Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 402

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF note that LNRS have yet to be prepared. It will be important for the Plan to reflect the current position of the LNRS preparation as plan-making processes continue.
Criteria 7 is 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 be subject to the requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process.

Comment

Representation ID: 403

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF again note LNRS has yet to be prepared and mandatory national BNG is expected to come in in January 0224 after the close of this consultation. HBF has been involved in a significant amount of work, being led by the Future Homes Hub, on BNG preparedness for some time and note that it is somewhat unfortunate that the timing of the release of the draft Planning Practice guidance from DLUHC and the Draft DEFRA BNG Guidance has seen this information released midway through your consultation period.

90. HBF note that there is a new information for the Council to work though and consider the implications of, in order to make the necessary changes to the Biodiversity Net Gain policy so that it complies with the latest policy and guidance as it finalised.

91. The BNG PPG has been published in draft form to allow for “familiarisation” and as such some details may change between now and the implementation date in January 2024. Similarly, HBF understand the DEFRA Guidance is still being refined before the implementation date, and indeed may be further refined once mandatory BNG is working in practice, to reflect any early lessons learnt.

92. There are clearly some areas of your guidance that need revising and updating, particularly because the (draft) PPG is clear that there is no need for Local Plan policies to repeat national guidance. For example, HBF would suggest criteria five and eight needs amending to allow for off-site BNG where this may be more appropriate and the use of statutory credits where no other option is available. Criteria six and seven may be unnecessary as they are merely repeating national policy, and criteria ten needs to properly reflect how BNG will work in practice. It should be noted that compliance with the national BNG condition is a post permission consideration and a final BNG Plan can only be submitted once planning permission has been granted. Management and monitoring of BNG will be part of this plan, and as such may be separate to the planning permission.

93. It will be important for the Council to fully consider the PPG and DEFRA guidance once it has been formally published, which HBF notes will be in January 2024, after the close of this consultation period. Although no significant changes to the approach to BNG are expected, further clarity may be needed on some of the finer details, and some amendments and additional advice and guidance are anticipated.

94. It is the HBF’s opinion that the Council should not deviate from the Government’s requirement for biodiversity net gain as set out in the Environment Act. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery.
Any requirements to go beyond 10% BNG needs to be clearly demonstrated with evidence including considering the implications of the policy approach as part of the whole plan viability appraisal. In particular, HBF would question how the viability of more than 10% BNG can be established when the market for off-site credits, and therefore the costs of delivering the 10% mandatory BNG system are still emerging.

96. HBF notes that the proposed policy wording and supporting text will need to reflect both that the Environment Act which requires 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, and the emerging policy, guidance and best practice on how Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain will be implemented. There is an important policy distinction to made between the national mandatory requirements and any optional further requests from LPAs to go further and faster. In particular the
10% national target is non-negotiable from a viability perspective, but policies seeking over 10% can be challenged on viability grounds. This distinction needs to be recognised within the Local Plan.

97. HBF suggest particular care is needed in terminology to ensure the Dudley policy reflects the national policy and guidance. For example, on site and off- site biodiversity is referred to as units, and the statutory national credit system of last resort is referred to as credit. It is important for the wording of the policy to accurately reflect the legalisation and guidance.

98. HBF suggest that it should be for the BNG plan to set out what happens if monitoring shows any BNG measure are ineffective. It is also important to note that large and complex sites where the development is phased, the guidance is clear that the 10% must be delivered at the end of the development, and this may not result in 10% BNG on each phase. Additional advice on phased development is still awaited.

99. As mentioned previously, Local Nature Recovery Strategies are new initiative, and one has yet to be prepared that covers Dudley. As the LNRS emerges it will be important for this Local Plan to be kept under review and further public consultation on the interaction between the two documents and/or changes to Local Plan policy to reflect the LNRS may be needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 404

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF are keen to understand how this policy interacts with other policies on BNG and nature conservation, and viability. HBF suggests that the council needs to fully consider if and how the tree policy could impact on the land uptake for any development and the implications this may have for the density of developments, which in turn has the potential to have an impact on the viability.

