Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Support

Representation ID: 452

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP36 Canals
We support the recognition that Dudley’s canals are an important resource and provide an opportunity to deliver high quality development taking advantage of their setting. However, the criterion in policy DLP36 are designed to restrict and control development, rather than actively encourage it. Whilst we have no particular concerns with any of the criteria within the policy it is our view that it should be amended to advise that the Council will actively encourage new development that makes best use of the canal network. A balance will be struck between the need to regenerate poor quality sites next to the canal network and the plan’s density, housing mix and planning obligation requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 453

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 39 Design Quality
We have a number of concerns with the policy, particularly where there is dual regulatory control such as Part 1D, which refers to Secured by Design, which is now covered by Part Q of the Building Regulations. As both are covered in other legislation we query why it is necessary to include it within a policy in the Plan.
Part 4 of the policy states that all new residential development will be required to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (“NDSS”). The Framework and PPG are quite clear that Councils need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area and justify including such policies in their Local Plan. There is no reference to what evidence has been gathered to demonstrate that all new properties are required to meet NDSS in the draft Plan.

Notwithstanding whether there is evidence to require the provision of all new dwellings to accord with NDSS if the requirement were to be applied this would have a number of significant implications for the Council. Firstly, NDSS means larger houses have to be built in order to comply with the standards. This would mean the density of development would decrease and the number of houses that can be delivered on land identified on housing will decrease. The decrease will result in fewer homes being delivered within the Borough and thereby decreasing the supply of housing and potentially resulting in housing need going unmet.
Delivering NDSS could also potentially have implications on scheme viability particularly when this is taken into account along with remediation costs, design quality, provision of open space, achieving biodiversity net gain and achieving energy efficiency targets. In seeking to achieve all of these policy objectives there could be an adverse impact on scheme viability that would restrict the delivery of new homes in the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 454

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 42 Energy Infrastructure
Revelan object to the requirement that residential development of 10 or more homes must include opportunities for decentralised energy provision. This is a significant development cost that could make schemes unviable.

Object

Representation ID: 455

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP 47 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards
Part 3 of the policy requires developments of 10 or more homes to incorporate measures for the generation of energy from renewable or low carbon sources sufficient to off set at least 10% of the estimated residual energy demand of the development on completion. It is not clear on what basis the requirement for a 20% energy reduction has been based on, it would appear to be an arbitrary figure without any justification.
Whilst we are supportive in principle of new development achieving energy reductions the building regulations are the most appropriate way of securing energy reduction targets. Building regulations are constantly updated and will ensure that new development is able to achieve the requisite energy reduction standards in place at the time of construction. Building regulations are, therefore, more responsive to changes in Government and national policy whereas the Local Plan policy would be static until the Local Plan was reviewed. The policy is a duplication of control with other legislation and as such it is considered unnecessary.

Object

Representation ID: 456

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Revelan Developments Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy DLP54 River Stour and its Tributaries
Policy DLP54 puts in place a series of criteria that the local authority expect applicants to comply with an preparing proposals for development within the vicinity of the River Stour.
These relate to ecological matters, green infrastructure provision and general riverside improvements. These works all have the potential for significant development costs. In such circumstances a balance will need to be struck between the provision of these infrastructure requirements and more general infrastructure requirements to ensure schemes remain viable.
This should be recognised in the policy. Part C of the policy makes reference to the need to provide a green infrastructure corridor of at least 10 metres in width from each riverbank top, unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated to be unfeasible or unviable or in conflict with the Local Plan polices. Whilst there is some flexibility with this standard it is not clear where the 10 metre stand off distance is derived from. The plan making process should be evidence base driven. We are not aware of any evidence to support a 10 metre stand off.
Part D of the policy makes reference to development proposals contributing towards making existing river bridges structurally sound and potentially the delivery ofr new river bridges. We have a number of concerns with this proposal. Firstly, not all river bridges are in the ownership of the Council or an applicant. Where bridges are owned by a third party it is in their gift whether they will allow for them to be repaired, upgraded or public access secured. This should be acknowledged in the policy. In addition, in terms of the provision of new river crossings this has the potential to be extremely expensive. It will also be necessary for land to be controlled on either side of the river to create such a crossing, and for appropriate onward connections from the crossing points. We are concerned that this is not realistic, achievable and will make developments unviable.

Paragraph 3.12 – Bridge provision
Paragraph 3.12 makes reference developments within areas such as Bradley Road East and Bradley Road West incorporate the development of new bridges to provide access to the surrounding areas and to provide connections to residents on both sides of the canal. We fundamentally disagree with this suggestion. Firstly, it has not been viability tested and significant infrastructure requirements such as the provision of new bridges cannot be included
in the plan unless it is demonstrated that they are financially viable.

Secondly, bridge connections may not be deliverable. In order for a bridge connection to be provided land either side of the river or canal must be in either the control of the applicant or the developer and agreement is needed to cross the watercourse itself. There are no evidence based documents accompanying the Plan to demonstrate that this is a deliverable policy aspiration.

Thirdly, we are not aware of any evidence base documents that demonstrate that there is a
need for such additional bridge crossings to deliver sustainable modes of transport. These provisions are entirely unfounded and without evidence.