Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Comment

Representation ID: 1302

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

The council must carefully consider the impact of changes to the NPPF and the standard method on their Local Plan. If the Dudley Local Plan is submitted under current transitional arrangements, the council must assess the implications for their plans and those of neighbouring areas, as part of the Duty to Cooperate.

Key points include:

Para 226(a) of the draft NPPF: Policies apply to local plans unless the plan reaches Regulation 19 stage by a specific deadline and is within 200 dwellings of the new Local Housing Need figure. This does not apply to the Dudley Local Plan, so the council must update their housing need calculations to avoid delays.
Minimum housing need: The Dudley Local Plan must plan for at least 1,394 homes, reflecting the most current data.
Limited weight of proposed NPPF amendments: Although these amendments currently hold limited weight, inspectors are already considering them during Local Plan examinations. The Dudley Local Plan may need an immediate review if submitted before these changes are implemented.

Comment

Representation ID: 1303

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

The proposed changes to national policy by the Government will require the Dudley Local Plan to be modified for an immediate review to account for these changes. If the changes remain as proposed, paragraph 227 of the draft NPPF will need to be considered, which expects local plans with housing requirements significantly below the Local Housing Need figure to start new plan-making promptly to address any shortfall.

The Home Builders Federation (HBF) emphasizes the importance of minimizing unmet housing needs and proactively planning to meet national housing goals. They believe the current Dudley Local Plan is not adequately addressing these objectives and is therefore unsound.

Comment

Representation ID: 1304

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

The Plan is considered unsound because it is not justified, effective, or aligned with national policy. The Home Builders Federation (HBF) notes that the Plan Period only extends to 2041, while the NPPF requires strategic policies to cover at least 15 years from adoption. Given the time required for plan preparation and adoption, HBF suggests extending the plan period by one or two years to meet this requirement. They emphasize that the evidence base should also reflect this extended timeframe to ensure the plan's soundness.

Comment

Representation ID: 1305

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Duty to Cooperate: The Home Builders Federation (HBF) appreciates the Council's efforts to update the Local Plan but is disappointed that it does not adequately plan for Dudley's future growth, including housing and jobs. Key concerns include:

- **Lack of regional cooperation**: The West Midlands has a history of poor strategic planning and unmet housing needs.
- **Under delivery of housing**: There has been a consistent failure to meet housing objectives due to insufficient cooperation.
- **Duty to Cooperate**: The current approach may continue this trend, leaving housing needs unmet. The Council should not plan in isolation but consider the wider West Midlands context.
- **Plan period and housing needs**: The plan period may need extending, and the Council should ensure it meets its own housing needs without relying on neighboring authorities.
- **Proactive planning**: The Council must demonstrate ongoing cooperation and address potential unmet needs to meet national housing goals.

HBF suggests a broader, more cooperative approach to planning, including a potential green belt review, to ensure the Local Plan is effective and sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 1306

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

The Home Builders Federation (HBF) raises concerns about the Shropshire Local Plan Examination in Public (EIP), noting that inspectors have questioned its soundness and canceled future hearings. This casts doubt on Dudley's reliance on Shropshire to meet some of its housing needs.

HBF seeks the Council's view on how these developments affect the Duty to Cooperate and suggests updating the Duty to Cooperate statement to reflect the current situation. They emphasize the importance of Dudley meeting its own housing needs, as the current plan indicates significant unmet need.

Comment

Representation ID: 1307

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

The Home Builders Federation (HBF) finds the Vision for Dudley unsound as it lacks justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy. Key points include:

- **Housing Provision**: The Vision should explicitly include the need for market and affordable housing to address the housing crisis and support growth aspirations.
- **Plan Objectives**: Meeting housing needs in full should be a primary objective, potentially requiring a Green Belt review. The objectives should recognize the link between housing and economic growth, emphasizing the importance of providing enough homes to support Dudley and the wider West Midlands region.

Object

Representation ID: 1308

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Summary of Policy DLP1: Development Strategy

The policy is criticized for being unsound, as it lacks justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policies. Key concerns include:

Failure to meet housing and employment needs within Dudley: The policy proposes that Dudley will rely on neighbouring authorities to meet some of its housing and employment needs through the Duty to Cooperate. However, neighbouring areas are also facing unmet needs, which casts doubt on this approach’s feasibility.

Unmet housing and employment needs: In the Regulation 18 consultation, Dudley planned to meet only 90% of its housing and 35% of its employment needs within the borough, exporting the remainder. The revised version of the plan reduced housing targets further, raising concerns about the adequacy of housing provision and employment space.