Comment

Representation ID: 405

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF would question if criteria one is necessary in Local Plan policy as repeats other national legislation and protection. HBF are also keen to understand how this policy interacts with other policies on BNG and nature conservation, and viability. HBF suggest further flexibility is needed in the policy, for example hedgerow removal may be an essential to gain access to
a site, but BNG policies which require 10% net gain from the pre-development baseline so any loss would already have to be compensated. HBF suggest the Council should give more thought to how the suite of environmental policies are intended to work together so that developers are completely clear what is expected of them, and to ensure that the policies do not serve to
make development undeliverable. The interrelationships between the BNG policy and other environmental policies needs to be fully considered and explained.

Comment

Representation ID: 409

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

In light of the new NPPF revision HBF are keen to understand if and when the Council is intended to produce a Borough Wide Design Code. The HBF supports the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers. The Councils do not need to set local energy efficiency standards in a Local Plan policy because of the higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard, which are currently out for consultation. HBF does not support the introduction of the optional Nationally Described Space Standards though policies in individual Local Plans. If the Council wanted to do this, they will need robust justifiable evidence to introduce the NDSS, as any policy which seeks to apply the optional nationally described space standards (NDSS) to all dwellings should only be
done in accordance with the NPPF1, which states that “policies may also 1 para 130f & Footnote 49 make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space standard can be
justified”.
The NPPF requires that all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence, which should be adequate, proportionate and focussed tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned. The
PPG identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy. It states that ‘where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:

• Need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
• Viability – the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.
• Timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions’.
HBF also remind the Council that there is a direct relationship between unit size, cost per square metre (sqm), selling price per sqm and affordability. The Council’s policy approach should recognise that customers have different budgets and aspirations. An inflexible policy approach to NDSS for all new dwellings will impact on affordability and effect customer choice. Well-designed dwellings below NDSS can provided a good, functional home. Smaller dwellings play a valuable role in meeting specific needs for both open market and affordable home ownership housing. An inflexible policy approach imposing NDSS on all housing removes the most affordable homes and denies lower income households from being able to afford homeownership. The introduction of the NDSS for all dwellings may mean customers purchasing larger homes in floorspace but with bedrooms less suited to their housing needs with the unintended consequences of potentially increasing overcrowding and reducing the quality of their living environment. The Council should focus on good design and usable space to ensure that dwellings are fit for purpose rather than focusing on NDSS. If the proposed requirement for NDSS is carried forward, then the Council should put forward proposals for transitional arrangements. The land deals underpinning residential sites may have been secured prior to any proposed introduction of the NDSS. These sites should be allowed to move through the planning system before any proposed policy requirements are enforced. The NDSS should not be applied to any reserved matters applications or any outline or detailed approval prior to a specified date.

Comment

Representation ID: 410

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF is concerned about mandatory requirements to connect to district heating networks. HBF considers that it is important that this is not seen as a requirement and is instead implemented on a flexible basis. Heat networks
are one aspect of the path towards decarbonising heat, however, currently the predominant technology for district-sized communal heating networks is gas combined heat and power (CHP) plants. Over 90% of district networks are gas fired. As 2050 approaches, meeting the Government’s climate target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero will require a transition
from gas-fired networks to renewable or low carbon alternatives such as large heat pumps, hydrogen or waste-heat recovery but at the moment one of the major reasons why heat network projects do not install such technologies is because of the up-front capital cost. The Council should be aware that for the foreseeable future it will remain uneconomic for most heat networks to install low-carbon technologies. This may mean that it is more sustainable and more appropriate for developments to utilise other forms of energy provision, and this may need to be considered.
Government consultation on Heat Network Zoning also identifies exemptions to proposals for requirements for connections to a heat network these include where a connection may lead to sub-optimal outcomes, or distance from the network connection points and impacts on consumers bills and affordability.
Furthermore, some heat network consumers do not have comparable levels of satisfaction as consumers on gas and electricity networks, and they pay a higher price. Currently, there are no sector specific protections for heat network consumers, unlike for people on other utilities such as gas, electricity or water. A consumer living in a building serviced by a heat network does not have the same opportunities to switch supplier as they would for most gas
and electricity supplies.
The Council’s proposed policy approach is unnecessary seeks to go beyond the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard without justification. It is the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers.
The Council should be aware that the long awaited consultation on the Future Homes standard was published on Dec 13th 2023 and consultation closes in 6 March 2024. The consultation documents can be found online at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-homes-and-
buildings-standards-2023-consultation
HBF is also concerned about any policies which mandate on-site renewable energy generation, which may not be appropriate in all cases- see comments in response to DLP47.

