellings per annum (“dpa”) opposed to 604 dpa. Exporting the shortfall
identified within the DLP would be found to be unsound by Inspectors during Local Plan
Examination given the severe shortfall of the GBBCHMA’s unmet need and the uncertainty
associated with the allocated and emerging contributions (discussed below).
2.22 The LHN is a minimum target for housing development. The Council would require
exceptional circumstances to apply a different target but if a housing requirement greater
than the LHN is justified, the Council’s shortfall would be more severe than what is stated.
It is therefore important for the Council to consider whether a housing requirement above
the LHN is justified. The Council should carry out an up-to-date housing needs assessment
to establish if an additional housing requirement is required to take into account additional
need.
2.23 NPPF paragraph 61 states that the local housing need figure determines the minimum
number of homes needed. Therefore, an uplift to the LHN can be applied when supported
by evidence.
2.24 Both the NPPF1 and PPG2 are clear that the LHN figure generated by the standard method
is a minimum starting point (i.e. actual housing need may be higher than this figure).
Moreover, elsewhere in the guidance, the PPG differentiates between the minimum figure
arrived at through the standard method and ‘actual’ housing need which can be higher.
Taylor Wimpey encourages the Council to conduct sufficient research in order to
understand whether an uplift is required.
2.25 It is ‘actual’ housing need that represents the objectively assessed need to which the tests in
paragraph 11 of the NPPF apply, and there is also a requirement for the Council to test
reasonable alternatives3. Therefore, the Council should actively identify whether there are
reasons for testing higher figures as estimates of housing need. Currently, the DLP does not
confirm whether a housing requirement greater than the LHN has been tested. 2.26 Fundamentally, this is because the standard method does not attempt to predict the impact
that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might
have on demographic behaviour, nor considers local factors, policies and aspirations which
might legitimately mean the Council should seek to plan for more homes than the
minimum. The PPG goes on to state that it would be appropriate for a higher figure to be
adopted on the basis of employment, infrastructure, affordable housing needs or unmet
housing needs.4 It is considered that the acute housing shortfall within the GBBCHMA
could justify the adoption of a housing requirement greater than the LHN. If this is the case,
it would be a suitable and justified strategy for Dudley to consider the assessment and
release of Green Belt sites for housing development.
2.27 Where a housing requirement above the LHN is identified, Dudley will have to provide a
greater supply of deliverable sites in order to meet the housing requirement. Taylor
Wimpey considers that the identification of a number of suitable sites would accord with
paragraph 60 of the NPPF which clearly states that:
“To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is
important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is
needed.”
2.28 Taylor Wimpey welcomes the Council’s acknowledgement of Dudley’s LHN but objects to
the Spatial Strategy set out in Policy DLP1. The proposed spatial strategy is unjustified and
it is not clear whether the LHN will be met within the Local Plan period. Additionally, given
the severe unmet need within the GBBCHMA. So that the Local Plan may be found to be
sound, Taylor Wimpey urges the Council to consider the release of suitable sites from the
Green Belt so that as a minimum, the LHN is met.
GBBCHMA Unmet Housing Need
2.29 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as it fails to acknowledge and address the unmet housing
need arising from the GBBCHMA, and instead seeks to increase the shortfall.
2.30 The GBBCHMA’s overall situation has primarily been set out within the:
• Draft Dudley Local Plan Duty to Co-operate Statement (October 2023)
• ‘Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) Housing
Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement Addendum’ (April 2023)
• Birmingham Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation Document (December 2022)
• Draft Black Country Plan Regulation 18 consultation Document (August 2021)
2.31 In this regard, Taylor Wimpey notes that within the GBBCHMA there is emerging evidence
of an acute level of unmet housing need. Birmingham City Councils New Local Plan 2020-
2042- Issues and Options (“BCCIO”) has recently confirmed that, as of March 2022,
Birmingham’s LHN figure is 7,136 dpa (Para 4.7). This includes an additional 35% for the
top 20 largest cities in the UK.
2.32 Cumulatively, this would equate to a housing need figure of 149,286 dwellings for the 22-
year plan period (2022 to 2042). The BCCIO states that the Council can currently demonstrate a supply of 70,871 dwellings, which includes completions between 2020/21-
2021/22 of 6,624 dwellings. The BCCIO concludes that, at present, there is a shortfall of
around 78,415 dwellings to be found through the preparation of the Birmingham Local Plan
Review (Para 4.15).
2.33 Alongside Birmingham’s emerging unmet needs (c.78,000), another significant source of
potential unmet needs is from within the Black Country. It is important to note that the
Black Country Plan is no longer being jointly prepared and thus the Black Country
Authorities will now prepare individual Local Plans; however, the unmet housing need
(28,239 dwellings) still remains in the Black Country; albeit, now disaggregated amongst
the four Black Country Authorities.
2.34 In this context, paragraph 11b of the NPPF is clear that:
“b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
areas”
2.35 The Draft Dudley Local Plan Duty to Cooperate Statement (October 2023) sets out the
allocated and emerging contributions made by the GBBCHMA authorities and non-HMA
authorities as of October 2021, which totals 14,410 dwellings:
2.36 The report acknowledges that as of October 2023, the Lichfield Local Plan was withdrawn
from examination and thus impacts the identified contribution to the unmet need within
the GBBCHMA.
