Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Object

Representation ID: 1075

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Barberry have significant concerns about the proposed development strategy and specifically around how the Council intends to meet its housing needs over the Plan Period. We also have similar concerns in respect of how its employment land needs will be met and we set out our detailed comments on these points below.

The Council are not claiming that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant divergence away from the use of the standard method. As such, it must be concluded that the housing requirement is 11,169 dwellings. However, the Plan identifies a shortfall of 699 homes that are required but where sufficient capacity within the Borough to accommodate has not yet been identified.

The spatial option that the Council have decided to pursue seeks to focus on meeting the development needs of the Council on previously developed sites within the urban area, use of low quality open space and through duty to cooperate discussions meaning that the Council will be looking to the other authorities in the HMA to accommodate its unmet need of 699 dwellings. Barberry object to this approach and do not consider it sound.

If the 699 dwellings are to be accommodated in adjoining authorities this would likely result in those authorities immediately adjoining Dudley, which also have significant areas of Green Belt, having to release land from their Green Belt in order to meet Dudley’s needs. If land has to be released from the Green Belt in order to meet the development needs it is Barberry’s view that Dudley should be looking at opportunities within its own administrative area first, including land in its Green Belt in order to accommodate this, before looking to its adjoining neighbours. If adjoining authorities take the same viewpoint as Dudley and decide that they also do not need to release land from the Green Belt, housing needs arising from Dudley and across the HMA are not going to be met.

The Plan does not elaborate on the Council’s decision not to release land from the Green Belt to meet its needs particularly when the Plan highlights that there is a shortfall of what is needed against what land is available to accommodate this need. Barberry consider this to be a short-sighted approach particularly when land is available albeit it is in the Green Belt, which could help meet the Council's housing needs over the Plan Period. This point is particularly pertinent when under the Black Country Plan Preferred Options version, the Council had proposed to release land from the Green Belt to meet the Council's needs as well as the unmet needs arising in the wider Black Country authorities. Again, the Plan does not provide clear or sufficient justification for the decision of the Council not to release land from the Green Belt nor why this unmet need should be met elsewhere when there is sufficient suitable land available within the Borough to meet these needs. Furthermore, whilst the current Framework does not require Green Belt to be reviewed, it does state that it can still be reviewed in exceptional circumstances. Barberry contend that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant a review of the Green Belt.

The land at Swindon Road, Wall Health, Kingswinford was identified as a draft allocation in the Black Country Plan Preferred Options as a strategic housing site capable of accommodating 533 dwellings. Clearly at some point, the Council considered that the Site was suitable to accommodate residential development sufficient for it to be identified as a draft allocation. The Site was considered suitable and deliverable and Barberry remain of the view that it should be included as a draft allocation in the Plan. In allocating the land at Swindon Road, Wall Heath, it could potentially reduce the shortfall in housing that is required but unable to be currently accommodated in the Borough leaving only a further 166 dwellings to be found on other sites in Dudley.

In addition to the shortfall in housing land that the Borough Council is currently unable to accommodate there is also a shortfall in the amount of employment land that is needed but which sufficient land has not been identified in order to accommodate the employment requirements going forward. The Council is, therefore, looking to accommodate its housing and employment needs outside of its administrative area via agreeing with adjoining authorities for them to make land available to meet Dudley’s needs. Barberry do not consider this to be a sound approach for similar reasons as to those set out above in respect of meeting its housing needs. Barberry contend that Dudley has suitable land available within its own administrative area albeit it is in the Green Belt and that the Council should be considering the suitability of this land for development first rather than asking its neighbouring authorities to meet its needs and potentially to release land from its Green Belt in order to do so.

Rep details shortfalls in neighbouring LAs. Dudley should seek to meet its own housing need.

Barberry consider policy DLP1 unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared, not effective and not consistent with national policy. As drafted, significant housing need will go unmet leading to a wide range of social and economic problems associated with the lack of suitable and affordable housing for residents of the Borough. Similarly, the failure to address the shortfall in provision of housing at the HMA wide level will only add to those significant housing pressures that many in the conurbation already face.

Comment

Representation ID: 1076

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Part 5 of the policy confirms that the Council’s Green Belt boundaries will be maintained and protected from inappropriate development. In light of the comments, we have set out in respect of policy DLP 1 above Barberry object to this approach on the basis that maintaining the Green Belt and seeking to direct growth to only previously developed sites will result in housing need being unmet and a shortage of employment land being delivered through the Plan unless the Council is able to agree with other authorities in the HMA for them to accommodate some of this unmet need. As noted previously the Council had intended to release land from the Green Belt when preparing the Black Country Plan in order to not only meet Dudley’s needs but contribute to meeting the wider needs of the HMA. Barberry reiterate that the release of land from the Green Belt within Dudley will help ensure that Dudley is able to meet its housing requirement of 11,169 in full within its own administrative areas without having to resort to its adjoining neighbours. The decision to not release land from the Green Belt to meet Dudley’s needs in full will have a number of adverse consequences for the supply of new homes and particularly the delivery of affordable homes, making the aspiration for home ownership beyond the reach of many who live in the Borough.

