Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Object

Representation ID: 1319

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP9 on Healthcare Infrastructure is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Concerns with Criteria Three: HBF highlights a legal issue related to criteria three, referencing the High Court case R (University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust) vs. Harborough District Council. The case questions the legitimacy of requiring development contributions for acute healthcare services that are funded through general taxation, suggesting the policy may be legally problematic.

Viability Issues: While HBF does not repeat its detailed concerns about viability, they note that the viability issues could affect the wording of criteria eight, indicating that amendments may be needed in response.

Object

Representation ID: 1320

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP10 on Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Housing Requirement: HBF advocates that the housing requirement for Dudley should start with the Standard Method for Local Housing Need (LHN) as a minimum, and then consider factors like site variety, flexibility, and viability to potentially increase the requirement. They argue that insufficient sites are allocated, and further allocations, including greenfield and Green Belt sites, are necessary.

Housing Number and Phasing: HBF requests a clear explanation of how the housing requirement number is determined and that the policy should include an annual housing target for effective monitoring. They also believe the housing requirement should be higher, with higher numbers allocated in each phase of the plan.

Viability and Flexibility: HBF supports including discounts for non-implementation rates but argues that the current approach lacks flexibility and doesn't offer enough choice. They stress that flexibility should come from additional allocations (including windfalls) rather than relying on discounted sites that are unlikely to be delivered.

Brownfield vs. Greenfield Land: HBF is concerned about the unrealistic reliance on brownfield land for 97% of new housing. While supporting a "brownfield first" approach, they emphasize that greenfield sites are crucial to meeting the housing crisis, offering a range of sites for different types, tenures, and needs. This may include Green Belt land if necessary.

Small and Medium Developers: HBF calls for more small sites (less than 1 hectare) to be allocated to support small and medium-sized (SME) housebuilders, who have historically contributed a significant portion of housing supply. They suggest that a higher percentage of small sites should be allocated to encourage SME growth and faster build-out rates.

Windfall Sites: HBF expresses concern about the over-reliance on windfall sites for housing supply, arguing that they should only be counted from the fourth year of the housing trajectory. They also believe windfall sites should not replace allocated sites, as they do not offer the same flexibility or choice.

Monitoring and Housing Trajectory: HBF stresses the need for a detailed, site-by-site housing trajectory within the Local Plan for effective monitoring. The trajectory should include clear projections, break down housing sources, and address regeneration plans.

Greenfield Development: HBF reiterates the need for greenfield allocations, including potentially Green Belt land, to meet Dudley’s housing requirement. They suggest that if housing delivery underperforms, additional greenfield sites may need to be brought forward.

Object

Representation ID: 1321

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP11 on Housing Density, Type, and Accessibility is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to a lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Density Standards: HBF questions the proposed residential densities in criteria three, suggesting that density should be considered on a site-by-site basis to ensure schemes are viable and deliverable. They call for flexibility in the policy to account for site-specific circumstances.

Viability and Deliverability: HBF raises concerns about the realism and deliverability of high-density developments in Dudley, particularly regarding brownfield sites and the demand for high-density city-center living post-COVID-19. They warn against relying too heavily on overly ambitious intensification of dwellings, stressing that the policy must allow for a variety of housing types and tenures to meet diverse housing needs in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 1322

