Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Object

Representation ID: 371

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

WL are objecting to the draft Plan on the basis that the land at Worcester Lane has been omitted as a draft housing allocation, when it has previously been supported by the Council as a draft housing allocation in the Black Country Core Strategy Review and in the context of the significant pressure for authorities within the HMA to meet their own development needs and assist those who cannot wherever possible.
The inclusion of the Site as a draft allocation confirmed that in principle the Site was capable of being allocated for development and delivering new housing development to meet the needs of Dudley. Whilst the Black Country Plan has now been withdrawn the previous assessment work of the site and the conclusions drawn that led it to be included as a draft allocation cannot be discounted and indicate that the site is suitable for development.
The Worcester Lane site has been grouped together with the other draft allocations in the Black Country Plan that were proposed for removal from the Green Belt. We have reviewed the consultation responses to the Preferred Options Black Country Plan and note the level of objections received to this and the other sites proposed to be released from the Green Belt. A list of the general points made in response to the draft allocations are set out in the Summary of Consultation Responses report published by the Council alongside the draft Local Plan consultation. Whilst these are not all specific to the Worcester Lane they can be summarised as:
•
Lack of existing infrastructure and amenities to cope with additional dwellings.
•
Concerns over the existing road network and increased traffic.
•
Loss of Green Belt.
•
No exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt land.
•
Detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity.
•
Loss of Grade 2 and Grade 3 agricultural land.
•
Development would result in increased pollution in terms of air, noise and light particularly during construction.
•
No economic benefit to the area and impact on house prices.
•
Cumulative impact of other developments in the area.
•
Brownfield first approach should be taken.
•
General concerns regarding flood risk, global warming, heritage and landscape impacts.
We note the volume of representations attributed to the Worcester Lane site. However, the Vision Document (copy attached) prepared by WL set out our initial assessment of the site and sought to address the various technical and environmental matters which have subsequently been raised in the consultation responses. The Vision Document concluded that the site was deliverable in this context.
The loss of Green Belt is the key factor raised in the objections. As highlighted above, the release of Green Belt is not unique to this Site. The land outside the urban area in Dudley is all Green Belt and the same is true for the authorities surrounding Dudley with potential capacity to meet its development needs. Discussions with these authorities will not lead to the concerns around the loss of Green Belt land being resolved. It will just change the location of any Green Belt that is to be released. The reality is that the only way to address the objection that Green Belt land should not be released is to not meet the development needs identified for Dudley or the wide HMA, and not provide the homes and jobs needed for local people.
Turning to the comments received and general areas of objection raised WL respond as follows:

•
Existing infrastructure - an assessment of existing capacity in local GPs, schools, use services and sewage and water facilities would have been undertaken as part of the development. If this highlighted that there was a lack of capacity or that the proposed development would place additional demands on existing provision then the developer would be required to mitigate the impact of the development through physical provision of new infrastructure or payment of developer contributions. The impact of the development could be mitigated through such an approach and thus the concerns regarding adverse impact on infrastructure are unfounded. Existing shortfalls in service provision in the local area are not as a result of the proposed development and it would only be the addition demand that any development would need to mitigate.
•
Impact on the Highway - the proposed development will result in a limited increase in traffic on the local highway network which is not considered to be severe.
•
The site is located in the Green Belt albeit that its removal from the Green Belt would have limited impact on the overall function of the Green Belt.
•
In light of the case presented above about the need to release Green Belt land to meet the Council’s housing need, particularly in light of the wider issues in the HMA and the inability of other authorities to meet their housing needs in full WL consider that there are exceptional circumstances to consider the release of land from the Green Belt. As it stands, the Plan is effectively stating that adjoining authorities will have to release land from the Green Belt to meet Dudley’s needs or that if Green Belt is not released needs will have to go unmet.
•An initial ecological survey had been undertaken which did not identify any significant constraints that would prevent the development of the site whilst options exist to deliver BNG on site.
•In respect of agricultural land, this has not been assessed at present so it is not clear if the objections of the loss of Grade 2 and 3 quality agricultural land are founded or not. Due to the size of the site the loss would be minimal.
•Issues relating to air quality and light pollution are matters that can be controlled during the construction process and through the detailed design of the end scheme. Noise has been assessed and the findings and recommendations are set out in the Vision Document. As such we do not agree that they are in principle reasons that would prevent the development going ahead.
•The development of new houses would have significant economic local benefits in terms of construction jobs during the construction phase as well as the use of goods and services in the local vicinity and the wider area involved in the construction of the dwellings. Furthermore, during the construction process local shops and services would benefit from the construction workforce in the area. Following the completion of the development local shops and services would benefit through additional footfall and resident population in the vicinity of the facilities. It is a generally well regarded principle that a residential development would have significant economic benefits to the area. Furthermore, instead of impacting adversely on house prices the development can have a positive impact on a local area albeit that this is not a legitimate planning consideration.
•The site is located in Pedmore so would not impact directly on Kingswinford.
•The emerging Local Plan has a brownfield first strategy albeit that in promoting such a strategy it is unable to identify sufficient land to meet its housing need in full. As such, if the full housing needs of the Borough are to be met then some greenfield land is required in order to meet this. The brownfield first approach will not result in the housing needs of
the Borough being met hence why we are promoting a greenfield site as a proposed housing allocation.
•
In respect of the other matters including flood risk, global warming, heritage, landscape and general design considerations these are matters that we consider could be dealt with through the planning application process and would not present an in principle reason as to why the site should not be allocated.
In light of the above, the objections raised to the inclusion of the site in the Preferred Options Black Country Plan are matters that do not present an in principle objection to the development of the site. Whilst clearly there was a significant level of objection to the draft allocation and the matters raised are in WL’s view capable of being addressed through the allocation and planning application process.
Notwithstanding the above, the WL land has been identified as part of a larger site having an indicative capacity of 115 dwellings. When developed this would deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing which would contribute to addressing the housing needs of the Borough and adding to the supply of affordable housing across the District. The delivery of affordable housing being a significant benefit of releasing Green Belt sites, due to the abnormal costs associated with delivering the previously developed sites that make up nearly the entire supply identified by the Council.

Support

Representation ID: 372

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

The Vision for Dudley sets out a number of areas that the Council wish to see achieved through the delivery of the Local Plan. These include making Dudley an attractive and desirable place to live, work and visit, having strong, inclusive resilient and thriving communities which enhance health and social wellbeing and providing a wide range of housing that will meet people's needs through their various life stages and is affordable to live in. We are generally supportive of the Vision in that it is aspirational and seeks to deliver the development needs of its residents over the Plan Period. We particularly welcome the intention to deliver a wide range of housing that will meet people's needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 373

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Objectives and Strategic Priorities
Table 4.1 sets out the Council's strategic objectives and priorities. We note Objective 1 is the conservation and enhancement of a natural and built environment including the strategic priority of addressing the climate and ecological emergency. We also welcome Strategic Priority 4 of fostering economic growth and investment and Strategic Priority 6 of creating thriving neighbourhoods by providing new and affordable homes in range of sizes, types and tenures to meet the Borough’s housing needs. Similarly, we welcome Strategic Priority 7 that seeks to deliver the resources, infrastructure and services to support growth.