Barberry object to the Plan and consider it unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared nor will be it be effective and that by not reviewing the Green Belt to meet the Council’s housing needs in full within its own administrative areas will result in a number of problems association with lack of adequate housing, housing affordability and knock on economic impacts arising from a lack of working age people able to live and work in the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 1077

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy requires that residential developments of 150 dwellings or 5 hectares will be required to provide a Health Screening Impact Assessment as part of the planning application. Barberry acknowledge that significant residential development such as that being promoted at the Triangle site in Kingswinford, has the ability to make significant contributions to the health and wellbeing of new and existing residents alike. This can be principally through the provision of areas of public open space and recreational amenities on site, including measures to make active travel by the provision of new footway and cycleway and the provision of on-site facilities such as new allotments or community orchards. These measures would not all be possible on previously developed sites within urban areas and, therefore, the benefits of identifying larger strategic greenfield sites, such as the Triangle site, could actually have a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of residents for the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 1078

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Putting the shortfall aside we have a number of concerns about the sources of housing land supply that the Council sets out in Table 8.1 of the Plan.

In respect of sites with planning permission or prior approval it is not clear whether a non-implementation allowance has been applied to this source of supply. Typically, a 10% non-implementation allowance would be applied to such sites.

Table 7 of the SHLAA also identifies potential supply from occupied employment sites albeit that a 15% non-implementation allowance has been applied to this source. It is noted that reliance on redevelopment of existing employment sites was a key theme for delivering new houses through the adopted Black Country Core Strategy. However, the intended strategy was not wholly successful as issues relating to the release of multi-ownership employment sites did not result in significant new residential development coming forward. Furthermore, retention of employment sites in employment use proved commercially as viable, if not more viable, than developing for residential use. The outcome being that a number of employment sites that had been earmarked for residential development remained, and continue to remain, in employment use. It is questionable whether the same reliance on existing employment sites to deliver new residential development in the current Plan would have resulted in a different outcome. As such, the application of only a 15% non-implementation allowance seems on the low side and that a much higher non-implementation allowance should be applied. Due to the uncertainties associated with this source of supply coming forward and making any meaningful contribution to the supply of housing there is an argument to say it should be removed completely from the potential supply of new homes.

A windfall allowance of 184 dwellings per year has also been allowed for. Whilst the Framework confirms that where an allowance is made for windfall sites as part of the anticipated supply there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. The windfall allowance that has been allowed for equates to nearly 25% of the total housing requirement which is a significant proportion of the overall supply that is expected to come forward on non-allocated sites. It is also noted that the windfall allowance is on top of the supply that is also identified on occupied employment land sites and other sites within town centres and the regeneration corridors.

In respect of occupied employment land sites such as those identified in Brierley Hill there is again a question mark over whether these will come forward and specifically when they will come forward for development. Whilst Table 8.1 indicates that these would not start contributing to the supply until 2028 there is no certainty that this source of supply will contribute to the overall supply of housing.

Table 8.1 also includes a centre uplift allowance which accounts for a number of sites increasing the density of development that that site is capable of accommodating. Whilst in theory this may be possible there is a question mark over whether this would actually deliver as intended. Due to the uncertainty that this will occur and the limited contribution it makes to the overall supply this element of the supply should also be removed.

A further source of supply is from a redevelopment of offices in Brierley Hill waterfront. This has been included on the basis that office demand has decreased following the Covid pandemic and that the office capacity would be available for redevelopment for housing through the plan period. More recently, there has been a slew of announcements from companies publicly stating that they want their employees to return to the office. There is a degree of uncertainty over whether existing offices will be available for redevelopment in the volumes that are envisaged and as such it cannot be guaranteed that the element of supply would be deliverable. If it did take place this would be considered a windfall and doesn’t need to be identified as a separate source of housing in the supply.

Totalling up all the sources of supply in Table 8.1 equals 10,470 homes. This is the same number as the proposed housing requirement set out in the Plan. The Plan does not propose to over-allocate against the housing requirement in case for whatever reason certain sources of the supply do not come forward as expected. As it stands, all sources of the supply would have to come forward to meet the housing requirement (albeit there is still a shortfall of 699 homes against what is actually needed). This risks the housing requirement not being met in full if sites do not come forward as anticipated and we have set out above there are a number of risks with certain elements of the supply that may not deliver as intended.