2.37 The GBBCHMA Housing Need and Housing Land Supply Position Statement Addendum’
(April 2023) also sets out the allocated and emerging contributions made by the GBBCHMA
authorities and non-HMA authorities as of April 2023, which totals 18,420 dwellings:
2.38 In consideration, the total contribution towards the GBBCHMA unmet need is between
14,410 and 18,420 dwellings. Taylor Wimpey acknowledges that the Draft Dudley Duty to
Cooperate Statement was published after the April 2023 GBBCHMA Position Statement
and acknowledges two additional contributions, 1,640 dwellings from Telford and Wrekin,
and 2,000 dwellings from Stafford. This brings the total potential contribution to 22,060
dwellings.
2.39 Even after the total potential contribution of 22,060 dwellings is taken into consideration, a
significant unmet housing need would still remain within the GBBCHMA. The total unmet
need equals 106,654 dwellings when you consider the shortfalls within Birmingham and the
Black Country Authorities, meaning that a significant proportion of the unmet need would
be deferred rather than dealt with.
2.40 Additionally, there is no formal agreement between the authorities making up the
GBBCHMA regarding the apportionment of this unmet need, and importantly, these
‘commitments’ do not form part of any adopted Local Plan that has been tested and
approved through the examination process. There is no clear indication in regard to where
the contributions will be allocated and so uncertainty remains.
2.41 The total shortfall up to 2041 will of course be subject to consideration through the future
plan making process for the remaining HMA local authorities. Walsall, Wolverhampton and
Sandwell are also beginning their Local plan Reviews, meaning that the total shortfall may
well increase.
2.42 In consideration, Taylor Wimpey advises the Council to note that there remains an acute
housing land supply shortfall across the GBBCHMA that will need to be addressed. Even
after all of the discussed contributions are made, a severe unmet housing need will remain
unresolved. Paragraph 3.7 of the Council’s Options to the Preferred Strategy sets out that;
“Whilst further clarity is required on the current status of Local Plans for Lichfield, South
Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, Telford & Wrekin and Bromsgrove as the work on Local Plans further progress, the potential contributions that could be apportioned towards
Dudley’s unmet need will make some significant headway in addressing the borough’s
unmet housing needs. It is for this reason that it is considered that ‘exceptional
circumstances’ have not need triggered to justify the need to consider a review of the
borough’s Green Belt.”
2.43 Paragraph 3.11 goes on to acknowledge the potential to release land from the Green Belt,
but concludes that the Council does not consider that identified shortfall in supply to be
significant. As a result, the Council concludes that; “Under the existing NPPF, Green Belt
boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced
and justified through the preparation of updating of plans. As a result of updated urban
capacity evidence and ongoing DtC discussions with neighbouring authorities and across
the Black Country FEMA (see DtC and employment supply evidence 2023), Dudley’s
housing and employment shortfalls are not considered significant. It is therefore
considered that exceptional circumstances have not been triggered and Green Belt
boundaries are not proposed to be altered in the draft DLP.”
2.44 The spatial strategy proposed by Draft Policy DLP1 is therefore considered to be unsound as
the DLP does not reasonably assess the scale and implication of the identified unmet need,
or whether reasonable alternatives exist to accommodate the growth within the Borough
through Green Belt release and the high-risk associated with exporting the shortfall (1,078
dwellings).
2.45 Taylor Wimpey considers that areas like Dudley with a large quantum of suitable land
within the Green Belt has a duty to support housing growth and not only address its own
housing need, but also the shortfall of housing provision within the HMA.
2.46 Conclusively, it is essential that Dudley considers the unmet housing need arising from the
GBBCHMA, to avoid exacerbating the already significant shortfall of up to 106,654
dwellings.
2.1 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that Dudley should assess alternative options for
growth, including release of land from the Green Belt which are capable of meeting and
potentially increasing the housing supply above and beyond the LHN.
Black Country Unmet Housing Need and Duty to Cooperate
2.2 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as the unmet housing need has been deferred rather than
dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 35(b & c), and the Duty to Cooperate has not been
fulfilled.
2.3 As acknowledged above, there is an acute unmet housing need within the GBBCHMA that
needs to be addressed through cooperation and suitable planning. Instead of seeking to
maximise housing growth within Dudley and help reduce the severe shortfall, the DLP
seeks to export 1,078 dwellings of its own need.
2.4 The DLP does not state why it is unable to accommodate Dudley’s identified shortfall or the
reasons for not assessing alternative options capable of accommodating a greater level of
housing. Although paragraph 3.2.6 of Dudley’s Draft Sustainability appraisal states “it is
unlikely that there would be sufficient brownfield sites to accommodate all the identified
need”, the Council has proposed a predominantly brownfield-led spatial strategy with minimal greenfield development. As identified, this results in a shortfall of housing which
the Council aims to export to neighbouring authorities.