Lack of evidence and transparency: The plan does not provide clear evidence of how unmet needs will be addressed by neighbouring authorities. The housing target should be higher, and a Green Belt review is suggested to accommodate additional sites within Dudley.

Duty to Cooperate concerns: Relying heavily on neighbouring authorities to meet housing needs is not seen as reasonable. Dudley must do more to meet its own needs, reducing the reliance on external support.

Housing target should be recalculated: The housing requirement must be properly set before considering land supply. The current approach might not sufficiently address the housing crisis, and the council is urged to reassess its housing target and explore all options, including reviewing the Green Belt.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) alignment: Dudley’s housing requirement should start with the standard method based on household growth projections, but it needs further consideration of other factors, such as economic growth, infrastructure investment, and affordability.

Plan period and Green Belt: The plan’s 15-year period may not be long enough to meet housing needs, particularly if Green Belt release is needed. An extension to the plan period and a Green Belt review are suggested.

Recommendations:

Dudley needs to set a higher housing requirement, addressing both unmet housing and employment needs.
Consideration of Green Belt release is necessary to meet these needs.
The plan should be more transparent, with specific sites identified for development, especially to meet the housing and employment needs within Dudley’s boundaries.
More detailed evidence and consultation should be provided before relying on neighbouring areas to meet Dudley’s needs.
In conclusion, the policy needs to be revised to ensure that Dudley can fully meet its housing and employment needs within its own boundaries, with an emphasis on a Green Belt review and stronger planning for future growth.

Object

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy on Growth Network Regeneration Corridors and Centres (DLP2) is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) because it lacks justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy. The HBF emphasizes the need for the Local Plan to provide a broad range of deliverable and developable sites to ensure housing needs are met, offering competition and choice. It advocates for a logical settlement hierarchy that addresses all housing market areas, including both strategic and non-strategic site allocations, whether brownfield or greenfield. The HBF suggests that additional housing allocations, including potential Green Belt sites, may be needed and that the locational strategy should be reviewed as part of a Green Belt review. The soundness of specific site allocations will be evaluated during the Local Plan Examination.

Object

Representation ID: 1317

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP3, which addresses areas outside the Growth Network, is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to a lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy. HBF stresses the importance of providing a wide range of deliverable sites to meet housing needs.

The policy's statement that Dudley’s Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development is challenged by HBF, which argues that the current housing crisis and Dudley’s inability to meet its housing needs justify a Green Belt review. This review should consider both employment and housing sites. HBF also references national policy (NPPF para 11 and para 60), emphasizing the need for sustainable development that meets housing requirements and boosts housing supply to avoid delays.

HBF supports ambitious growth in Dudley and highlights the link between employment growth and housing demand. They argue that failing to provide enough housing will negatively impact economic and social well-being. Given Dudley’s inability to meet its housing needs, HBF believes Green Belt release is necessary to ensure a sufficient Housing Land Supply (HLS) and meet housing delivery targets, including the 5-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) and Housing Delivery Test (HDT).

Additionally, HBF suggests that the Council should consider whether biodiversity net gain (BNG) development could be acceptable within the Green Belt and whether Green Belt boundaries should be revised to accommodate such developments.

Object

Representation ID: 1318

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP6 on Infrastructure Provision is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

SPD Concerns: HBF objects to criteria three, which attempts to give Local Plan policy status to Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) that have not yet been written. This is seen as inappropriate and contrary to national guidance, as planning policies should be established through the Local Plan process, with public consultation and independent scrutiny.

Infrastructure Flexibility: HBF notes that criteria four allows flexibility for developments not meeting infrastructure requirements only in exceptional circumstances, but it is unclear how this will affect the Local Plan.

Viability Appraisal Issues: HBF highlights concerns with the viability appraisal for the Dudley Local Plan, which was published in November 2023. Despite providing feedback, the appraisal has not been updated, raising doubts about the robustness of the evidence base and the soundness of policies that depend on it. HBF believes the plan's viability, deliverability, and soundness remain unproven.

Affordable Housing Requirements: HBF points out inconsistencies in the viability report regarding affordable housing targets. The appraisal recommends the same affordable housing targets for both greenfield and brownfield sites, but then provides a justification for maintaining a 10% requirement in lower-value areas, even though earlier analysis suggested viability.

Request for Review: HBF requests a thorough review of the viability appraisal to ensure accuracy and consistency. They also ask that once the appraisal is verified, the fourth criteria of the policy be revisited to reflect the findings. HBF suggests additional flexibility may be needed in the policy, so developers do not need to conduct site-specific viability appraisals when the evidence already shows a policy to be unviable.