Clearly, if the Council were to over-allocate against the housing requirement this would identify additional sites for housing that could meet the Standard Method housing requirement that the Council are currently stating that they cannot meet in full. As it stands Barberry are concerned that the sources of supply that have been identified would not be sufficient to meet the housing requirement as proposed and that due to various reasons relating to non-implementation or delivery of certain sites/sources of supply there would be a shortfall in supply against the housing requirement. In order to address this, additional land should +be made available to protect against any non-implementation that may occur.

Barberry object to policy DLP10 on the basis that it is not effective and not consistent with National policy and if adopted in this form will result in significant additional housing need going unmet beyond the 699 homes that the Council are currently not planning for.

Object

Representation ID: 1081

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

What is clear is that for all 4 of these tenures nearly 50% of the properties are required to be 3 or 4 bedroom properties. It is, therefore, highly debatable whether sites of 10 or more dwellings would be able to deliver the full range of dwellings required and the density specified within the policy. Three or four bedroom dwellings tend to be houses as opposed to apartments and would therefore deliver a much lower density development than a wholly flatted scheme.

Similarly, if high density development is to be achieved then this is likely to be comprised of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments and would not therefore deliver the full range of housing that the policy seeks. Focusing on delivering apartment led development will also curtail the delivery of affordable housing as RPs are less inclined to take on units in mixed tenure blocks.

Whilst it is noted that a range of densities are proposed in different parts of the Borough the Dudley Housing Market Assessment is clear that there is a significant demand across all tenures for 3 and 4 bedroom properties. If this need is to be met then sites in town or strategic centres, where a significant proportion of new development is proposed to be focused, are unlikely to deliver the larger properties that are required. This reinforces Barberry’s view that the range of different sites are required in order to help meet the housing needs of the Borough going forward.

A further consideration in seeking to achieve the density assumption set out in the policy also relate to meeting other aspirations and policy objectives in the Plan. This could include provision of open space, achieving high quality design and incorporation of National Described Space Standards and accessible homes along with sufficient car parking on site. A combination of these and other policy considerations can, and will, impact on the density of development that can potentially come forward on sites. If all these are to met on sites the amount of land required to do so will need to increase.

Barberry object to Policy DLP11 on the basis that it is not effective and will not result in the majority of housing needs, which are predominantly for 3 and 4 bedroom properties, being met. Meeting the actual housing needs of those in the Borough in need of a home appears to have been sacrificed for higher density flatted development where the actual need is for family housing. Barberry do not consider that sufficient land has been identified to meet these density targets whilst also at the same delivering a number of other policy objectives and aspirations such as POS, car parking and accessible homes.

Object

Representation ID: 1083

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy stipulates that on greenfield sites, of medium value zones, 20% affordable housing will be sought. It is noted that of the new allocations proposed in the Plan only 3.5% of the supply is on greenfield land. As such, there is very limited prospect that much affordable housing will come forward on these sites. Furthermore, the requirement to provide 10% affordable housing on previously developed sites on all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones is likely to raise issues with the viability of such sites being able to deliver this. On unviable sites it will reduce the ability of developers to deliver affordable housing leading to affordable needs going unmet.

We note that the Triangle site in Kingswinford, which is located in a higher value area, is relatively unconstrained and is a greenfield site. In light of the lack of constraints affecting the site it would be one such site that could potentially deliver a policy compliant level of affordable housing (30%) making a significant contribution to the overall needs of the Borough. The provision of affordable housing in an area that is well related and highly accessible to the countryside and the opportunities that this offers for residents is considered a significant benefit in contrast to providing affordable homes in town or strategic centres that are less accessible to the countryside.

The site would also be capable of delivering houses of different types and tenures rather than high density apartment schemes. Again, this would help meet identified needs as set out in the Dudley Housing Market Assessment.

In respect of National Wheelchair Accessibility Standards Barberry object to the differentiation in the requirement to provide wheelchair accessible houses according to the different value areas that the proposed houses are to be built in. A wheelchair user in a low value area would have the same requirement for a wheelchair accessible house as a wheelchair user in a high value area. Wheelchair users are not therefore going to be solely located in high value areas and their needs would need to be accommodated irrespective of the value area that the house was to be built in. In differentiating between brownfield and greenfield sites and the proportion of accessible dwellings to be provided on each, it must be recognised that larger accessible homes require more land to accommodate them. As such, if this is the objective greenfield sites will not be able to accommodate development at the same density as brownfield sites.

In light of the fact that the Plan seeks to differentiate the delivery of wheelchair accessible properties between lower and high value areas indicates that the Council acknowledge that delivery of wheelchair accessible properties will have an impact on the viability of these developments. The inference being that there is an additional cost involved and that this can only be sustained where a higher land value can be sustained from the development. If this is the case then additional sites in higher value areas should be allocated in order to deliver the policy requirements that the Council is seeking.