2.5 Consequently, the Council has published a Draft Dudley Local Plan Duty to Cooperate
Statement (October 2023) (“DtC”) setting out how it assumes the shortfall will be addressed
elsewhere through the local plan reviews of counterpart HMA authorities and the
associated contributions. The desired approach would be to “apportion the contributions
between the four authorities based upon the use of migration data and the functional
relationship between the exporting area and the individual BCA where the shortfall
arises” as stated at paragraph 2.44. Paragraph 2.44 of the DtC continues by stating that the
“approach is subject to all of the Black Country Authorities agreement via a Statement of
Common Ground.” This confirms that Dudley is yet to agree to a Statement of Common
Ground with the neighbouring HMA authorities in regard to how the contributions will be
distributed within the Black Country. There is therefore a degree of uncertainty in regard to
how Dudley’s housing shortfall will be met.
2.6 Regarding next steps, Paragraph 3.3 of the DtC states “the Council’s primary objective will
be to prepare and complete a Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement as the Dudley
Plan progresses to Publication Regulation 19 Stage in Autumn 2024”. The DtC is therefore
the first iteration of the document and is yet to be finalised, increasing the uncertainty in
regard to the unmet need.
2.7 Firstly, in the absence of any signed Statements of Common Ground (“SoCG”), Taylor
Wimpey raises concern with the uncertainty associated with the distribution of the
allocated and emerging contributions. Given the acute unmet housing need within the
Black Country (c.28,000 dwellings), it yet to be confirmed whether Dudley’s shortfall can
be met via the identified contributions listed above.
2.8 NPPF paragraph 35(c) confirms that plans are sound if they are “based on effective joint
working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than
deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground”. Instead of seeking to
accommodate the shortfall (1,078 dwellings) within the administrative boundary, Dudley
proposes to defer the unmet need to neighbouring authorities even though there is an
existing acute shortfall.
2.9 As outlined above, the draft Dudley Local Plan DtC states that a maximum contribution of
14,410 dwellings could be made toward the unmet need with the GBBCHMA. However, out
of this total contribution, only 5,140 dwellings have been attributed to the Black Country.
The DtC has sought to outline the potential contributions towards Dudley’s shortfall as
demonstrated by the table below:
2.10 However, given the absence of an SoCG, Taylor Wimpey considers these assumptions
wholly flawed and misleading. Shropshire has agreed to allocate 1,500 dwellings towards
the Black Country’s unmet need, but as acknowledged, the distribution of the contributions
between the BCAs is still unagreed. As for Lichfield, the Local Plan has been withdrawn
from Examination in public and so there is also a degree of uncertainty associated with this
contribution.
2.11 The PPG5 confirms that the preparation of SoCGs with neighbouring authorities will
contribute in demonstrating whether the duty has been met:
“How will the duty to cooperate be considered at local plan examination?
The local plan examination will first assess whether a local planning authority has
complied with the duty to cooperate and other legal requirements. The Inspector will use
all available evidence including statements of common ground, Authority Monitoring
Reports, and other submitted evidence (such as the statement of compliance prescribed by
Planning Inspectorate’s examination procedure guidance) to determine whether the duty
has been satisfied.” [Emphasis added]
2.12 Until the Council has published such SoCGs and additional evidence detailing the
discussions that have taken place, the duty to cooperate has not been fulfilled and a degree
of uncertainty remains. The absence of any SoCG at this stage reinforces the apparent
issues between the Black Country Authorities (“BCA”) as it is clear there remains a number
of areas of disagreement regarding the distribution of the contributions.
2.13 Secondly, as the provisional housing contributions from neighbouring authorities addresses
only a limited proportion of the shortfall (28,239 dwellings), the DLP has not sought to
maximise housing land supply in order to deal with the residual unmet need as well as
Dudley’s own housing shortfall (1,078 dwellings).
2.14 In this context, NPPF paragraph 35(a) requires that Local Plans are positively prepared and
provide “a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed
needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from
neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so”. At this stage of the
DLP plan-making process, it is fundamentally unclear how the residual shortfall up to 2041
will be met, or how any consideration has been given to reducing the HMA’s shortfall. In
this respect, paragraph 3.3.5 of the Draft Dudley Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal further
raises concern by stating:
“Overall, Option 3 appears to be the most favourable housing spatial growth option as it
ensures the housing need will be met, although there is also some uncertainty in the impacts of this option given the unknown location of the exported proportion of growth.”
(Emphasis added)
2.15 Not only is this approach fundamentally flawed and entirely contrary to the requirement of
NPPF paragraph 35(a, b & c), but it is completely misaligned with “the Government’s
objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes” (NPPF paragraph 60).
2.16 As it is likely that Dudley’s shortfall will remain unaddressed given the BCA’s unmet need,
Draft Policy DLP1 is considered to be unsound as Dudley are seeking to defer, rather than
deal with, the issue of unmet housing need through the DLP. Dudley should therefore seek
to ensure that the housing supply within its administrative area is truly maximised prior to
being exported to other areas.
2.17 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that the Council should consider and assess a spatial
strategy that not only meets the development needs of Dudley, but also accommodates a
suitable proportion of the unmet housing need within the GBBCHMA. Given the acute
unmet housing need and the uncertainty associated with the allocated and emerging
contributions, this is considered to be the most appropriate strategy for Dudley.
2.18 Whilst Taylor Wimpey acknowledges that it is not for Dudley to address the HMA’s unmet
needs in full, given the scale of the shortfall arising from the GBBCHMA, Taylor Wimpey
considers that Dudley must play a proportionate role.
