Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 313

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 10 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
We have set out above our comments in respect of the proposed housing requirements and the Council’s strategy for meeting the housing need within its own administrative area. Notwithstanding this approach there is still a shortfall of 1,078 that are required but which sufficient land is yet to be identified to accommodate.
Putting the shortfall aside we have a number of concerns about the sources of housing land supply that the Council sets out in Table 8.1 of the Plan.
In respect of sites with planning permission or prior approval it is not clear whether an implementation allowance has been applied to this source of supply. Typically, a 10% of implementation allowance would be applied to such sites.
Table 7 of the SHLAA also identifies potential supply from occupied employment sites albeit that a 15% non-implementation allowance has been applied to this source. It is noted that reliance on redevelopment of existing employment sites was a key theme for delivering new houses through the adopted Black Country Core Strategy. However, the intended strategy was not wholly successful as issues relating to the release of multi-ownership employment sites did not result in significant new residential development coming forward. Furthermore, retention of employment sites in employment use proved commercially as viable, if not more viable, than developing for residential use. The outcome being that a number of employment sites that had been earmarked for residential development remained, and continue to remain, in employment use. It is questionable whether the same reliance on existing employment sites to deliver new residential development in the current Plan would have resulted in a different outcome. As such, the application of only a 15% non-implementation allowance seems on the low side and that a much higher non-implementation allowance should be applied. Due to the uncertainties associated with this source of supply coming forward and making any meaningful contribution to the supply of housing there is an argument to say it should be removed completely from the potential supply of new homes. A windfall allowance of 179 dwellings per year has also been allowed for. Whilst the Framework confirms that where an allowance is made for windfall sites as part of the anticipated supply there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. The windfall allowance that has been allowed for equates to nearly 25% of the total housing requirement which is a significant proportion of the overall supply that is expected to come forward on non-allocated sites. It is also noted that the windfall allowance is on top of the supply that is also identified on occupied employment land sites and other sites within town centres and the regeneration corridors.
In respect of occupied employment land sites such as those identified in Brierley Hill there is again a question mark over whether these will come forward and specifically when they will come forward for development. Whilst Table 8.1 indicates that these would not start contributing to the supply until 2028 there is no certainty that this source of supply will contribute to the overall supply of housing.
Table 8.1 also includes a centre uplift allowance which accounts for a number of sites increasing the density of development that that site is capable of accommodating. Whilst in theory this may be possible there is a question mark over whether this would actually deliver as intended. Due to the uncertainty that this will occur and the limited contribution it makes to the overall supply this element of the supply should also be removed.
A further source of supply is from a redevelopment of offices in Brierley Hill waterfront. This has been included on the basis that office demand has decreased following the Covid pandemic and that the office capacity would be available for redevelopment for housing through the plan period. There is a degree of uncertainty over whether this would happen or not and as such it cannot be guaranteed that the element of supply would be deliverable. If it did take place this would be considered a windfall and doesn’t need to be identified a separate source of housing in the supply.
Totalling up all the sources of supply in Table 8.1 equals 10,876 homes. This is the same number as the proposed housing requirement set out in the Plan. The Plan does not propose to over-allocate against the housing requirement in case for whatever reason certain sources of the supply do not come forward as expected. As it stands, all sources of the supply would have to come forward to meet the housing requirement. This risks the housing requirement not being met in full if sites do not come forward as anticipated. Clearly, if the Council were to over-allocate against the housing requirement this would identify additional sites for housing that could meet the Standard Method housing requirement that the Council are currently stating that they cannot meet in full. As it stands Barberry are concerned that the sources of supply that have been identified would not be sufficient to meet the housing requirement as proposed and that due to various reasons relating to non-implementation or delivery of certain sites/sources of supply there would be a shortfall in supply against the housing requirement. In order to address this, additional land will be made available to protect against any non-implementation that may occur.

Comment

Representation ID: 314

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 11 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
The policy specifies the density and type of new housing that should be provided, with new housing development to be informed by the need for a different type and range of size of accommodation, levels of accessibility and the need to achieve high quality design. The policy then goes on to state that developments of 10 or more homes should provide a range of house types and sizes and that developments of 10 or more homes should achieve the density target set out within the policy. These range from 100 dwellings per hectare on sites that are within strategic centres or town centres, down to 45 dwellings per hectare where a site is accessible for a high density housing site or 40 dwellings per hectare for a moderate density housing development. In seeking to achieve the density targets set out above we note the evidence contained in the Black Country Housing Market Assessment (March 2021). This sets out the size of housing required within each tenure within Dudley for owner-occupied, rented, shared ownership or social rented / affordable rented properties. What is clear is that for nearly all 4 of these tenures nearly 50% of the properties are required to be 3 or 4 bedroom properties. It is, therefore, highly debatable whether sites of 10 or more dwellings would be able to deliver the full range of dwellings required and the density specified within the policy. Three or four bedroom dwellings tend to be houses as opposed to apartments and would therefore deliver a much lower density development than a wholly flatted scheme.
Similarly, if high density development is to be achieved then this is likely to be comprised of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments and would not therefore deliver the full range of housing that the policy seeks.
Whilst it is noted that a range of densities are proposed in different parts of the Borough the Black Country Housing Market Report is clear that there is a significant demand across all tenures for 3 and 4 bedroom properties. If this need is to be met then sites and town centres or in the strategic centres, where new development is proposed to be focused, these area and sites are unlikely to deliver the larger properties that are required. This reinforces Barberry’s view that the range of different sites are required in order to help meet the housing needs of the Borough going forward.
A further consideration in seeking to achieve the density assumption set out in the policy also relate to meeting other aspirations and policy objectives in the Plan. This could include provision of open space, achieving high quality design and incorporation of National Described Space Standards. A combination of these and other policy considerations can and will impact on the density of development that can potentially come forward on sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 315

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

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

Support

Representation ID: 317

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 16 Education Facilities
Barberry agree that if new development places additional demands on existing schools over and above their existing capacity, then it is entirely appropriate that additional capacity should be created either through an extension to an existing facility, provision of a new facility or a financial contribution to create additional capacity. This is a well-established principle underpinning new residential development. Furthermore, the potential need to make financial contributions toward education provision must also be seen in the context of the other policy requirements that the Plan seeking to achieve and therefore, collectively may well have an impact on scheme viability. Again, we welcome the inclusion of reference to a Viability Assessment if there is any question mark over the viability of development if such contributions are sought.

