Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Object

Representation ID: 1414

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

As has been extensively raised in previous representations, there are significant, fundamental concerns with the approach the Council are taking to not only identifying but meeting its housing needs. It is a real prospect that the Inspectors will be unable to find the Plan sound without it being ‘fixed’ during examination. Given the complexities likely to need consideration such as the unmet need not only in DMBC but the wider West Midlands and Birmingham Housing Market Areas (HMA), review of Green Belt sites and potential impact of changes to the NPPF, the timetable will slip significantly, even if submission is made on time.

Plan period is too short and doesn't allow time for slippage. Plan has been rushed to avoid transitional arrangement of proposed NPPF.

However, as will be further set out in representations to Sections 5 and 8 of the PLP, DMBC’s decisions on housing need, spatial growth options and to not assess suitable sites in the Green Belt (including William Davis Homes’ site ‘Land at Bromwich Lane’) will not only lead to the Plan being found unsound at examination but also could compromise the ability to meet the other priorities of the Plan and the vision for the Borough.

only allocating land in the urban area and brownfield sites for development, it will also limit the benefits from development that can be achieved. Council will fail against its own vision to deliver “a wide range of housing that will meet people’s needs through their various life stages and is affordable to live in (all tenures)”. The high density nature of development required on the sites allocated, especially those in the low value areas where affordable housing is also reduced to 10%, will inevitably lead only to the provision of flats.

The Plan has not been prepared positively; and it is not consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1415

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Should be planning over and above standard method for housing need. The representation sets out why housing need should be higher including need for affordable housing and rising affordability ratio.

There has been a fundamental failing in considering sufficient reasonable alternatives within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) in relation to a range of housing need and growth options.

Timescales for examination show the representations have not been given due consideration. Any significant changes proposed after Regulation 19 should be published as an addendum and consulted on. This is required with this plan.

Green belt should be removed.

Sustainability Appraisal - to comply with PPG, the growth options should be sufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications so that meaningful comparisons can be made. It is essential that DMBC take an unbiased and policy-off approach to identifying growth options, which clearly is not how the SA has been approached to date.

See full rep for detailed comments on SA.

Object

Representation ID: 1416

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Supported by rep for section 5.

Viability addendum demonstrates the fundamental flaw in DMBC’s approach to not only spatial strategy but also site selection which has an overreliance on brownfield sites which may not be viable or deliverable.

DMBC must allocate further greenfield sites to ensure a sufficient supply and mix of sites and make the Plan sound. Due to the tightly bound nature of the Borough, this will inevitably require a review of the Green Belt.

PLP Table 8.1 suggests that current supply and housing allocations provide around 71% of the gross new homes proposed in the PLP. The remaining 29% would be expected to be provided through windfall development (not including the 699 homes proposed to be exported to other authorities). This is based on an annual windfall rate of 184 homes a year in addition to 564 new homes expected from other sources. Whilst it is acknowledged that windfall rates generally are based on previous delivery, it is anticipated that this would drop significantly under the PLP due to the allocation of significant brownfield sites being allocated for development already. It is expected that DMBC will have made best effort to identify all the available brownfield development sites available before choosing to export its unmet need.

NPPF paragraph 72 states that “Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply." The evidence base and PLP fails against paragraph 72. It does not sufficiently demonstrate that the windfall figure, or the specific sites for windfall development are a reliable source of supply. Until evidence of this is available, a significant reduction of 50% should be applied to the windfall allowance.

Appendix 4 housing trajectory contained within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2023/24 provides some additional detail however clearly shows that a significant proportion of the identified sites will not deliver until later in the plan period, if at all. It also lacks justification for several sites to demonstrate they can be delivered in the timescales provided, if at all.

Over reliance on brownfield sites - not only can take a lot longer to deliver (if they come forward at all) but also often come forward with reduced public benefit such as affordable housing provision.

As such, there is no evidence that unmet need can be exported to other authorities and exceptional circumstances exist whereby DMBC should undertake a review of Green Belt sites to allocate sufficient quantity and mix of sites within the area to meet the housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 1419

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is overwhelmingly apparent, DMBC cannot feasibly or legally meet the emerging NPPF and its transitional arrangements. Therefore inevitable that a Green Belt review is required for this Local Plan. As it stands, Policy DLP49 is not justified by appropriate evidence nor has it been positively prepared.

Object

Representation ID: 1424

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

DLP55 and DLP60
Rep details information for Site at Bromwich Lane and suitability of site with these policies.

Given the nature of this designation, washing over large areas rather than site specific, the policy should be more flexible where it is demonstrated that the development would not cause significant harm to the designation and appropriate mitigation is proposed. This would allow opportunities for well-designed, sustainable development to come forward subject to other policy restrictions.

As it stands, Policies DLP55 and DLP60 are not justified or positively prepared.

Object

Representation ID: 1425

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

GREEN BELT ASSESSMENT - EVIDENCE

Inappropriate scale from which to assess the site and its contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.

Inspectors found in an appeal in St Albans District (Appeal Ref. 3265926) that as a result of the inclusion of a more discrete Green Belt site within a much larger Green Belt assessment parcel that included more significant Green Belt parcels, that the characteristics of the wider assessment parcels “bear little or no relationship to the appeal site.”

It is crucial that DMBC undertake its own Green Belt Review as well as assessing Green Belt sites for allocation to ensure a sound Plan is produced. Without doing so the Plan fails to be positively prepared to meet the area’s needs nor justified.

Comment

Representation ID: 1426

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Define Planning and Design Ltd

Section 5

Rep promoting Land at Bromwich Lane.

The above representations have been supported by the submission of a Vision Document; A Pedestrian Access Technical Note (ref. BLSB-BWB-ZZ-XX-RP-TR-0001-TN3); A Transport Technical Note on Access Strategy (ref. PLB-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR- 0001-Access Strategy-S3-P02); A Flood Risk Assessment (ref. PBL-BWB-ZZ-XX-RP-YE-0001_FRA); and A Flood Risk Assessment Summary (ref. PBL-BWB-ZZ-XX-RP-YE-0002_FRA Summary Letter_S2-P1). All submitted by email to the Council on 29th November 2024.