2.19 It is important that Dudley makes it clear that it will help address the acute unmet need and
should, where possible, be specific in the exact proportion of the unmet need that the
upcoming Local Plan can accommodate. Draft Policy DLP1 seeks to adopt an alternative
strategy by deferring Dudley’s unmet housing need and fails to acknowledge the severe
shortfall within the GBBCHMA.
2.20 Indeed, this is particularly pertinent, given the Inspector’s recent findings6 in respect of the
Sevenoaks Local Plan where problems of unmet need were not adequately addressed
through the duty to cooperate process, resulting in a terminal failure of legal compliance.
2.21 Unless a proportionate contribution towards the unmet needs identified is accommodated,
Dudley risks not fulfilling its ‘duty to cooperate’ with neighbouring authorities, as required
by paragraph 24 of the NPPF.
2.22 Taylor Wimpey supports Dudley’s acknowledgement of the Duty to Cooperate but also
recommends that a proportionate contribution should be made in addition to meeting the
Council’s own housing need. This would ensure that the emerging Local Plan can pass the
test of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35.
2.23 Taylor Wimpey considers that a functional relationship approach is a suitable strategy and
refers to Lichfields’ ‘The Black Country’s next top model’. Lichfields’ model drew on the
precedent set in the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA/North Warwickshire and has been
again supported by the emerging approach in the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA. Both
Stafford Borough Council and South Staffordshire Council reflected on Lichfields’ model in
the latest sustainability appraisals for the most recent consultations, Taylor Wimpey therefore encourages Dudley to adopt Lichfield’s model in order to sustainably distribute
the GBBCHMA’s unmet need.
2.24 The model calculates the proportion of housing that can be sustainably redistributed
towards surrounding authorities based on the functional relationship between the
administrative areas.
2.25 Such a model takes account of the below trends within the HMA and between authorities
with a functional relationship:
1 Migration patterns between authorities;
2 Commuting linkages between authorities;
3 Opportunities to capitalise on sustainable transport links;
4 Affordability pressures; and
5 The degree of environmental and physical constraints.
2.26 The objective should be to create an agreed position with regard to the spatial distribution
of housing that is justified based upon technical evidence and which can be used to
underpin the preparation of Local Plans.
2.27 This would ensure that as and when a spatial distribution methodology is agreed, Dudley
will have in place a sufficient supply of sites which have been tested through an acceptable
model and other evidence base documents.
2.28 Taylor Wimpey considers that the most suitable strategy for maximising housing growth
would be through the release of sites within the Green Belt. The exceptional circumstances
required for Green Belt release will be discussed below.
Draft Sustainability Appraisal
2.29 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as it fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for
housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b). The
approach taken within the Draft Sustainability Appraisal (“SA”) is unjustified as it does not
take into account all reasonable alternatives for meeting the unmet housing need and
providing a sufficient contribution toward the HMA’s unmet housing need.
2.30 Chapter 3 of the SA sets out the various housing growth options assessed in sustainability
terms. Table 3.1 of the SA outlines the three housing options subjected to the appraisal, as
replicated below. 2.31 As Stated by paragraph 3.4.1 of the SA, option 3 was selected as it would address the
housing need through a balanced spatial approach.
2.32 However, paragraph 3.3.1 states:
“When assessing the housing spatial options against the 14 SA Objectives, there is very
little separating Options 1, 2 and 3 and it is difficult to identify a single best performing
option. All would be expected to deliver a similar level of growth within Dudley.”
2.33 Although, a specific housing figure is not assessed in regard to each option, it has been
confirmed by the SA that the options would deliver a similar level of growth within Dudley.
Taylor Wimpey considers this approach to be unsound as the SA has failed to assess
alternative options for delivering a higher level of growth, such as by releasing suitable sites
within the Green Belt.
2.34 Additionally, paragraph 3.3.5 of the SA confirms that there is a level of uncertainty attached
to option 3 as the location of the exported housing shortfall is unknown and is yet to be
agreed. This could mean that the minimum housing need within Dudley is not met within
the Local Plan period given the uncertainty, and therefore justifies the assessment of
alternative options for housing growth. Dudley has failed to assess different housing growth
scenarios and instead seeks to defer the identified shortfall to neighbouring authorities.
Given the severe unmet housing need within the GBBCHMA, Taylor Wimpey does not
consider this to be a sound strategy.
2.35 There is seemingly no rationale or justification for the three housing options appraised,
other than to achieve a predominantly brownfield-led development strategy. When
discussing option 3, table 3.1 states that “This option would result in site allocations being
designated within the urban area, which would include a predominate supply of
brownfield sites and some low-quality open space sites.” (Emphasis added)
2.36 Para 8.4 of the DLP states that the housing supply “will accommodate 90.98% of current
local housing need up to 2041 (homes) with 96.4% of the supply on brownfield land and
3.6% of the supply on greenfield land – this accounts for all housing supply apart from the
windfall sites.” This confirms that the spatial strategy within Dudley is to be predominantly
brownfield-led.
