Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Comment

Representation ID: 1136

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

For Dudley, proposed NPPFs will mean a significant increase in the calculation of local housing need (LHN) where under the current standard method (described as not fit for purpose), local housing need amounts to 657 dwelling per annum and the new local housing need calculation would see a 143% increase to 1594 dwellings per annum. The introduction of the new standard method is undoubtedly a clear intention of the WMS.

Whilst transitional arrangements apply to Plans which have reached Regulation 19 stage which mean for Dudley (where its requirement is over 200 dpa below the new LHN), they can proceed to Examination within 18 months but need to address the shortfall in provision to the LHN at the earliest opportunity (para 227). Where the shortfall to the new LHN in Dudley is 937 dwellings more than the current LHN or some 143% greater, the increase is so significant as it is a complete waste of resource and efforts to progress a plan in these circumstances. Addressing the shortfall to the new LHN (937 dpa) amounts to an annual requirement more than the current housing requirement itself (657 dpa) and will mean housing needs and the economic benefits of the full housing need will be significantly delayed. The implications here go cross boundary where Dudley is part of a wider housing market area and a number of those plans will be progressing under the new calculation of LHN and wider unmet needs are fully expected to be a factor in accommodating growth.

The Regulation 19 plan makes no mention of this, although the HMA clearly does and recognises the significant implications of the change to the calculation of LHN. Progressing the Local Plan in the current circumstances is not appropriate.

Time and resource would be better spent in pursuing a new Local Plan in line with the new calculation of LHN in order to avoid the need for an immediate review of the plan to address a significant shortfall in need, and to deliver on housing needs and economic growth sooner. The draft Plan should be reviewed again, with a further Regulation 19 stage consultation to address the expected imminent increase in LHN for the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 1137

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

At this stage no Statements of Common Ground have been agreed notwithstanding that discussions have been ongoing for some considerable period of time with neighbouring authorities. Whilst some potential contributions to the Black Country and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBC HMA) have been offered through some Local Plans, even the plan acknowledges that these are still to be adopted and the offers may change. Moreover, these contributions made to the Black Country Authorities, Greater Birmingham/Black Country HMA or Black Country FEMA still need to be apportioned to each authority and may not be attributable to Dudley. In the case of one of the largest contributions from Shropshire Council, the Inspectors for that Examination have already highlighted that the Plan is likely to be found unsound and other contributions are subject to each local authority testing this through their local plan review and/or local plan examinations.

The absence of progress on the DtC and a full understanding of wider needs within neighbouring Authorities is unsound. This is particularly important in the context of the development strategy for the Dudley Plan which has not exhausted all opportunities for meeting their own needs, nor understood the opportunities for accommodating needs from elsewhere. It should not be for Dudley to export its unmet needs or expect other authorities to review their Green Belt boundaries when they have not explored all their opportunities to accommodate full needs including themselves reviewing opportunities within the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 1138

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The fundamental purposes of a strategic policy of this nature is to ensure that development needs, for housing and other activities, are fully and properly identified and then met. Policy DLP1 does not do this. Our representations elsewhere (principally in relation to Policy DLP10 but also in respect of the emerging new NPPF and the mandating of a new Standard Method for calculating Local Housing Need as well as failings in the Duty to Co-operate) sets out clearly why the number of houses being planned for (10,470) will be insufficient, by some margin, to meet local needs and even then, the approach set out within the plan to meet this inadequate housing requirement, will fail to even deliver this amount of housing. The level of employment land proposed is also woefully short of need.

Policy DLP1 – and the wider provisions of the emerging DLP – are inconsistent with delivering this Vision, Objectives and Strategic Priorities.

Failing to set out a sound development strategy is a fundamental flaw of this plan. This is a straightforward simple failing of this plan. It sets the context for the case made throughout these representations that Dudley should plan to meet its housing need (and more to allow some flexibility to support delivery and choice of housing). It should plan for a strategy which has evidence that it is likely to succeed, and that part of that approach needs to involve more deliverable allocations, including by necessity greenfield and Green Belt sites. The draft DLP fails, emphatically, to do this.

