Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Comment

Representation ID: 1440

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

**Summary:**

1. **National Planning Policy Context:**
- The Draft Plan comes at a time of significant changes in national planning policy, including reforms introduced by the 2023 Levelling Up and Regeneration Act and proposals from the Labour Government post-2024 General Election. These reforms could impact local housing calculations and require Green Belt reviews if housing or commercial needs aren’t met.
- The proposed changes could increase Dudley's housing need to nearly 1,600 dwellings annually, compared to the current 657. While Dudley may avoid immediate changes due to transitional arrangements, the Draft Plan should acknowledge these future shifts and the challenge they present for local planning.

2. **Timetable for Plan Submission:**
- The draft Plan's timeline for submission in Spring/Summer 2025, examination by mid-2025, and adoption in early 2026 is considered optimistic. Given the average duration of plan examinations (around 1 to 1.5 years), delays are likely. The Plan should account for potential delays to ensure the plan period extends at least 15 years post-adoption, as required by national guidelines.

3. **Regional Planning Policy Context:**
- The Draft Plan does not adequately address planning at the regional level, particularly the Black Country, where there is uncertainty about housing delivery. The Duty to Cooperate Statement indicates limited progress in coordinating with other authorities.
- The Plan also overlooks the needs of lower-quality employment land, which may need to be relocated to accommodate housing. The Council should ensure realistic expectations for employment land availability.
- The Plan fails to meet the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate, which must be addressed before the Plan can be submitted for examination. Effective joint working is essential for the Plan to be considered sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 1441

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

The Draft Plan outlines a vision with seven aspirations for the Borough’s future, which are generally supported. However, balancing all of these aspirations may be difficult, especially when they conflict. For example, achieving both affordable housing and a green network, alongside a high-quality, affordable transport system, will be challenging.

Additionally, the vision should explicitly highlight the need for sufficient new homes to meet local demand, making this a central focus of the emerging Local Plan.

A key concern is the proposed plan period ending in 2041. Given the likelihood of delays during preparation or examination, the Plan might not meet the required 15-year post-adoption period, as outlined by national policy. To address this, the Council should extend the plan period by at least two years to ensure the Plan complies with national guidelines and can be considered sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 1442

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP1 of the emerging DLP establishes that the Council intends to plan for the delivery of at least 10,470 new homes during the plan period to 2041, alongside at least 22.62ha of employment land. The policy goes on to confirm that the full housing and employment land requirements will be met through identified sites, and through reliance on neighbouring and other local authorities. It is considered that the Borough should at least be planning to meet its emerging housing needs in full, and potentially also considering whether a meaningful contribution towards other authorities unmet housing needs could be delivered within the Borough as identified above. This is considered to be necessary in order to ensure that the Local Plan is capable of being found sound at Examination, given that the Duty to Cooperate cannot be retrospectively addressed.
4.2.
The spatial strategy identifies the level of housing expected to be delivered at each of the identified centres, as well as in each of the proposed Regeneration Corridors. This confirms that the majority of the Borough’s housing and employment needs will be delivered within those centres and corridors. Additionally, small and large site windfall allowances are proposed, as well as a windfall allowance from Dudley Council site disposals and an uplift allowance from centres. Together, this confirms how the Council expects to deliver c.10,470 new dwellings (net) and 22.62ha of employment land. This approach is supported in principle, however the Plan should be planning to meet housing needs in full, in order to be consistent with national policy. In particular, where Paragraph 23 of the Framework requires that “strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” In order to satisfy these requirements and be capable of being found sound at examination, the Council should ensure that sufficient sites are allocated to meet the emerging housing needs in full.

Support

Representation ID: 1443

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

The draft Policy outlines a Growth Network for the Borough, focusing on new development, regeneration, and infrastructure investment to support growth and benefit local communities. Section 3 highlights that Regeneration Corridors will deliver at least 2,322 new homes and 22.6 hectares of employment land in sustainable locations.

The proposed Growth Network approach is supported, as it directs development to the most sustainable areas, aligning with the Black Country Core Strategy and the Dudley Borough Development Plan. The vision for Regeneration Corridor 3 (Stourbridge to Lye), promoting high-quality residential communities with parks, employment, and transport links, is particularly endorsed.