2.37 Paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.3 of the SA acknowledge NPPF paragraph 61 which states that “any
needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in
establishing the amount of housing to be planned for”. However, the SA has not attempted
to assess a growth option that not only maximises housing growth within Dudley, but also
makes a contribution to the unmet needs within neighbouring authority areas. Taylor
Wimpey considers that the three identified options are too similar and advises the Council
to assess alternative options for housing growth with a focus on maximising housing
supply. 2.38 In this respect, the PPG7 confirms that the reasonable alternatives are to be identified
“taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme”.
Consequently, it is not within the remit or scope of the SA to appraise the sustainability
credentials of exporting housing growth outside of the administrative area of Dudley. The
SA should instead assess the options capable of maximising housing growth within the
Council’s boundary.
2.39 When discussing sustainability appraisals, The PPG8also confirms that “Its role is to
promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan,
when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve relevant environmental,
economic and social objectives.” The PPG9 continues by stating
“Reasonable alternatives are the different realistic options considered by the plan-maker
in developing the policies in the plan. They need to be sufficiently distinct to highlight the
different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be
made.”
2.40 By omitting a higher-range growth option, for example an option which considers the
release of Green Belt land for development purposes, the DLP has artificially omitted a
reasonable but realistic alternative which could potentially provide more positive and less
negative sustainability impacts, whilst still meeting the objectives and maximising housing
growth.
2.41 Option 1 within the SA aims to aims to accommodate Dudley’s housing need within the
urban area predominantly on brownfield land. Option 3 is only a slight deviation with 3.6%
of the housing supply being allocated to greenfield land. Taylor Wimpey does not consider
that the SA has assessed an option which aims to meet “the needs of its communities and
businesses” as stated within the DLP’s proposed vision. Dudley instead seeks to defer the
identified shortfall of housing opposed to considering an option which maximises growth
within the administrative boundary.
2.42 Consequently, the SA as currently prepared is unsound. It has failed to identify and test the
sustainability implications of a growth option which achieves a higher level of housing
development within Dudley’s administrative boundary, including the option of the release
of Green Belt land to meet housing needs. For this reason, Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as
it conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 32 and 35(a & b).
The Deliverability of Brownfield Land
2.43 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound. The proposed supply of brownfield and windfall sites is an
unjustified strategy which conflicts with NPPF Paragraph 35(b).
2.44 The DLP states that 96.4% of the total housing supply will be on brownfield land
approximately and that 3,000 dwellings will be supplied through the development of
windfall sites. Taylor Wimpey raises concern with the proposed spatial strategy, and
considers the housing trajectory to be unjustified. 2.45 With regard to the use of land for the development of housing, NPPF paragraph 119 states
the following:
“Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the
need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and
ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear
strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use
as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.”
2.46 Paragraph 120 of the NPPF continues by stating that “Planning policies and decisions
should:
• give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within
settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate
opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable
land; and
• promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially
if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is
constrained and available sites could be used more effectively”
2.47 Taylor Wimpey supports this approach and agrees with the Council’s view that the
redevelopment of brownfield land must be a first resort as this would be found to be sound
in accordance with National Planning Policy. However, Taylor Wimpey raises concern over
the deliverability of brownfield land and Dudley’s reliance upon this within Draft Policy
DLP1.
2.48 A reliance upon the delivery of brownfield land in order to meet an identified housing need
comes with a risk. While brownfield redevelopment can be an important strategy for
addressing housing needs, there are several issues associated with the deliverability of
brownfield land for housing development. Some of these issues include:
1 Contamination and Remediation Costs: Brownfield sites often have soil and
groundwater contamination from previous industrial or commercial activities.
Remediation can be expensive and time-consuming, adding significant monetary and
time costs to the overall development.
2 Community Opposition: Local communities may resist the redevelopment of
brownfield sites due to concerns about environmental hazards, noise, traffic, and
changes to the character of the neighbourhood. Public perception and opposition can
slow down or halt the development.
3 Infrastructure Challenges: Brownfield sites may lack the necessary infrastructure,
such as utilities, roads, and public services, to support housing development.
Upgrading or installing infrastructure can be costly and may require collaboration with
local authorities which is a time consuming process.
4 Market Viability and Demand: The location and history of brownfield sites may
affect their market appeal. Developers must carefully assess the demand for housing in
the specific area and whether potential buyers are willing to accept the history of the
site. The inner-urban areas usually associated with brownfield sites also means that the
cost of developing a site is far greater than a greenfield site. This can deter developers
from investing into the redevelopment of specific areas. 5 Longer Approval Processes: Due to the complexity of brownfield redevelopment,
obtaining planning permissions and approvals from regulatory authorities may take
longer compared to greenfield sites, leading to delays in project timelines.
6 Financing and Funding Issues: Securing financing for brownfield redevelopment
can be challenging due to the perceived risks associated with contamination cleanup
and uncertainties about the final development costs. Developers may face difficulties in
attracting investment.
2.49 The challenges associated with the development of brownfield have been acknowledged by
paragraph 6.6 of the DLP which states:
“The DLP adopts a brownfield-first approach to maximise delivery of development within
the urban area; however, poor ground conditions that are a legacy of the Dudley’s mining
and industrial past are a significant constraint, in both physical and financial terms.
