Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 392

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF notes that the issue of fully meeting housing needs within Dudley remains, despite the ending of the work on Black Country Plan. Dudley therefore needs to undertake its own calculations for the housing need and requirement, robustly test how much of this can be met within Dudley and how much (if any) is an unmet need. The Council then need to work with neighbouring authorities to identify how that unmet need will be redistributed and prepare a Statement of Common Ground on this issue. This issue is both a soundness and a Duty to Cooperate issue.

Comment

Representation ID: 393

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF does not comment on individual sites or allocations, other than to say the Plan should provide for a wide range of deliverable and developable sites across the area in order to provide competition and choice to ensure that housing needs are met in full. HBF would wish to see the Plan set out a logical settlement hierarchy which meets all the housing needs and addresses all areas of the housing market, with a range of sites proposed for allocation. The soundness of strategic and non-strategic site allocations, whether brownfield or greenfield, will be tested in due course at the Local Plan Examination.

Comment

Representation ID: 394

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF reiterates that it does not comment individual sites or allocations but does support the need for the Plan to provide for a wide range of deliverable and developable sites and to ensure that housing needs are met in full. The Plan need to ensure there is a sufficiency of Housing Land Supply (HLS) to meet the housing requirement, ensure the maintenance of a 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT) performance measurements. HBF cannot see how achieving these aims is possible without Green Belt release. It is noted that this may in turn also effect the spatial strategy for the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 395

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF note that criteria four allows for flexibility in relation to proposed development not meeting its on-site and off-site infrastructure only in exceptional circumstances. HBF note that a viability appraisal for the Dudley Local Plan was published in Nov 23 but it is unclear how this has influenced this consultation version of the Local Plan. HBF also have significant concerns about the viability report itself, which are detailed more fully in our


response to Policy DLP12 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and
Self-Build / Custom-Build Housing.
HBF request that the Aspinall Verdi Viability Appraisal is fully checked and reviewed by the Council (and/or their consultants) to ensure it is correct, internally consistent and reflects the findings of the Dudley specific viability appraisal that have been undertaken. Once this has been undertaken HBF would request that the fourth criteria of the policy is then revisited, to ensure it reflects the findings of the viability appraisal. HBF suggest additional
flexibility in the policy wording is likely to be needed. It should not be necessary for developers to have to go through the process and cost of a site-specific viability appraisal when the evidence at the plan-making stage has already shown it to be unviable.

Comment

Representation ID: 396

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

There is no need for the first three criteria of this policy on Fibre to the Premises broadband because this matter has been addressed through the Part R update to building Regulations that came in last year on 26 December
2022, which ensures development provides gigabit ready physical infrastructure.

These elements of the Policy should therefore be deleted.

Comment

Representation ID: 397

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

The policy seeks to require a screening Health Impact Assessment (HIA) as part of the planning application on (amongst other things) residential developments over 150 dwellings or 5has. However, the justification text refers to HIA. HBF understand that screening HIAs are a different thing from full HIAs. The Plan neds to be clear which it is referring to and provide definitions of both to avoid any confusion.

Comment

Representation ID: 398

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

In relation to criteria three of this policy HBF would draw the Council’s attention to HBF would draw attention to the High Court Decision on R (on the application of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust) versus Harborough District Council. This has drawn into question the legitimacy of asking for develop contributions for acute healthcare that is funded through general taxation.