Comment

Representation ID: 318

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 32 Nature of Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain
Following the enactment of the Environment Act there is now a statutory requirement to achieve 10% biodiversity net gain through new developments. This is now a statutory requirement irrespective of the need to appear to a Development Plan policy. Notwithstanding the above, we note that policy DLP 32 sets out a requirement that all development shall deliver a minimum of 10% net gain.
The policy also sets out that biodiversity net gain should be provided with a preference to deliver it on site but acknowledging there may be instances where an off-site contribution has to be made if it is not possible to accommodate it within the development boundary. Whilst every effort would be made to achieve the requisite 10% gain on site the ability to do so is entirely dependent on the nature of the habitat that is present on site and which would be lost through new development. The achievement of biodiversity net gain on site, or through an off-site contribution, has the potential to affect the deliverability of development sites. This is because if biodiversity net gain is to be achieved on site this could reduce the amount of land available for development. Conversely, if a financial contribution was required off site, this would need to be paid irrespective of whether any other developer contributions were sought by the Council. This could have a direct impact on scheme viability in that there would only be a set amount of money available to deliver biodiversity net gain which could be at the expense of meeting other developer contributions. An applicant cannot choose to not meet its statutory obligations to deliver biodiversity net gain, nor as we understand it, is there is a viability clause in the legislation that says if delivery biodiversity net gain would cause development to become unviable then it is not required. Meeting and delivering biodiversity net gain will have to take priority due to its statutory nature. This requirement could, therefore, have implications for the payment of other developer contribution particularly where viability of development is marginal.
In light of the above, the choice of allocations should consider whether or not biodiversity net gain can be achieved on site and whether in doing so this would limit or restrict the developable area available and thereby the number of dwellings that could be delivered on specific sites. Barberry query whether this exercise has been undertaken and whether the draft allocations included in the Plan are deliverable in terms of achieving 10% biodiversity net gain on site. If not, there would be a requirement to identify additional sites so that the twin objectives of delivering housing along with 10% biodiversity net gain can be achieved. Larger sites such as the Triangle site would be better placed to achieve the 10% net gain on site.

Object

Representation ID: 319

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 39 Design Quality
Barberry have a number of concerns with the policy particularly where there are overlapping forms of control such as Part 1D which refers to Secured by Design, which is now covered by Part Q of the Building Regulations. As both are covered in other legislation we query why it is necessary to include it within a policy in the Plan.
Part 4 of the policy states that all new residential development will be required to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (“NDSS”). The PPG is quite clear that Councils need to gather evidence first to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area and justify setting up appropriate policies in their Local Plan. Has sufficient evidence been gathered to demonstrate that all new properties are required to meet NDSS?
Notwithstanding whether there is evidence to require the provision of all new dwellings to accord with NDSS if the requirement were to be applied this would have a number of significant implications for the Council. Firstly, NDSS means larger houses have to be built in order to comply with the standards. This would mean the density of development would decrease and the number of houses that can be delivered on land identified on housing will decrease. The decrease will result in fewer homes being delivered within the Borough and thereby decreasing the supply of housing and potentially resulting in housing need going unmet. A further consequence is this could place additional pressure on adjoining authorities in order to have to make up an even larger shortfall of housing that is needed in Dudley but which cannot be accommodated within the area.
Delivering NDSS could also potentially have implications on scheme viability particularly when this is taken into account along with remediation costs, design quality, provision of open space, achieving biodiversity net gain and achieving energy efficiency targets. In seeking to achieve all of these policy objectives could have an adverse impact on scheme viability that would restrict the delivery of new homes in the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 320

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 42 Energy Infrastructure
Barberry object to the requirement that residential development of 10 or more homes must include opportunities for decentralised energy provision. Whilst in principle the idea of centralised energy provision is helpful, in reality the delivery of it from a private housing development makes it impractical. Particularly, where individual family homes are proposed as opposed to a single multi-apartment block where there might be a case for including it. As such, we do not consider that such schemes are feasible or deliverable and that any provision should be optional based on the developer’s objectives rather than a requirement for all new development.

Comment

Representation ID: 321

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 47 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards
We note the requirement in Part 3 of the policy that major developments creating 10 or more homes must incorporate the generation of energy from renewable or low carbon sources sufficient to offset at least 10% of the estimated residual energy demand of development on completion. It is not clear on what basis the requirement for a 20% energy reduction has been based on and it seems an arbitrary figure without any justification. Whilst Barberry are supportive in principle of new development achieving energy reductions and sustainability we consider that building regulations are the most appropriate way of securing energy reduction targets. Building regulations are constantly updated and will ensure that new development is able to achieve the requisite energy reduction standards in place at the time of construction. Building regulations are, therefore, more responsive to changes in Government and national policy whereas the Local Plan policy would be static until the Local Plan was reviewed. The policy is a duplication of control with other legislation and as such it is considered unnecessary.