Therefore, tackling significant and structural delivery constraints are a priority for
interventions, as they affect much of the development land supply in the urban area.”
2.50 Paragraph 3.2.6 of the SA also recognises the downfalls associated with brownfield land by
stating:
“Although Option 1 proposes development predominantly within brownfield sites, it is
unlikely that there would be sufficient brownfield sites to accommodate all the identified
need.”
2.51 It has been accepted by both the DLP and the SA that the supply of brownfield land is
incapable of meeting Dudley’s housing need, and that the poor ground conditions present a
significant constraint. Taylor Wimpey considers that the supply is likely to be constrained
further by the issues highlighted above, therefore reducing the housing supply and
increasing the shortfall. And as discussed, the uncertainty surrounding deferring the unmet
need means that the Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound.
2.52 Taylor Wimpey also raises concern in regard to the proposed supply of windfall sites and
their associated deliverability. Windfall sites are parcels of land that become available for
development unexpectedly or unintentionally. These sites are often not originally
designated for housing, and their availability is typically unplanned. The deliverability and
supply of windfall sites for housing development present multiple challenges such as:
1 Planning Uncertainty: Windfall sites often lack a predetermined designation for
housing, leading to uncertainty about their development potential. Planning
applications may not align with housing goals and policies making it uncertain as to
whether permission will be granted.
2 Infrastructure Limitations: Some windfall sites may lack necessary infrastructure,
such as roads, utilities, and public services, making it challenging to integrate them into
the existing urban fabric.
3 Limited Scale and Density: Windfall sites are often smaller in scale compared to
planned housing developments, which can limit the overall impact on housing supply
and may not effectively address housing shortages.
4 Limited Control Over Design: Developers may have limited control over the design
and layout of windfall sites, especially if the sites are existing structures or spaces that require adaptation for housing purposes. This can often deter developers from
investing into certain sites.
5 Market Viability Issues: The market demand for housing on windfall sites may be
uncertain, and developers must carefully assess the economic feasibility of such
projects. This uncertainty makes it difficult to estimate the future supply of windfall
development.
6 Inconsistent Housing Mix: The unplanned nature of windfall sites may result in an
inconsistent housing mix that does not align with broader housing strategies or local
housing needs. This consequently impacts the housing supply associated with windfall
sites and the Council’s objective of meeting the housing need.
2.53 Taylor Wimpey accepts that that the proposed supply of windfall development is based on
past trends, however, the high degree of uncertainty and unidentified nature raises concern.
Windfall allowances comprise a significant element of the housing supply in Dudley, which
therefore means that a high degree of inaccuracy is associated with draft Policy DLP1. Given
the uncertainty associated with the delivery of windfall sites, Taylor Wimpey considers the
reliance upon windfall development within draft Policy DLP1 to be unjustified.
2.54 Taylor Wimpey considers that the actual housing supply is likely to be lower than what has
been stated within the DLP. This means that the actual housing shortfall is likely to be more
severe than what has been presented by the Council.
2.55 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers the housing deliverability trajectory to be flawed and is
in fact high-risk with a limited potential deliverability over the coming years.
2.56 The spatial strategy outlined within Draft Policy DLP1 is therefore unsound due to the
deliverability of brownfield land and windfall sites.
Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release
2.57 Draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as it does not seek to identify, allocate and release a suitable
supply of land within the Green Belt for housing. Consequently, this presents the risk that
the housing need will not be met and the unmet need within the HMA will not be
addressed.
2.58 Paragraph 13.3 of the DLP states:
“The Plan is not proposing to review any of the borough's Green Belt boundaries or
allocate any development sites or proposals within the Green Belt in accordance with the
preferred spatial strategy.”
2.59 No further explanation is provided in regard to why this is the preferred spatial strategy.
2.60 The NPPF is clear on the weight attached to Green Belt by the Government, and that “once
established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional
circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of
plans.” (Para 140).
2.61 Paragraph 141 of the NPPF goes on to state that a local planning authority should have
“demonstrated that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” and goes on to state that this will be assessed through a
number of criteria which will consider whether the strategy:
a “makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
b optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this
Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum
density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by
public transport; and
c has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether
they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as
demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”
2.62 Taylor Wimpey supports this sequential approach and considers that, on the face of it, the
Council’s current approach accords with the NPPF in principle. The extent of the Green Belt
is such that, unless it is amended, it will significantly restrict the amount of residential
development that could be accommodated in Dudley. Whilst Taylor Wimpey recognises
that the Plan Review is at an ‘early stage’, it is considered important that the Council should
sufficiently, and robustly consider all options for housing growth to demonstrate the
soundness of its need to review the Green Belt boundaries, as required by the NPPF.
2.63 There is insufficient brownfield land to meet the Dudley’s development needs (i.e., point a),
and by reason of this, the optimisation of densities on brownfield land is also unlikely to
meet the development needs (i.e., point b). In terms of point c, given the 106.654 dwelling
scale of the unmet needs across the GBBCHMA, it is unlikely that other authorities within
the GBBCHMA could meet Dudley’s shortfall (a minimum of 1,078 dwellings) in full.
2.64 The DLP aims to achieve a spatial strategy that predominantly focuses on the development
of brownfield land, allocating 96.4% of the housing supply to previously developed sites.