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP12: Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible, and Self/Custom Build Housing is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Affordable Housing:
HBF welcomes the recognition of potential viability issues in delivering affordable housing but stresses that viability must be integral to the plan-making process.
Concerns are raised about the Viability Assessment, which does not account for key costs, such as compliance with new Part L regulations (adding £3,500–7,500 per plot), Building Safety Levy, and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).
The plan should incorporate more flexibility in the type and percentage of affordable housing to improve site viability, allowing adjustments based on location-specific needs.
There are concerns about the geographical distribution of affordable housing, suggesting more flexibility and the inclusion of greenfield allocations to support the delivery of family housing and higher percentages of affordable housing.
National Wheelchair Accessibility Standards:
HBF questions the necessity of planning policies on wheelchair accessibility (M4(2) and M4(3)), arguing that this should be addressed through Building Regulations rather than local policy.
If the policy is retained, it needs to differentiate between M4(3) wheelchair adaptable and accessible housing and consider viability concerns. The plan should allow for site-specific flexibility based on factors such as topography and flooding.
Self/Custom Build Housing:
HBF opposes the policy requiring 5% self-build plots in developments of 100+ homes, suggesting a more supportive approach by allocating land for self-build projects through negotiations with landowners or using Council-owned land.
There are practical and logistical concerns about integrating self-build plots with the wider site development, especially concerning construction coordination and health and safety. HBF recommends reducing the marketing period from 12 to 6 months before unsold plots revert to the original developer.
Financial Viability Assessments:
HBF highlights that the typology-based viability methodology used in the plan may not accurately reflect the viability of individual sites, and supports the need for flexibility in addressing site-specific viability issues without relying on overage clauses.

Object

Representation ID: 1323

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP31: Nature Conservation is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to a lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

LNRS Preparation: HBF notes that Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) have not yet been prepared and that the plan should reflect the current status of LNRS preparation as the planning process progresses.

SPDs and National Guidance: The policy seems to give Local Plan status to Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) that have yet to be written, which is inappropriate and contrary to national planning guidance. Planning policies should be formed through the Local Plan process, with proper public consultation and independent scrutiny.

Clarity and Effectiveness: The use of notations in the policy is seen as confusing, and the layout of the policy should be revised for clarity and effectiveness.

Object

Representation ID: 1324

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP32: Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to a lack of alignment with national policy, insufficient justification, and ineffective implementation.

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Implementation: The Environment Act 2021 mandates BNG, which applies to large sites from February 2024 and small sites from April 2024. HBF stresses that the policy must fully reflect this legislation, national policy, and DEFRA guidance. The local plan should avoid repeating BNG guidance and should align with national standards.

10% BNG Requirement: HBF supports the Government's mandatory 10% BNG and advocates for clarity in the policy, suggesting it should explicitly state "10%" rather than "at least 10%" to provide certainty for developers. Any higher BNG requirements should be evidenced and assessed for viability.

Viability Considerations: The costs of BNG must be clearly included in the whole plan viability assessment, and HBF warns that costs related to BNG, both financial and land-related, should not hinder housing delivery. They highlight uncertainties around off-site credits and the need to monitor emerging costs.

Phased Development: For large, phased sites, BNG must be delivered at the end of the project, which may affect individual phases' BNG performance. HBF suggests clearer guidance on how BNG should be handled for phased developments.

BNG and Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS): The plan should be adaptable to future LNRS developments. HBF recommends that the plan be regularly reviewed as the LNRS progresses to ensure alignment with both documents.

Environmental Hierarchies: HBF calls for clearer differentiation between the mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, mitigation, compensation for harm to habitats) and the BNG hierarchy (on-site, off-site, and statutory credits), to avoid confusion in the policy's implementation.

Impact on Housing Density: BNG requirements will reduce available land for housing, potentially affecting housing densities. HBF suggests that larger or additional sites may be required to accommodate both housing and BNG needs.

Overall, HBF stresses that the policy needs to better reflect national legislation and guidance, ensure adequate flexibility, and carefully consider the financial and logistical impacts of BNG on development.

Comment

Representation ID: 1325

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Policy DLP33: Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands,
Ancient Woodland, and Veteran trees
The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in
line with national policy.
140. HBF are keen to understand how this policy interacts with other policies
on BNG and nature conservation, and viability. HBF suggests that the Council
needs to fully consider if and how the tree policy could impact on the land uptake for any development and the implications this may have for the density of developments, which in turn has the potential to have an impact on the viability. As currently written the Plan is not clear, as is therefore ineffective.

Comment

Representation ID: 1327

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Policy DLP34: Provision, Retention, and Protection of Hedgerows is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to a lack of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Redundancy of Criteria: HBF questions the need for criteria one in the policy, as it appears to repeat existing national legislation and protection for hedgerows. This redundancy makes the policy less necessary at the local level.