Environmental considerations are part of the overall planning balancing exercise and can sometimes compete with delivering growth however as drafted, the DLP gets this balance totally wrong. The plan states that to accommodate future growth, locations that are both sustainable and deliverable have been identified for development, at levels and in locations that do not breach the environmental capacity of the area. The plan has not however demonstrated the environmental capacity, nor has it identified the deliverability.

A strategy ‘Growth Option’ which is described as maximising growth in the urban area and making use of brownfield sites where available and most importantly deliverable can be appropriate, but the extent to which this is relied upon in the draft DLP is fanciful, learns no lessons from plans of the past, fails to fully acknowledge the challenges to delivery in such a way and will miss the delivery of much needed housing again for another generation. A much more deliverable, balanced identification of site and development options which promote delivery is required if development needs are to be met.

Overreliance on brownfield land was fully acknowledged in the Regulation 18 consultation draft of the BCCS Review in 2021, when the Black Country Authorities were working collaboratively on a Review of the well acknowledged failed BCCS.

To meet development needs there is a requirement for a more balanced strategy and one which also includes for more deliverable and needed greenfield sites and assesses and reviews the Green Belt to help identify potential areas of growth in the real context of a significant deficit in the supply of brownfield land within the urban area. The position whereby no Green Belt release is proposed has been arrived at for political rather than planning reasons. There is scant evidence that proper consideration has been given or judgement exercised from a planning perspective as to whether there might be opportunities within the Green Belt better to meet the Borough’s needs. Evidence as to why the full need cannot be met is lacking. This shortcoming is amplified by a lack of any clear evidence at this stage as to the extent to which the Council have, or are likely to, engage with neighbours under the Duty to Cooperate, or how fruitful any such engagement might be.

Greenfield and Green Belt sites should be allocated to help meet the need and boost deliverability. Policy DLP1 should acknowledge and accommodate this, and consequential changes should be made throughout the DLP (e.g., to Table 5.1, Policy DLP2, Policy DLP10, and elsewhere) to reflect it and allow for a contribution to be made by such sites, rather than excluding them entirely.

This is a deep concern and point of objection to the Plan which was also raised at the Regulation 18 consultation stage where the plan similarly identified an exclusively brownfield urban supply even further short of need. Rather than redressing the issue by identifying a greater supply of more deliverable, balanced range of sites, the Council have merely doubled down on this strategy, placing an even greater reliance on the urban area, identifying what can only be described as a theoretical urban capacity. In the absence of evidence on deliverability, including market and technical deliverability, the plan strategy is mere folly.

Object

Representation ID: 1139

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The approach taken to and reliance on the scale of housing proposed within these described Growth Network is objected to. Whilst these locations could still accommodate some development, it must be part of a more balanced portfolio of deliverable sites. The expected delivery of 2,730 dwellings within the Strategic Centres is not deliverable over the plan period, places too greater emphasis on these locations without clear evidence on deliverability, market evidence on demand or housebuilder interest and clear transparent trajectory on delivery (this noting the appended Trajectory which is absent of any detailed explanation or detailed list of supply sites which contributes to the annual expected delivery).

The same objection is put to the expected delivery of some 2,322 new homes within regeneration corridors. These objections are in the context of the overall concerns about the undue and unrealistic expectations for delivery within the urban area, repeating past failures for delivery in these locations.

Key challenges associated with these sources of supply are numerous, are not resolved within the plan to demonstrate deliverability and include (but are not limited to);
- Multiple land ownerships constraining delivery
- Timeframes, costs and issues associated with land acquisition
- Relocation of existing businesses and uses on site, including business viability to move and the availability of alternative suitable premises
- Land contamination
- Land stability and former historic uses
- Unsuitability of service and key development infrastructure
- Accommodating policy requirements for sustainable drainage and BNG
- Viability generally
- Ability to accommodate other general sustainable building policy requirements viably.

