Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 417

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Prior to addressing issues relating to DtC and the Councils spatial development strategy specifically concerning housing provision, it is appropriate to first ensure the Council is taking an appropriate approach to establishing its overall housing requirement. Then it is necessary to understand what approach the Council is taking to addressing that requirement.To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.The approach of the Council in establishing its 11,954 local housing need figure has been as indicated above based simply on Standard Method (SM). However, this is not its local housing need figure. SM is simply the starting point for establishing its local need requirement. Additionally there is no indication that the Local Plan is looking to provide an uplift to reflect the employment growth
aspirations of the borough compliant with NPPF paragraph 81 and the PPG which advises on SMH that:
It does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or
other factors might have on demographic behaviour. Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate
to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.
As indicated above, it is clear there will be a significant shortfall in the boroughs’ local housing need above the 1,078
homes which it currently is indicating it cannot accommodate. Additionally, it is clear that adjoining authorities in the
Black Country including Wolverhampton which based on SMH needs to account for the cities and urban centres 35%
uplift are unable to account for their own housing needs. The DtC process, however, must follow Dudley firstly
considering appropriate Green Belt release within its own administrative boundaries.
In contrast to what the Plan states at paragraph 5.13, there is no evidence presented whatsoever that the two
Council’s of Dudley and Bromsgrove have cooperated.
This is a clear failure of the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 841

Received: 31/01/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

The delivery of the specified number of houses (10,876) will be insufficient, by some margin, to meet local needs and the approach in the DLP is inadequate. It is considered the approach to meeting an insufficient housing requirement will fail and the practical outcome will be an even lower delivery of housing numbers. Policy DLP1 fails to ensure that development needs, for housing and other activities, are fully and properly identified and addressed (NPPF paragraphs 15 and 20). Policy DLP1 – and the wider provisions of the emerging DLP – are inconsistent with delivering the Vision, Objectives and Strategic Priorities.

Sevenoaks District Council failed to meet their own housing needs whilst not properly evidencing why they could not and why they had not properly asked their neighbours to do so under the duty to cooperate. Sevenoaks District Council embarked on a similar approach to Dudley in their Local Plan, it was found unsound because of their failure properly to grapple with meeting the need for housing and to demonstrate compliance with the Duty to Cooperate. Sevenoaks are now bringing forward a plan with Green Belt releases to meet their housing needs.

Object

Representation ID: 846

Received: 31/01/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

The DLP raises some very serious concerns over its inability to meet Dudley’s minimum housing needs over the Plan period, and by some considerable margin. It simply does not fully grapple with the scale of unmet need it has identified. In doing so it fails to address in any tangible way how the homes needed in Dudley during the DLP period can ever be delivered and fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework.

This fundamental concern is exacerbated where those sites that are relied upon in the draft DLP, as set out in its Table 8.1, are unlikely to deliver even the 10,876 net new homes it anticipates over the Plan period, such that the true extent of unmet need within Dudley is likely to be significantly greater than the already substantial 1,078 homes it acknowledges.

It is exacerbated further still where Dudley’s neighbouring authorities lack suitable growth locations to meet their own needs, or Dudley’s unmet needs, and are in any event constrained heavily by their own Green Belts, such that they would need to release sites within their own Green Belts to meet Dudley’s unmet needs.

There is also a distinct lack of flexibility to deliver the 10,876 homes identified in Table 8.1 of the draft DLP. This also necessitates identifying additional housing sites to provide flexibility in Dudley’s housing supply over the DLP period.

With this in mind, it is important to consider that a Green Belt review is a “once in a generation” occurrence and Green Belt boundaries should endure well beyond the Plan period. Despite this, and the inability of the heavily brownfield centric strategy to meet Dudley’s minimum housing needs being a recurrent strategic planning issue, which requires significant bold intervention, Green Belt release sites are not being considered at all through the draft DLP.

With brownfield opportunities becoming exhausted, and in any event failing to deliver, the DLP must identify Green Belt release sites to help meet its minimum housing (and employment) needs during its planned period, and beyond, and to avoid the need for another Green Belt review in the near future.

The concerns raised above in reference specifically to Policy DLP10 are far reaching and point to a fundamental failing of the draft Plan to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework. In terms of a remedy for these shortcomings, at a basic level, Policy DLP10 requires amendment to identify significantly more deliverable and developable housing sites and to achieve that Green Belt release sites must be identified.

However, and crucially, the draft Plan fails to address in any tangible way how the minimum number of homes needed in Dudley during the DLP period can ever be delivered, and this exacerbates the very serious shortcomings within Dudley and the Black Country generally. This is a recurring strategic planning issue and requires significant bold intervention including a step change in approach to avoid the new homes that are needed in Dudley being unprovided over the DLP period.

This is a fundamental point. The DLP must do everything possible to meet as much of its minimum requirement as possible within Dudley. It must also demonstrate convincingly how it will ensure any remaining requirement will be taken up. As drafted, it fails resoundingly on both counts.

Object

Representation ID: 848

Received: 31/01/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Concerns are expressed elsewhere in these representations with the way the spatial strategy (Policy DLP1) of the Dudley Local Plan (DLP) is framed, the extent to which at the outset it properly acknowledges the scale and character of development need, the ways it suggests the need can be met, and the requirement to identify additional development land for housing including through Green Belt release. At this (Regulation 18) stage the Council have failed to grapple with this and the exceptional circumstances that might exist to support a change, or to formulate a realistic alternative to meet development needs. Those concerns are expanded in some detail in terms of policy around housing delivery (Policy DLP10), again making the point that additional development land is needed including through Green Belt release.

Those concerns have consequential effects throughout the DLP which should be accommodated. Those effects are notable in relation to Policy DLP49. The Green Belt should be assessed and reviewed such that the most suitable sites for development can be identified and allocated, and development needs can be met, in circumstances where the current excessive focus on urban cramming is inadequate and will not succeed. This should be reflected in an amended Policy DLP49 and supporting text.

Object

Representation ID: 850

Received: 31/01/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

It is helpful that Policy DLP32 acknowledges (part 1a) that development is permissible in the Local Nature Recovery Network (LNRN) including in circumstances where it will deliver benefits appropriate to the zone in which it is located. However, the phrasing of the draft policy is somewhat confusing in circumstances where part 1 refers to all development, and part 1a refers to the location of the development within the LNRN, but not all development will be within the LNRN. This might be remedied by adding the words, “if located within the Local Nature Recovery Network” to the beginning of part 1a of the policy.

Part 5a of the policy should allow for BNG to be delivered through measures outside Dudley where this is most appropriate. This might include, for example, schemes at or close to the edge of the borough boundary where more important gains can be made through interventions in the neighbouring authority. Part 8 of the policy allows for the potential for measures to be local to the development site – there will be circumstances where this best and most appropriately means land in a neighbouring authority, and that should be supported by the policy.