Object

Representation ID: 374

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

DLP 1 Development Strategy
Policy DLP 1 sets out the Council's targets for the delivery of new homes and employment land. In respect of new dwellings 10,876 new homes are proposed along with the development of at least 25 hectares of employment land. WL have significant concerns about the proposed development strategy and specifically around how the Council intends to meet its housing needs over the Plan Period. We also have similar concerns in respect of how its employment land needs will be met and we set out our detailed comments on these points below. In respect of the Borough’s housing target the policy sets out that the Council will deliver at least 10,876 net new homes over the Plan Period. Paragraph 5.12 confirms that the local housing need for the Borough is in fact 11,954 homes as calculated by the Standard Method. Paragraph 61 of the Framework confirms that Councils should use the standard method as the starting point for establishing a housing requirement for the area. It goes on to state that there may be exceptional circumstances that justify an alternative approach to assessing housing need. The Council are not claiming that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant divergence away from the use of the standard method. As such, it must be concluded that the housing requirement is 11,954 dwellings. However, the Plan identifies a shortfall of 1,078 homes that are required but where sufficient capacity within the Borough to accommodate has not yet been identified.
Having identified what the housing need is in the Borough, the Council undertook an assessment of different options for growth as described in Table 1 of the Dudley Local Plan Options to Preferred Strategy paper (October 2023). The three options tested looked at meeting all or the majority of the Borough’s needs on previously developed land, through urban uplift in regeneration corridors, on low quality open space or elsewhere through duty to cooperate contributions. None of the spatial options considered release land from the Green Belt to meet the Council’s needs. Whilst no doubt the publication of the updated Framework will be used to validate the Council’s approach it will in Barberry’s view lead to significant housing need going unmet and the associated social and economic impacts that arise from this.
The spatial option that the Council have decided to pursue (Option 3) seeks to focus on meeting the development needs of the Council on previously developed sites within the urban area, use of low quality open space and through duty to cooperate discussions meaning that the Council will be looking to the other authorities in the HMA to accommodate its unmet need of 1,078 dwellings. WL object to this approach and do not consider it sound.
If the 1,078 dwellings are to be accommodated in adjoining authorities this would likely result in those authorities immediately adjoining Dudley, which also have significant areas of Green Belt, having to release land from their Green Belt in order to meet Dudley’s needs. If land has to be released from the Green Belt in order to meet the development needs it is WL’s view that Dudley should be looking at opportunities within its own administrative area first, including land in its Green Belt, before looking to its adjoining neighbours. If adjoining authorities take the same viewpoint as Dudley and decide that they also do not need to release land from the Green Belt, housing needs arising from Dudley and across the HMA are not going to be met.
The Plan, nor the Dudley Local Plan Options Preferred Strategy paper, does not elaborate on the Council’s decision not to release land from the Green Belt to meet its needs particularly when the Plan highlights that there is a shortfall of what is needed against what land is available to accommodate this need. WL consider this to be a short-sighted approach particularly when land is available albeit it is in the Green Belt, which could help meet the Council's housing needs over the Plan Period. This point is particularly pertinent when under the Black Country Plan Preferred Options version the Council had proposed to release land from the Green Belt to meet the Council's needs as well as the unmet needs arising in the wider Black Country authorities. Again, the Plan does not provide clear or sufficient justification for the decision of the Council not to release land from the Green Belt nor why this unmet need should be met elsewhere when there is sufficient suitable land available within the Borough to meet these needs. Furthermore, whilst the updated Framework does not require Green Belt to be reviewed, it does state that it can still be reviewed in exceptional circumstances. Barberry contend that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant a review of the Green Belt. These include:
•worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
•worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
•
increased homelessness
•
Worsening overcrowding and living conditions,
•
Increased pressure on private rental sector with associated issues of unsecure tenancies and susceptibility to rent increases,
•
Increasing ageing population with resultant increase in demand on social and health care services,
•
economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
•
the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.
The land at Worcester Lane was identified as a draft allocation in the Black Country Plan Preferred Options as a housing site capable of accommodating 115 dwellings. Clearly at some point, the Council considered that the Site was suitable to accommodate residential development sufficient for it to be identified as a draft allocation. The Site was considered suitable and deliverable and WL remain of the view that it should be included as a draft allocation in the Plan. In allocating the land at Worcester Lane, it could potentially reduce the shortfall in housing that is required but unable to be currently accommodated in the Boroug. We set out above why we consider that the Site is suitable for development and why it should be allocated as a site for housing in the Borough Plan.
The issue of unmet housing need arising across the HMA and how this will be addressed is a key issue that the Plan will need to address. Whilst the Dudley Local Plan identifies a relatively modest shortfall in housing land there are wider issues specifically arising in Sandwell that may compound the issue of where and how housing need is met. Sandwell Council is also currently consulting on its Preferred Option Local Plan which identifies a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings that the Council need but which are unable to accommodate within its own administrative area. The Council will also be looking to its adjoining neighbours, of which Dudley is one, in order to see whether their need can be met outside of its administrative area. Furthermore, the consultation on the Birmingham City Issues and Options that concluded in December 2022 also highlighted that it too has a housing shortfall of approximately 78,415 dwellings that will also need to be met elsewhere within the HMA. Dudley in seeking to meet part of its unmet need by agreeing with adjoining authorities in the HMA will to a degree be competing with other authorities that also have a much more significant shortfall to meet and which have less land, including Green Belt land to meet this. This reinforces WL’s view that the Council should be doing all it can to meet its needs in full in its administrative area even if it means releasing land from the Green Belt to do so. By meeting all its development needs within Dudley this would reduce the wider pressures within the HMA on other adjoining authorities to help meet the unmet needs arising principally in Sandwell and Birmingham but also potentially in Wolverhampton City as well.