Comment

Representation ID: 399

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF request that the standard method LHN should be the minimum starting point for establishing the housing requirement and the Council should then fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing. HBF suggests that these considerations should result in a higher housing requirement for Dudley which set be set out in the Local Plan. Only then should consideration around deliverability and housing land supply come into play, the housing requirement should be established first. HBF conclude that insufficient sites are being allocated to meet the housing needs of Dudley and allocation of further sites, including greenfield and Green Belt sites are needed. For the plan to be effective and justified, a clear explanation of this approach and the reasoning behind for it is needed. As HBF is of the view that the overall housing requirement for Dudley should be higher, it follows that our view is that the numbers in each phase should be higher too. HBF note that para 8.6 states “Together, these discounts provide sufficient flexibility in the housing land supply to meet any unforeseen circumstances”. HBF would strongly disagree. The discounts applied reflect the reality of development and as such the discounted houses are not expected to be brought forward. As such this does not provide any flexibility in relation to housing numbers, flexibility and a range and choice in sites can only be
provided through additional allocations (or windfalls), not discounting of sites that will not forward in practice.
HBF are very also concerned that the Council is expecting to deliver 97% of their new housing on brownfield land, and question how realistic this is. HBF remain unclear about the rationale behind, and plans that will create, a loss of current housing of 360 over the Plan period. The text is relation to this policy appears silent on this issue.HBF also suggests further thought should be given to the interaction between employment sites and housing suggesting there is a need for housing and employment to be considered together, and implications of not meeting with the housing and employment need of the borough present the exceptional circumstances required to justify Green Belt release.HBF notes that NPPF (para 72, Dec 2023) only permits an allowance for windfall sites if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available and will continue to be a reliable source of supply. HBF are also of the view that any buffer provided
by windfall sites should be in addition to the buffer added to the housing need figures derived from the Standard Method to provide choice and competition in the land market. However, by including windfalls within the Plan’s housing requirement supply, any opportunity for windfalls to provide some additional housing numbers and flexibility is removed. Windfalls do not provide the same choice and flexibility in the market as additional allocations. It should also be possible to see from Housing Trajectory how much reliance is being made on windfalls, and from when. To be both justified and effective the Housing Trajectory should include break down the housing numbers into different sources of supply. It should also be possible to see when the demolitions are expected and if and how they relate to regeneration projects.In relation to windfall, HBF are concerned about the Councils reliance on windfall in place of allocating housing sites. The Plan currently includes 2685 homes on windfall sites, with 358 in the first phase from 2023-2028. HBF are of the view that any allowance for windfall should not be included until the fourth year of a housing trajectory, given the likelihood that dwellings being completed within the next three years will already be known about (as they are likely to need to have already received planning permission to be completed within that timeframe).

Comment

Representation ID: 400

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF would also question how realistic the densities proposed in criteria three are noting that the setting of residential density standards should be undertaken in accordance with the NPPF (para 125). HBF suggest that density needs to be considered on a site by site basis to ensure schemes are viable, deliverable and appropriate for the site, and policy needs to include some flexibility if needed to enable it to respond to site specific circumstances. HBF would question of the density proposed are realistic deliverable and viable as the deliverability of high-density residential development in Dudley will be dependent upon the viability of brownfield sites and the demand for high density city centre living post Covid-19. It is important that delivery of the housing requirement does not rely overly ambitious intensification of dwellings, and policy enables for the range of housing types and tenures to
be provided to meet the range of need and demand in Dudley.