In respect of self build properties paragraph 8.20 confirms that there are currently 83 individuals on the self build and custom build register for Dudley. If each of these individuals were to construct a house it would equate to 0.76% of the total housing requirement for the Borough. The policy suggests that sites of more than 100 dwellings 5% of dwellings should be made available for self build or custom build housing. Barberry consider that a 5% requirement is in excess of the actual numbers of people on the self build register which is set out above equates to less than 1% of the total housing needed. Barberry suggests that a 1% requirement on sites of 100 or more housing would be a more appropriate figure.

Barberry object to policy DLP12 on the basis that is it’s not effective and not consistent with national policy. The rationale for requiring different levels of wheelchair accessible housing according to the land value that can be achieved ignores the fact that people requiring a wheelchair accessible house do not all live in higher value areas. Similarly, the justification for differential affordable housing thresholds acknowledges that delivery of affordable housing is more likely in higher value areas. If this is the case, then Barberry contend that more sites, such as the land at Swindon Road, Wall Heath, should be allocated for development and which would be capable of making a policy compliant affordable housing contribution. Finally, the requirement to provide self build plots as part of new residential developments of more than 100 dwellings overstates the demand for self build within the Borough. A lower percentage would be appropriate and would likely satisfy the demand for self build.

Object

Representation ID: 1084

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Following the enactment of the Environment Act there is now a statutory requirement to achieve 10% biodiversity net gain through new developments. This is now a statutory requirement irrespective of the need to appear in a Development Plan policy. Notwithstanding the above, we note that policy DLP 32 sets out a requirement that all development shall deliver a minimum of 10% net gain. As this is now a statutory requirement under other legislation we do not consider this is necessary in the policy.

The policy also sets out that biodiversity net gain should be provided with a preference to deliver it on site but acknowledging there may be instances where an off-site contribution has to be made if it is not possible to accommodate it within the development boundary. Whilst every effort would be made to achieve the requisite 10% gain on site the ability to do so is entirely dependent on the nature of the habitat that is present on site and which would be lost through new development. The achievement of biodiversity net gain on site, or through an off-site contribution, has the potential to affect the deliverability of development sites. This is because if biodiversity net gain is to be achieved on site this could reduce the amount of land available for development. Conversely, if a financial contribution was required off site, this would need to be paid irrespective of whether any other developer contributions were sought by the Council. This could have a direct impact on scheme viability in that there would only be a set amount of money available to deliver biodiversity net gain which could be at the expense of meeting other developer contributions. An applicant cannot choose to not meet its statutory obligations to deliver biodiversity net gain. Furthermore, there is no viability clause in the legislation that says if delivery biodiversity net gain would cause development to become unviable then it is not required. Meeting and delivering biodiversity net gain will have to take priority due to its statutory nature. This requirement could, therefore, have implications for the payment of other developer contributions particularly where viability of development is marginal.

Barberry object to Policy DLP32 on the basis that it repeats in policy matters (the 10% requirement) that are dealt with by other legislation. Barberry contend that this should be deleted from the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1085

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Barberry have a number of concerns with the policy particularly where there are overlapping forms of 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 PPG is quite clear that Councils need to gather evidence first to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area and justify setting up appropriate policies in their Local Plan. No evidence appears to have been published alongside the Pre-Submission Draft Plan that sets out why all new properties are required to meet NDSS.

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. A further consequence is this could place additional pressure on adjoining authorities in order to have to make up an even larger shortfall of housing that is needed in Dudley but which cannot be accommodated within the area.

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 could have an adverse impact on scheme viability that would restrict the delivery of new homes in the Borough.

Barberry object to Policy DLP39 on the basis that the policy is not justified in that the Council has not produced proportionate evidence to demonstrate why all new housing should accord with NDSS.

Object

Representation ID: 1087

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Barberry object to the requirement that residential development of 10 or more homes must include opportunities for decentralised energy provision. Whilst in principle the idea of centralised energy provision is helpful, in reality the delivery of it from a private housing development makes it impractical. Particularly, where individual family homes are proposed as opposed to a single multi-apartment block where there might be a case for including it. As such, we do not consider that such schemes are feasible or deliverable and that any provision should be optional based on the developer’s objectives rather than a requirement for all new development.

Object

Representation ID: 1088

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We note the requirement in Part 3 of the policy that major developments creating 10 or more homes must incorporate the generation of energy from renewable or low carbon sources sufficient to offset at least 20% of the estimated residual energy demand of development on completion. It is not clear on what basis the requirement for a 20% energy reduction has been based on and it seems an arbitrary figure without any justification. Whilst Barberry are supportive in principle of new development achieving energy reductions and sustainability we consider that 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.