Object

Representation ID: 375

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 3 Areas Outside the Growth Network
Part 5 of the policy confirms that the Council’s Green Belt boundaries will be maintained and protected from inappropriate development. In light of the comments we have set out in respect of policy DLP 1 above WL object to this approach on the basis that maintaining the Green Belt and seeking to direct growth to only previously developed sites will result in housing need being unmet and a shortage of employment land being delivered through the Plan unless the Council is able to agree with other authorities in the HMA for them to accommodate some of this unmet need. As noted previously the Council had intended to release land from the Green Belt when preparing the Black Country Plan in order to not only meet Dudley’s needs but contribute to meeting the wider needs of the HMA. WL reiterate that the release of land from the Green Belt within Dudley will help ensure that Dudley is able to meet its housing requirement of 11,954 in full within its own administrative areas without having to resort to its adjoining neighbours. The decision to not release land from the Green Belt to meet Dudley’s needs in full will have a number of adverse consequences for the supply of new homes and particularly the delivery of affordable homes, making the aspiration for home ownership beyond the reach of many who live in the Borough.

Support

Representation ID: 376

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 4 Achieving Well Designed Places
WL generally support the objectives of the policy in terms of ensuring new development is of high quality and well designed, recognising that this would have a positive impact on a character of the Borough as well as future residents and occupiers of new development. WL also recognise that design has a key role to play in achieving sustainable development by responding to known constraints and delivering high density development that makes effective use of previously developed land. The role of design in new development is, therefore, key in delivering a wide range of policy objectives set out in the Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 377

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 6 Infrastructure Provision
WL support the intention that all new development should be supported by the necessary on and off site infrastructure to serve the needs of those occupying new development. In providing new infrastructure to meet the needs of future residents the request to fund them must ensure that the resulting development is viable and that the development can support the requirements being requested.

Support

Representation ID: 378

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP8 Health and Wellbeing
We welcome the proposal that Health Impact Assessments should only be undertaken on larger residential developments of more than 150 dwellings.

Comment

Representation ID: 379

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 9 Healthcare Infrastructure
WL acknowledge that in new residential development there may be a requirement to mitigate the impact of the development by providing additional healthcare infrastructure where there is an increase in demand on this. This can, however, be mitigated through the provision of additional capacity of existing GP surgeries or through the creation of new facilities secured by developer contributions of CIL as part of the planning application process. Clearly any obligations or contributions arising through new development would need to ensure that the development remains viable in order to deliver these and would need to be considered as part of an overall package of measures and policy aims to be set out in the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 380

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Worcester Lane 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 WL 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.