Comment

Representation ID: 401

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF information suggests that complying with the current new part L is costing
£3500 per plot. The Future Homes Standard Part L in 2025 is anticipated to cost up to £7500+ per plot. There will also be the addition of the Building Safety Levy that is coming in pay for cladding. This will be a per plot basis around the UK, and initial values are around £1500- £2500 per plot. These costs appear to have not been considered in the viability appraisal. Other factors that need to be taken into account include increasing costs of materials and labour due to inflation and the costs of mandatory BNG, which are still emerging as the off-site market is yet to be established. Although the initial price of statutory credits is now known this national fallback option has been deliberately highly priced to discourage their use. Whilst this intention is understandable, at present the lack of functioning local markets for off-site credits causes viability problems because HBF members experience to date suggests that any scheme that needs to rely on statutory credits becomes unviable. HBF have numerous concerns about the whole plan viability study, including the omission of some key policy costs. For example, an realistic and evidenced allowance for mandatory BNG needs to be includes within the viability assessment of the Local Plan.
The costs of BNG should have been considered as part of the planning obligations and should be specified as a single specific item. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity net gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment, some of which are unknown at this time. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery. As this is an emerging policy area and the market
for off-site provision, and statutory credits are not yet known, any figure used
for BNG costs will need to be kept under review as BNG implementation progresses and a greater understanding of actual costs become available. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment should clearly set out how it considered the implications of mandatory BNG and how it arrived at the most up to date BNG costs information available to use.
At a very basic level viability can be improved by reducing costs or increasing values. Sometimes, therefore changing the type of affordable housing provided can help to improve viability of a specific site, and the plan should recognise this. In this situation there could be a change of the percentages of different types of affordable housing provided, but the headline figure of how much affordable housing is provided would remain the same. Flexibility in the policy is important to allow for these kind of considerations.
The geographical distribution of development may impact on the Plan’s ability to deliver affordable housing where it is most needed. HBF notes that the level of open-market housing provided may also impact on the amount of affordable housing that can be developed.
. It will be also be important to understand if there any geographically specific viability considerations, such as whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in particular areas in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing in that location in a way that remains viable. Similarly, brownfield city centre sites tend to be most suited for apartments or retirement living. There will therefore be a need to include green fields allocations which are more likely to deliver family housing and a higher percentage of affordable housing, in order to provide flexibility in the housing land supply and ensure a range of housing types and tenures is provided. This adds further weigh to the need to consider Green Belt release(s).The HBF does not comment on individual sites, other than to say the Plan should provide for a wide range of deliverable and developable sites across the area in order to provide competition and choice and a buffer to ensure that housing needs are met in full. The soundness of strategic and non- strategic site allocations, whether brownfield or greenfield, will be tested in due course at the Local Plan Examination. As HBF said in response to Policy DLP6 Infrastructure Provision, additional flexibility in the policy wording is needed to address issues of viability. It should not be necessary for developers to have to go through the process and cost of a site-specific viability appraisal when the evidence at the plan- making stage has already shown it to be unviable. Criteria 2, also needs amending to address this point.
Criteria 3 of the policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan policy status to SPDs that have yet to written, which is not appropriate and contrary to national guidance. Planning policy must be made through the Local Plan process and Borough Wide Design Guides that are subject to the requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process.
This policy seeks to require 20% of homes in lower value areas to meet to meet M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of Building Regulations and
15% in higher value areas to meet M4(3) (Wheelchair user dwellings) and all the remaining to meet M4(2) on schemes of more than 10 homes.
The requirements to meet Part M4(2) will be superseded by changes to residential Building Regulations. The Government response to ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’ states that the Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through the Building Regulations. The requirement to address this issue is planning policy is therefore unnecessary.
HBF are of the view that this matter should be left to Building Regulations, however if a policy were to be needed, the wording needs to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards. M43a sets out standards for wheelchair adaptable housing, where M43b relates to wheelchair accessible housing which can only be required on affordable housing where the Council has nomination rights. Any such requirements would also need to be fully considered from a viability perspective.
The PPG sets out some of the circumstances where it would be unreasonable to require M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings. Such factors include
flooding, typography and other circumstances. HBF note that some flexibility is provided in criteria six but suggest additional flexibility is needed to reflect other site-specific characteristics. HBF would also question the viability evidence in support of these policy, in light of our concerns about the viability appraisal (which are set out elsewhere within our representation).
In relation to Self-Build and Custom Build Plots, the policy requires sites of 100 or more dwellings, to provide at least 5% as serviced plots for self and custom build, if there is evidence of demand. If after twelve months of a thorough an proportionate marketing exercise the plot remains unsold, the requirements falls away.HBF does not consider that requiring major developments to provide for self- builders is appropriate. Instead, the HBF advocates for self and custom-build policies that encourage self and custom-build development by setting out where it will be supported in principle. The HBF considers that Councils can play a key role in facilitating the provision of land as set in the PPG. This could be done, for example, by using the Councils’ own land for such purposes and/or allocating sites specifically for self and custom-build homebuilders- although this would need to be done through discussion and negotiation with landowners.
It is considered unlikely that the provision of self and custom build plots on new housing developments can be co-ordinated with the development of the wider site. At any one time, there are often multiple contractors and large machinery operating on-site from both a practical and health and safety perspective, it is difficult to envisage the development of single plots by individuals operating alongside this construction activity.
HBF agree that if demand for plots is not realised, it is important that plots should not be left empty to the detriment of neighbouring properties or the whole development. The timescale for reversion of these plots to the original housebuilder should be as short as possible from the commencement of development because the consequential delay in developing those plots presents further practical difficulties in terms of co-ordinating their development with construction activity on the wider site. There are even greater logistical problems created if the original housebuilder has completed the development and is forced to return to site to build out plots which have not been sold to self & custom builders. Therefore, if the current policy requirements are retained HBF would support the suggestion that any unsold plots remaining after a six-month marketing period revert to the original developer. The policy should be changed from twelve to six months.
As the whole plan viability methodology uses typologies, this means there may be individual sites that are not viable, for example if the costs or vales of a specific site fall outside the parameters used of a typology that was tested. Some site will be on the very margins of viability and other sites may already be unviable even without a change of circumstances. HBF therefore support the recognition of the potential ned for flexibility in relation to site specific viability issues. As such overage clauses may not be appropriate in all cases, and the Plan should allow for such circumstances.