Comment

Representation ID: 411

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF is concerned about any policies which mandate on-site renewable energy generation. HBF considers that it is important that this is not seen as a requirement and is instead implemented on a flexible basis. HBF recognises that there may be potential for renewable energy generation on-site, however, it may be more sustainable and efficient to use larger scale sources rather than small-scale, it is also noted this policy also takes no account of the fact that over time energy supply from the national grid will be decarbonised.

Comment

Representation ID: 412

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

HBF notes that we are in the midst of a Housing Crisis. Housing delivery is therefore a key challenge facing Dudley Borough. To address the housing crisis the Council needs to allocate enough sites to meet the housing requirement and provide choice and flexibility in supply. This will require the allocation of a mix and range of sites in a variety of locations. The policies in the Plan with then near careful monitoring to ensure they are delivering the housing. The Dudley Local Plan must ensure the delivery of new housing to meet both open market and affordable housing needs.

The issue of housing is critically important and needs urgently addressing through the plan-making process. HBF believes that the Council needs to explore any and all options to meet the housing need and requirement of Dudley. This must include full consideration of the current Housing Crisis and if it results in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would require the need for a Green Belt review. A plan that does not meet the area’s housing needs in full is simply not good enough and does represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
There remains a need to address issues that are wider-than-local matters in a joined-up manner under the Duty to Cooperate. The HBF notes that Dudley was closely involved in the production of the Black Country Plan (BCP), alongside the other three Black Country councils, but that work on the joint BCP officially ceased in October 2022
The HBF notes that the BCP website says “it is with regret that we are unable to reach agreement on the approach to planning for future development needs within the framework of the Black Country Plan”. The statement on the website continues that “Local Plans for the four Black Country Councils will now provide the framework for the long-term planning of the Black Country. The Black Country Plan 2039 work programme will end, and we will now transition to a process focused on Local Plans. The issues of housing and employment land need will now be addressed through individual Local Plans for each of the authorities. The Councils will co-operate with each other and with other key bodies as they prepare their Local Plans."

This suggests compliance with the Duty to Cooperate may be a key challenge for meeting the legal requirements of plan-making in Dudley, as well as policy issue. This issue has gained in importance now the NPPF revision seek to ensure housing need is meet where it originated wherever possible.

HBF suggest that there is a need for housing monitoring to be undertaken across the wider region. If other areas are providing housing to meet Dudley’s need, Dudley will need to be monitoring this delivery to ensure its needs are being met. However, HBF firmly believe Dudley should be doing more to address its own needs, including Green Belt release.

Comment

Representation ID: 413

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

Criteria 2 and 3 of the policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan policy status to SPDs, which is not appropriate and contrary to national guidance. Planning policy must be made through the Local Plan process and be subject to the requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process

Comment

Representation ID: 414

Received: 22/03/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Agent: Home Builders Federation

Criteria 3 of the policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan policy status to SPDs, which is not appropriate and contrary to national guidance. Planning policy must be made through the Local Plan process and be subject to the requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process.