Support

Representation ID: 1140

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

The plan however fully acknowledges that financial viability has always impacted on the extent of planning obligations that can be secured in Dudley particularly in areas suffering from poor ground conditions. The viability of development going forward is likely to be more challenging within this new local plan as it will be introducing requirements for sustainable design and stringent requirements to adapt to and mitigate against climate change. Whilst the plan is suggested to be informed by a Viability and Delivery Study, it is clearly the fact that viability impacts will vary significantly between sites and their location – infrastructure requirements normally required to allow development to proceed are unlikely to be viable in many locations.
It is not evident from the plan or the evidence base that a full understanding of the viability implications of the development strategy for the plan has been fully considered.
Major reliance is placed upon significant development in a number of focused locations and no detailed viability appraisals have been undertaken of such developments. As the plan is so heavily reliant upon such sites it is essential that viability appraisals accompany such proposals at this Plan making stage.
Moreover, the Plan should fully understand the implications which may arise from the inability of such sites to meet the full infrastructure requirements as set out in this policy. Development which does not deliver the required infrastructure to support it (even due to viability reasons), should not be considered to be sustainable.
The viability evidence supporting the Plan is not sound. The plan viability methodology uses typologies, meaning a number of individual sites may not viable because their site specific issues are outside the parameters used of a typology that was tested. Typologies are not an effective mechanism to understand the complex viability of urban area sites within Dudley which are variable and challenging to deliver.

Object

Representation ID: 1141

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We have fundamental concerns regarding the quantum of need identified, its distribution, and how it will be met. These concerns are set out here principally in relation to the housing requirement, but should be understood in the context of the strategic points made separately.

The concerns raised here in reference to Policy DLP10 are far reaching and point to a fundamental failing of the draft DLP to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework. They consider both the quantum and distribution of housing proposed in the draft DLP in principle and then the proposed components of the draft DLP’s anticipated supply in more detail.

Quantum and Distribution of Unmet Housing Need in Dudley over the emerging Local Plan period
Draft DLP sets out that this will accommodate only 94% of current Local Housing Need up to 2041. In other words, the draft DLP acknowledges, at the outset, that it will fail to deliver almost the minimum number of homes needed in Dudley over the Plan period. This is even acknowledging that LHN is a starting point minimum need, with it also important to understand how increases to this need may, for example, bolster affordable housing provision to better fully meet need, or support overall delivery or contribute to other economic objectives of the plan. We would fully expect the Local Plan to identify well in excess of the minimum need in order to allow for a choice in range and type of sites and allow for potential under delivery. Most Local Plans include a buffer provision of at least 10% provision. Not only is this plan not providing a buffer, but it is not even meeting the minimum need. A buffer of at least 10% would be the minimum additional buffer needed in Dudley given the significant concerns in respect of allocation deliverability set out elsewhere in these representations. DLP10 should in this context plan for additional allocations to meet the minimum need.

These levels of affordable housing will not be met given challenges to viable delivery of housing, such that a greater number and range of sites well above LHN is needed in order to address affordable housing needs. Further, this fails to grapple with un-met need from neighbouring Authorities which is known and where Dudley may well offer opportunities to actually accommodate a greater level of growth, assisting in meeting the needs of neighbours rather than seeking to export its own needs elsewhere. This is set out elsewhere in our representations but questions the housing requirement of the plan where there is no evidence of any certainty on wider unmet needs. 97% brownfield is not a balanced approach.

Dudley is asking its neighbouring authorities to deliver most of its employment land requirement. How does Dudley plan to deliver its acknowledged unmet housing need (700 homes) over the draft DLP period, if it cannot demonstrate its neighbouring authorities will assist through DTC; and the second is that the draft DLP relies very heavily on brownfield sites, including currently occupied employment sites and sites previously used for employment purposes, to deliver its deficient housing requirement, which flies in the face of its identified (very) significant shortfall of employment land, which Dudley is looking at its neighbours to help deliver.

As such, many of Dudley’s neighbouring authorities which it might need to rely on to deliver its acknowledged shortfall of housing say they are also unable to deliver their own requirement.

