Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Object

Representation ID: 579

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

6.3.
This draft Policy seeks to ensure high quality and attractive on-site green space is delivered, recognising the role that this can play in terms of sustainable development. Whilst overall, the aims and objectives of this policy are supported, part 1 seeks to avoid the use of hard surfaces and is not considered to be wholly justified. Whilst generally the use of hard surfaces should be minimised, typically there will be an expectation for the provision of some areas of hard surfacing such as patios in gardens and paving around doorways, beyond the minimal footpath areas that are an essential requirement. The end-users requirements for developments should be a consideration that is balanced with environmental objectives in order to ensure that sustainable development will be achieved.
6.4.
It is also considered that the policy as currently drafted overlaps with other policy in the emerging Plan, notably DLP33 relating to trees. As such, the policies should be reviewed to ensure that there is no duplication, and policy requirements relating to arboriculture are contained within a single policy, rather than included in various policies of the emerging Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 580

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

7.1.
These three policies in the emerging Plan set out various policy measures relating to sustainable design and construction in order to achieve the Council’s aspiration of mitigating and adapting to climate change. It is considered that the policies should be reviewed and amalgamated for the next version of the Plan, in order to streamline policy requirements and reduce duplication. It should be considered whether policy requirements could be identified in more simple terms, with more detailed policy suggestions for proposals to consider identified through Supplementary Planning Documents.

Object

Representation ID: 581

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

8.1.
The emerging Plan confirms that in the Council’s view, the character and quality of the historic environment is one of the borough’s greatest assets. As such, Draft Policy DLP55 requires development proposals to sustain and enhance the distinctive character of the area to help maintain Dudley’s cultural identity and strong sense of place. New development is accordingly required to be designed to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and demonstrate steps taken to achieve a locally responsive design. The policy identifies that in
addition to designated heritage assets, attention should be paid to non-designated assets including: Areas of High Historic Townscape Value; Areas of High Historic Landscape Value; Designed Landscapes of High Historic Value; and Archaeology Priority Areas; Locally Listed Buildings; Non-designated Heritage Assets.
8.2.
It is considered that the proposed policy seeks to secure protection for non-designated heritage assets that could comprise a wide range of landscapes or townscapes in addition to buildings and structures, in a highly restrictive manner that is not consistent with national policy set out in the Framework. The Framework at Paragraph 203, in respect of non-designated assets, requires that a ‘balanced judgement’ be made, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
8.3.
It is also noted that the policy seeks to secure a level of protection for ‘physical assets, whether man-made or natural’ that contribute positively to local character and distinctiveness. Contribution to local character and distinctiveness is considered to be a subjective matter, and so the policy as currently drafted could be used by decision-makers to object to development that the applicants’ view would not conflict with this policy. As such, it is not considered that this would accord with the Framework’s requirements for policies to be unambiguous and this part of the policy should be deleted.
8.4.
Draft Policy DLP55 should accordingly be modified to reflect this, as well as reduce the level of protection sought for non-designated assets to ensure consistency with national policy as required by Paragraph 35 of the Framework.