Interaction with Other Policies: HBF expresses concerns about how this policy interacts with other policies, particularly Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and nature conservation. For example, if hedgerow removal is needed to access a site, it may conflict with BNG policies that require a 10% net gain from the pre-development baseline. Any loss of hedgerows would need to be compensated under BNG, and HBF suggests this relationship needs clearer clarification.

Need for Flexibility: HBF advocates for more flexibility in the policy. They argue that certain situations, such as site access, may require hedgerow removal, and this should be accounted for in a way that doesn’t undermine the broader environmental objectives.

Interrelationship Between Policies: HBF calls for the interrelationships between various environmental policies (BNG, nature conservation, and hedgerow protection) to be fully considered and explained. The current wording of the plan is unclear, which could lead to confusion for developers and make it harder to deliver projects effectively.

In summary, HBF believes the policy is unclear and ineffective in its current form and recommends greater clarity on how it interacts with other environmental policies to ensure it doesn't hinder development.

Object

Representation ID: 1328

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP39: Design Quality is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to issues of justification, effectiveness, and alignment with national policy.

Building for a Healthy Life: HBF supports the use of Building for a Healthy Life as best practice but believes it should remain a voluntary guideline rather than a mandatory requirement. They argue it is a toolkit for considering design, not a standard to be enforced.

Borough-Wide Design Code: HBF seeks clarification on whether the Council intends to produce a Borough-Wide Design Code in light of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) revision.

Energy Efficiency Standards: HBF supports national energy efficiency standards (such as the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard 2025) but argues that individual local plans should not set local energy efficiency standards. They caution that local standards would undermine economies of scale and create inconsistencies with national regulations.

Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS): HBF opposes the introduction of optional NDSS through local plans, stating that the Council needs robust, justified evidence to adopt such policies. The NPPF allows the introduction of NDSS only when there is a proven need, and HBF highlights the importance of considering evidence on need, viability, and the impact on affordability. They argue that inflexible policies mandating NDSS may reduce affordability, especially for smaller homes, which are crucial for lower-income households.

Impact on Affordability: HBF emphasizes that imposing NDSS could increase housing costs, potentially reducing affordability for lower-income households. Smaller, well-designed homes below the NDSS can meet housing needs effectively. HBF also highlights a risk that larger homes built to NDSS might not suit customers' needs, potentially leading to overcrowding and lower quality of life.

Transitional Arrangements: If NDSS is included in the policy, HBF recommends transitional arrangements for sites where land deals have already been made, allowing these sites to proceed under existing standards before the NDSS is enforced.

SPDs in Local Plan: HBF notes that the policy's reference to Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) in the Local Plan is inappropriate, as SPDs should only provide supporting guidance, not be a formal part of the policy.

In summary, HBF believes that the policy is not justified and could negatively impact housing affordability and development flexibility. They suggest a more balanced approach that focuses on design quality without mandating the NDSS or local energy standards.

Object

Representation ID: 1329

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy is deemed unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) for being unjustified, ineffective, and not aligned with national policy.

Redundancy: HBF questions the necessity of this policy, suggesting it may duplicate existing policies within the Plan. They are concerned that this redundancy could create confusion.

Ministerial Statement on Energy Efficiency: HBF draws attention to a recent Ministerial Statement which clearly states that the Government does not expect local authorities to set energy efficiency standards beyond current or planned building regulations. The proliferation of local standards adds costs and complexity, undermining economies of scale in building homes. The statement is available here: Ministerial Statement.

Future Homes Standard Consultation: HBF notes that the consultation on the Future Homes Standard was held from December 13, 2023, to March 6, 2024, and encourages the Council to consider its findings. The consultation documents can be found here: Future Homes and Buildings Standards 2023 Consultation.

In summary, HBF argues that the policy is unnecessary, could cause confusion, and is not in line with national expectations regarding energy efficiency standards.