Taylor Wimpey supports this approach and agrees with the Council’s view that the
redevelopment of brownfield land must be a first resort as this would be found to be sound
in accordance with National Planning Policy, but only where it can be demonstrated that
the delivery of such sites is deliverable and viable.
2.65 The Council has accepted that the housing need cannot be accommodated in full on the
available brownfield land within the administrative area. In order to meet the LHN, Dudley
has proposed to export a shortfall of 1,078 dwellings to the neighbouring authorities within
the housing market area (“HMA”) notwithstanding that there is no agreement or SOCG
with neighbouring local authorities to meet such needs.
2.66 Draft Policy DLP1 has failed to acknowledge the severe unmet housing need within the
GBBCHMA, with a shortfall of c.28,000 dwellings within the Black Country alone. Instead
of seeking to accommodate Dudley’s shortfall, the Council has deferred 1,078 dwellings to
the HMA, increasing the overall unmet need within the GBBCHMA. A s discussed, there is a
high degree of uncertainty as to whether the shortfall (1,078 dwellings) could be
accommodated by neighbouring authorities.
2.67 Taylor Wimpey raises concern as to whether the shortfall can be accommodated by the
HMA. Taylor Wimpey notes that discussions with neighbouring authorities will be
undertaken through the DtC, however, other authorities within the GBBCHMA are already
relying on the wider GBBCHMA to meet their individual housing needs, namely the Black
Country Authorities with an overall shortfall of c.28,000 dwellings. As discussed, the overall shortfall within the HMA equals 106,654 dwellings when including Birmingham
City Council’s unmet need. Given the uncertainty associated with the allocated and
emerging contributions towards the HMA’s shortfall, it is unlikely that Dudley’s unmet
need will be accommodated by neighbouring authorities. Taylor Wimpey considers that
Draft Policy DLP1 seeks to defer the shortfall (1,078 dwellings) opposed to addressing it
within the spatial strategy.
2.68 There is a significant, and persistent level of unmet housing need across the GBBCHMA.
Many of the Council’s neighbouring authorities are already unable to meet their own needs
within existing urban areas and are therefore unlikely to be able to accommodate Dudley’s
shortfall of housing. This is recognised by paragraph 3.3.5 of the SA which states:
“Overall, Option 3 appears to be the most favourable housing spatial growth option as it
ensures the housing need will be met, although there is also some uncertainty in the
impacts of this option given the unknown location of the exported proportion of growth.”
2.69 As previously discussed, Taylor Wimpey considers that the housing supply (10,876
dwellings) is inaccurate as the deliverability of brownfield land has not been appropriately
assessed. The spatial strategy proposed is one of high-risk, as the actual supply of housing is
lower than what has been stated.
2.70 In addition, Taylor Wimpey advices the Council to acknowledge that the LHN is a minimum
starting point for housing need and that the housing requirement for Dudley could be
higher when assessed under exceptional circumstances. It is therefore important for the
Council to consider whether a housing requirement above the LHN is justified.
2.71 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers the housing shortfall within Dudley to be more severe
than what has been stated within the DLP. And as discussed, it is unlikely that this unmet
need can be accommodated by the proposed spatial strategy.
2.72 NPPF paragraph 11(b) states:
“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring
areas, unless:
1 the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular
importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or
distribution of development in the plan area7; or
2 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”
2.73 NPPF paragraph 35(c) requires Local Plans to be effective, they must be “deliverable over
the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters
that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common
ground”.
2.74 Taylor Wimpey considers Draft Policy DLP1 to be unsound as the proposed spatial strategy
will not meet Dudley’s housing need, and has not acknowledged the acute shortfall within
the HMA. Draft Policy DLP1 states that Dudley’s unmet need will be dealt with through the
Duty to Cooperate, however, Taylor Wimpey considers that this strategic matter has in fact
been deferred given the uncertainty within the HMA. The spatial strategy conflicts with
NPPF paragraphs 11(b) and 35(c).
2.75 Given the shortfall in housing both within Dudley and the GBBCHMA, it is necessary to
consider the strategic release of land from the Green Belt. In this context, Calverton Parish
Council v Nottingham City Council10 confirms that the acuteness and intensity of housing
need constitutes a matter for consideration in determining whether exceptional
circumstances exist.
2.76 There is, therefore, a legitimate and cogent need to consider the release of Green Belt land
within Dudley to seek to reduce the level of unmet housing needs arising from Dudley and
the GBBCHMA. As such, Taylor Wimpey considers that the acuteness of the unmet housing
need can, and in this instance, should, constitute exceptional circumstances, as established
in the Calverton case.
2.77 Given the insufficient supply and risks associated with the deliverability of brownfield land
in Dudley and the uncertainty associated with the acute shortfall within the HMA, Taylor
Wimpey considers that the exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land
exist. The most suitable strategy for achieving the required housing growth would be
through the release of Green Belt land.