The allocation of land off Thorns Road (DLP H017) for residential development is strongly supported, given its sustainable location. This site is close to public open spaces, employment areas, and local services, all easily accessible by sustainable transport, contributing positively to the vision for Regeneration Corridor 3.

Comment

Representation ID: 1444

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Policy DLP10 of the draft Plan aims to provide sufficient land for at least 10,470 new homes by 2041 to address the housing figures set out in Table 5.1 and Policy DLP1. However, concerns are raised that this target does not fully meet the Borough’s housing needs for the plan period, and the plan period itself may be insufficient.

Despite these concerns, the allocation of land at Thorns Road (DLP H017) for residential development is strongly supported. This site was previously allocated under the adopted Development Plan (H13.17) and is already partly being developed through a planning application (P22/1363), with delivery expected soon. The remaining part of the site, currently used for employment, will be phased for residential development in the medium to long term.

Object

Representation ID: 1446

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

**Summary:**

The draft policy on affordable and accessible housing is considered contradictory and ambiguous. Specifically, the policy inconsistently addresses the tenure and type of affordable housing. While criteria 4 suggests a flexible, site-by-site approach to determining affordable housing, criteria 5 proposes a fixed tenure split, which could limit the policy’s responsiveness to changing needs. It is recommended that the policy be modified to ensure clarity and flexibility, as required by national guidelines.

The policy also introduces a requirement for a certain proportion of M4(2) and M4(3) compliant housing, aimed at improving accessibility. However, this requirement has not been sufficiently justified. According to Planning Practice Guidance, such policies should be evidence-based, considering factors like site-specific challenges and the actual need for these standards. The policy’s current provisions may impose unnecessary burdens on the deliverability and viability of housing, especially with the significant proportion of M4(3) dwellings, which may not be justified.

The policy fails to acknowledge that other housing types, such as specialist housing for older people, may be more suitable for addressing accessibility needs. It is recommended that the Council reconsider the requirements of Policy DLP12, ensuring they are justified, reasonable, and align with the principles of sound planning.

Support

Representation ID: 1447

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

**Summary:**

Draft Policy DLP21 outlines the Council’s approach to employment areas not designated as Strategic or Local Employment Areas but still comprising existing employment land. The previous Regulation 18 draft did not distinguish between sites in current employment use proposed for housing, such as the DLP H017 site, but this has now been addressed in the Publication Draft, which is supported. The Council has already assessed and deemed the loss of employment uses on such sites, including DLP H017, as acceptable through the site allocation process and previous adopted policies. Therefore, the policy's recognition of this principle is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 1448

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

**Summary:**

The proposed policy duplicates existing national policy and legislative requirements, making it unnecessary. According to Paragraph 16 of the Framework, policies should serve a clear purpose and avoid duplication. Given that the requirements are already covered by national legislation, it is recommended that the Council delete this proposed policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 1449

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

**Summary:**

The proposed policy requires major developments to provide at least 20% canopy tree cover across the site. While the principle of planting new trees is supported, the policy does not consider the impact this requirement could have on the capacity and viability of development sites, especially on brownfield sites within urban areas, like DLP H017, where achieving such a high level of tree planting may be challenging. Other factors, such as mandatory biodiversity net gain, could further limit development potential.

It is suggested that the tree planting requirement be made aspirational, to be delivered where feasible. The Council should ensure that development is not unduly constrained by policy requirements, especially given the challenges in housing delivery in Dudley. Additionally, the policy should be streamlined by removing elements already covered by national policy, such as those related to ancient woodland or veteran trees, and some requirements should be moved to supporting text or supplementary guidance. This would make the policy clearer and more aligned with the principles of effective planning as outlined in Paragraph 16 of the Framework.

Comment

Representation ID: 1450

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

**Summary:**

National policy emphasizes the importance of good design for sustainable development. While the Council’s proposed design policy aligns with national policy, it is overly lengthy and covers a broad range of topics, making it more complicated than necessary. The policy could be more effective if it focused on the key local design expectations, with supporting text referencing relevant supplementary guidance.

Specifically, the requirement for proposals to comply with national space standards needs further justification. According to Footnote 52 of the Framework, such policies can be used if justified by evidence, but the Council has not provided sufficient justification for this requirement in the draft Plan. Although the supporting text suggests the policy would not impact development viability, this does not provide adequate rationale for making it a policy requirement.