Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 323

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are concerned by the assumption that the substantial unmet need will somehow be mopped up by other authorities in the GBBCHMA or FEMA areas. The reality will be that over a thousand homes will need to be added to South Staffordshire and/or Bromsgrove’s total housing requirement. Bromsgrove DC have paused their plan indefinitely, pending a review of whether all of their infrastructure needs can be somehow met in the next iteration of their Local Plan. South Staffordshire have also had a long pause in plan preparation with their latest consultation planned for 2024, but with no clear steer on whether the c.4K unmet need they were originally proposing to take (from Birmingham and the Black Country, but unhelpfully not disaggregated) will remain within it.

Neighbouring South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove may look at the strategy being employed by Dudley and refuse to release Green Belt to accommodate another authority’s need if they are being met with resistance to Green Belt releases in their own authority area, particularly in light of recent NPPF updates. We simply have no idea where the unmet need will be going.

Comment

Representation ID: 324

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Concerned for same reasons as DLP10.

Comment

Representation ID: 325

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

Representation ID: 326

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are not clear what is meant by allocations on surplus land? Surplus land according to whom and how is this defined?

Given that 96.4% of the proposed allocations in the Borough are on brownfield land and just 3.6% of the supply on greenfield, we would question whether these developments will be able to deliver the infrastructure requirements stipulated elsewhere given the likely viability constraints impacting these sites. Whilst we support the ‘brownfield first’ approach, we consider that where possible, those allocations should be augmented with greenfield sites in order to ensure that sufficient affordable housing and infrastructure contributions are also made.

We also note that there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial number of sites within Dudley Borough that have not come forward because of persistent viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post-remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.

Given the diminishing availability of grant funding, it is clear that the situation is unlikely to be resolved any time in the near future. Development viability will continue to be undermined by higher interest rates; high build costs and high land costs for some time to come. Bringing forward a more balanced portfolio of brownfield and greenfield sites will allow a steady supply of new homes and allow Dudley to maintain a 5 year housing land supply throughout the course of the plan period. At the present time, we are not convinced that the current strategy will work.

Comment

Representation ID: 327

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

2.12. The remarks we have on this policy are limited in that we have concerns over the densities being set for town centres (100 dph) resulting in a large numbers of flats. Given the prevailing housing market in Dudley, Halesowen and Brierley Hill town centres, we do not consider there will be much support from Registered Providers for these types of homes as affordable housing, which have historically been difficult to manage and expensive for tenants and shared ownership customers because of higher management charges covering communal areas and facilities. We would urge the council to engage with Registered Providers over this policy as whilst such densities may work in neighbouring Birmingham, we would be concerned over the viability and implementation of such a policy without grant funding being in place.

Comment

Representation ID: 328

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are supportive of measures to safeguard nature, but paragraph (1) is worded in such a way that would prohibit any development where there is any harm to designated sites at paragraph 1a and 1b. Whilst paragraph 3 does allow harms to be weighed against the benefits of a development, the first part of the policy contradicts this. We would suggest paragraphs 1a and 1b be amended to reflect the exception at paragraph 3.

We consider that a more flexible approach should be adopted, particularly on sites that are unaffected by Footnote 7 nature conservation designations. It is clear that biodiversity net gain requirements, which come in in the new year will need to be proven by applicants in any case.

Surely, in this case, the better approach would be to pragmatically look at how sites would benefit from management and longer-term protection, as well as improved public access and improved and more diverse landscaping and planting, and the introduction of specific artificial habitats such as bat and bird boxes.

Comment

Representation ID: 329

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We would encourage the Council to keep this policy under close review to ensure it reflects emerging national requirements to avoid any conflict.

Comment

Representation ID: 331

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We support measures to protect trees, particularly ancient woodland and veteran trees. However, the policy should be amended to reflect the reality that tree removal is sometimes required to facilitate development proposals. Presently, the policy (in particular paragraph 3) is worded such that tree removal will only be permitted in accordance with footnote 15, that the tree poses a risk to property or the public.

Comment

Representation ID: 336

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We do not agree with the wording of this policy entirely. The presence of Green Belt does NOT automatically afford people ‘access’ to the countryside unless there are rights of way through it. Nor does it provide open spaces for recreation without formal access.

Indeed, the release of Green Belt for development can actually result in an increased level of public access through the provision of new open spaces and parks within a development, offsetting the loss of openness. We consider Policy DLP49 needs to be re-worded.

Comment

Representation ID: 337

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

This policy requires applicants to scope Transport Assessments. Whilst not an unusual requirement, it will be difficult for applicants to adhere to since it is currently not possible to contact a highways officer at the Council. This is because the Council do not have an in-house highway team, but outsource to Amey, who cannot be contacted. This needs to change to allow appropriate scoping to take place prior to the submission of planning applications.