2.78 The unmet need is a fundamental issue of the DLP which, unless resolved at the Regulation
19 stage, will most likely lead to it being found unsound at examination. Additionally, it is
an issue echoed by counterpart GBBCHMA authorities including South Staffordshire which,
within its recent publication of the Local Plan Review Preferred Options (September 2021)
consultation, sets out:
“the Council will be working with the Birmingham and the Black Country authorities to
ensure that housing supply within their administrative areas is truly maximised prior to
being exported to other areas” (paragraph 4.11)
2.79 It will therefore prove critical that the DLP assesses all reasonable alternatives for
maximising housing growth, not only to address the 1,078 dwelling shortfall (minimum
figure), but also to fulfil the Duty to Cooperate by ensuring counterpart GBBCHMA
authorities are satisfied the DLP has truly maximised its housing land supply.
2.80 As the exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release have been demonstrated, the DLP
should seek to allocate a sufficient quantum of land for housing through this local plan
review in order to avoid the need for a further Green Belt review through future local plan
reviews. In this regard, NPPF paragraph 140 states:
“Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries,
having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond
the plan period.”

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: 462

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

3.0 Land at Clent View Road, Stourbridge
3.1 As set out in Section 1.0 of these representations, Taylor Wimpey is promoting land at Clent
View Road, Stourbridge for residential development. Taylor Wimpey UK Limited is a
dedicated homebuilding company with over 126 years' experience; Taylor Wimpey has an
unparalleled record in the housebuilding industry. Taylor Wimpey draws on experience as a
provider of the best quality homes to meet the expectations of today's residents. Taylor
Wimpey strives to locate development within sustainable locations and carefully considers
both the present and future benefits of development, therefore, creating positive impacts on
the surrounding environments and communities.
3.2 The Vision Document attached to appendix 2 of these representations demonstrates Taylor
Wimpey’s commitment to helping Dudley to achieve its aspirations and vision over the next
Plan Period, by creating an attractive and healthy environment for future residents which
focuses on sustainability, green infrastructure and biodiversity, community needs,
accessibility and active travel.
3.3 The site, encompassing an area of 3.8ha, is currently comprised of greenfield land used as
equestrian paddocks (Appendix 1 for a Site Location Plan). The site is located within the
Green Belt and adjoins the built-up area. It is bounded to the north by a public bridleway
beyond which is dense woodland and agricultural land. To the east there is a permissive
footpath named 'Roman Road', Clent View Road and the urban area of Stourbridge. This
footpath is separated from the Site and Clent View Road by hedgerows. To the south there
is a side road and a collection of mature trees along with some dense shrubbery, beyond
which lies High Lodge house and agricultural land. To the west, additional agricultural land
borders the site; further afield, there is a patch of dense woodland extending from High
Lodge Care Services northwards.
3.4 Taylor Wimpey considers that Land at Clent View Road forms a logical and sustainable
location for an urban extension, and its release from the Green Belt would make a significant
contribution to the housing needs of Dudley and the GBBCHMA. There are no physical or
technical constraints upon the development of the Site, and currently, no viability issues
affecting the deliverability of the Site. As such, if the Site is released from the Green Belt, it is
considered to be suitable, available and deliverable within the first 5 years of the Plan Period.
3.5 Dudley is ambitious with its pro-growth agenda and aims to expand in order to meet the
needs of the community. This is demonstrated within the vision for the new Local Plan
emphasising growth in homes and jobs and building a strong and resilient local economy.
However, as discussed above, future growth of the existing urban area and the deliverability
of brownfield land is restricted by a number of physical and economic constraints. The
actual supply of housing within the Local Plan period is likely to be lower than what has
been stated within the DLP. It is therefore a suitable and justified strategy for the Council to
consider the release of Green Belt land in order to meet the development needs of Dudley.
3.6 Taylor Wimpey considers that the land at Clent View Road offers an ideal opportunity to
deliver a high quality, attractive and well-integrated new neighbourhood, which forms a
natural and logical extension to Stourbridge with suitable connections to existing facilities
and community services.

3.7 The overall site area is 3.8ha, equating to approximately 80 new homes. The site provides
the opportunity to provide a development which is specific to its context and responding to
the needs of the local community. The proposals will retain and enhance the existing tree
belts and hedgerows which run along the boundaries of the Site to improve levels of Site
containment and mitigate visual impact. The Site is located to the west of the residential
area of Stourbridge in close proximity to a number of services and facilities in Stourbridge.
Schools, shops, residential communities, and leisure facilities are all accessible by a choice
of means of transport, including walking and cycling. The site is situated is situated 0.4km
from Shenstone Avenue bus stop, which provides regular services to the centre of
Stourbridge and Dudley.
3.8 The proposed development at Clent View Road aims to create a welcoming environment
that caters to the diverse requirements of prospective residents, addressing Dudley's
housing needs in the upcoming Local Plan period. These plans adhere to the '20-minute
neighbourhood concept, fostering improved access to sustainable transportation methods,
bolstering pedestrian and cycling links, and promoting active travel. The location offers
prospects for integration with current infrastructure, facilitating connections to nearby
primary and secondary schools, healthcare facilities, and other essential amenities crucial
for a high standard of living.
3.9 In summary, the site is ‘suitable, available and achievable’ and the Vision Document
(Appendix 2), submitted in support of these representations, demonstrates that the site is
capable of delivering an urban extension to the south-west of Stourbridge, on an
unconstrained site, which aligns with the Vision and objectives of the new Local Plan.