Distribution of the draft DLP’s Anticipated Housing Supply
Delving deeper into the draft DLP’s key component sources of housing land supply, the very serious concerns raised above from the headline unmet need figure are exacerbated. In addition to the above, the components of housing land supply within Policy DLP10 are not sound and similar to Table 5.1 need to be fundamentally revisited. The sources of supply need to be critically reviewed. There is significant potential for the sites not to deliver the scale of housing anticipated within the timeframes required. Many are subject to significant constraints.

Table 8.1 sets out an indicative phasing for which there is no justification. The requirement should not be phased in a national housing crisis and there is no evidence to explain why a phasing of delivery would be appropriate or acceptable. In any event, the phasing should be replaced by a trajectory, for which objections have been raised elsewhere about the limited value of that provided in Appendix 4.


Detailed concerns highlighting shortcomings in the components of the draft DLP’s anticipated supply as offered by DLP10 are set out as follows (numbered i – iv): [see full rep for detail]
i. Deliverability of Longstanding Brownfield Sites - historic underdelivery
ii. Windfall - overreliance
iii. Demolitions in Dudley Borough - Dudley’s 10 year housing asset management strategy (2019) identified around 2,500 homes (some 12% of the Council’s stock) that are considered not viable and are red-flagged for review for strategic investment, de-investment or demolition. In doing so it acknowledges that this may result in an overall loss in housing capacity but is subject to detailed consultation.

Support

Representation ID: 1142

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

The Policy is prescriptive in that the density and type of housing to be provided should reflect local needs and the accessibility of the site. Great emphasis is placed upon high density 100 dph development in accessible locations, with other standards seeking to push development densities to high levels.
Concerns are set out here about this approach on the basis that firstly the approach doesn’t align with needs set out in the Housing Market Assessment. Within the HMA Update and reflected in Table 8.3, nearly 50% of needs are for properties with 3 or 4 bedrooms, more typical of family housing. The extent to which this can be accommodated at high densities within the urban area is unrealistic, indeed a number of the sites allocated in the Plan would be unrealistic for this major housing need.
Secondly the densities set out in policy have not been market tested. The extent to which they are both realistic to be taken up in the market and in demand has not been set out in the evidence. Whilst such an approach conveniently increased the theoretical urban capacity, there is nothing in evidence to suggest these high density forms of urban living will be realistically deliverable within Dudley, when they are still challenging in many other more buoyant market locations such as Birmingham City Centre for example.

Object

Representation ID: 1143

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Added to the points made in response to DLP11 around the inability of the draft DLP to deliver the homes generally needed in Dudley (as set out in draft Policy DLP10), draft Policy DLP12 highlights Dudley’s worsening housing affordability. It refers to the need for affordable homes in Dudley, as identified in the HMA which could be as high as nearly 400 dpa if realistic assumptions are made about affordability and proportions of household income to be spent on housing.
Policy DLP12 sets a sliding scale of requiring between 10% and 30% affordable housing from qualifying sites. To meet the need for
Dudley’s worsening affordability, and inability to deliver the affordable homes needed, provides another indicator to justify increasing the draft DLP’s planned housing supply further beyond the level it has identified through Policy DLP10 and above the minimum LHN – in order to deliver the affordable homes that are needed in Dudley over the DLP period.
All allocated sites should be tested to evaluate the likely level of affordable housing deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 1144

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This policy seeks to ensure a sufficient quantum of development opportunities are provided to meet the demand for economic growth and support the diversification of the Dudley economy. It does not do this.
The need for employment land is assessed at 72ha, yet only 22ha of land for employment is identified.
The Plan should make provision for this full need for employment land in Dudley. This is important for sustainable planning and to support economic growth within Dudley. Housing needs must align to the strategy for economic growth and the Plan provides no evidence of this.
There is no justification in the Plan to export 50ha or some 69% of the employment land requirement to other locations out with of the Borough. The Plan should provide for the full employment need. The consideration of employment needs and housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1145

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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.