Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Object

Representation ID: 1155

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RPS objects to the 10,470 total plan requirement figure. Not least because this falls short of the local housing need for 11,169 homes as calculated by the Standard Method (657 dwellings per annum), and the resultant shortfall of 699 homes. The approach by the Council to deviate from the derived SM figure, will not address the chronic need for homes in the Borough and therefore will not deliver one of the strategic objectives of the Plan.
Based on the draft NPPF 2024, there is a requirement for 1,594 dwellings per annum in Dudley. Given the Standard Method is the minimum starting point, RPS would suggest an uplift of 138% against the current planned requirement figure be provided to assist with addressing the future housing need in the Borough.
The draft Plan would result in a shortfall of between 13,228 and 16,628 dwellings across the new Plan-period, which is a significant shortfall based on the Government’s new standard method.

Support

Representation ID: 1159

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

This policy is supported, however in light of the housing shortfall identified in respect of Policy DLP2, it is considered that the Council should be seeking to increase the amount of housing to be delivered in both the Core Regeneration Corridors and Areas. This in particular should include identifying all opportunities for residential development on the edge of the the urban area, recognising that such locations are typically the most sustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 1161

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Quantum and Distribution of Unmet Housing Need in Dudley over the emerging Local Plan period
Plan does not meet minimum LHN - no evidence / justification that shortfall will be met through DtC.

Reliance on brownfield sites which can be challenging to deliver.

Shortfalls within wider HMA and FEMA.

Ultimately, the draft DLP fails to address in any tangible way how the minimum number of homes needed in Dudley over the DLP period can ever be delivered. As a result, it fails to meet any of the tests of soundness set out at Paragraph 35 of the Framework. Unless remedied the emerging Plan risks being found unsound and failing to be adopted.

Greenbelt release is necessary.

Moreover, the draft DLP includes a 15% discount of housing supply from allocated sites on occupied employment land in recognition of the ‘multiple delivery constraints’ typically affecting such sites – raising questions as to whether these sites in the anticipated housing supply are truly viable, suitable or developable for residential use.

BCCS placed great emphasis on brownfield land and failed to deliver.

Heavy reliance on windfall sites.

Object

Representation ID: 1170

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

St Modwen Homes wishes to reiterate its previous response to Policy DLP32. Whilst it is helpful that Policy DLP32 acknowledges (part 1a) that development is permissible in the Local Nature Recovery Network (LNRN) including in circumstances where it will deliver benefits appropriate to that relevant zone in which the development is located.
However, the phrasing of the draft policy is somewhat confusing in circumstance where part 1 refers to "all development", and part 1a refers to the "locations within the LNRN", but not "all development" will fall within the LNRN. The Council have failed to remedy this policy by adding the words, "if located within the Local Nature Recovery Network" to the beginning of part 1a of the Policy.
St Modwen Homes is engaged with the West Midlands Combined Authority ('WMCA') in their preparation of a draft Local Nature Recovery Strategy ('LNRS') in early 2025. The WMCA are preparing a plan to understand how and where it prioritises nature projects across the region. St Modwen Homes are engaged on the short listing process of priorities and measures identifying potential opportunities in respect of Coombswood and the potential nature-based solutions in order to demonstrate a strategic area for Biodiversity Net Gain compensation and habitat banks.
Part 5a and 8 of the Policy should allow for BNG to be delivered through measures outside Dudley where this is most appropriate and locally relevant. This might include, for example, schemes at or close to the edge of the Borough boundary where more important gains can be made through interventions with and within the neighbouring authority areas.
Draft Policy DLP32 is unsound because in fails the four tests of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35 as it it not positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1171

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Draft Policy DLP49 is unsound as it does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing.
As set out in previous responses to the Regulation 18 Plan, RPS on behalf of St Modwen Homes objects to the DLP on the basis that it seeks to provide only 10,470 in the plan period, leaving a shortfall of 899 dwellings, but also a potential shortfall of c.13,000-20,000 under the draft NPPF. The DLP therefore fails to provide sufficient land to meet the minimum housing needs, as per NPPF paragraph 11(b), and will need to ensure that additional housing land is provided through further Green Belt release.
The present version of the DLP Regulation 19 local plan is unsound because:
1. It makes no attempt to provide for sufficient housing (paragraph 1) or meet its housing needs (paragraph 15), contrary to the NPPF;
2. It makes no attempt to meet as much of its housing needs as possible (paragraph 60);
3. The Council has been unable to offload any of its unmet need to its neighbours;
4. The plan is therefore contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 35(d));
5. Self evidently it is not an effective strategy (paragraph 35(c));
6. The strategy is no justified (paragraph 35(b));
7. The District very plainly can physically meet all its needs and leave nearly all of the Green Belt untouched, meaning it has not taken account of or to reasonable alternatives;
8. One key alternative is a version of the Plan which looks to meet its housing needs as set out under the transitional arrangements of the draft NPPF 2024.

Object

Representation ID: 1172

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

DUDLEY LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 22 PROCEDURE

St Modwen Homes notes page 3 of the Part One Local Plan document sets out next steps for the draft Local Plan. RPS question the Council's ability to consider the representations received on the final draft Plan. The consultation of the Publication Plan (Regulation 19) is ongoing until the 29th November 2024. Despite this, a Full Council meeting (2nd December 2024) is seeking Member approval to submit the Regulation 19 Plan and its supporting documentation to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public. On the assumption this is approved, this allows the Council and Officers 1 working day to reflect on and have regard to all of the consultation responses submitted. No matter how fast the Council wish to press ahead with Submission of the Plan, the revised NPPF and the transitional arrangements within are clear and cannot be avoided.

Object

Representation ID: 1173

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

Housing spatial growth options
As stated in the response from to DLP1, St Modwen Homes objects to the development strategy on the basis that it fails to seek to provide a sufficient quantum of housing in the plan period, especially in the context of the draft NPPF 2024 which sets out a clear signal of intent for Local Plans already at Regulation 19 stage. The approach by the Council will leave a significant shortfall of between c.13,000 to c.20,000 dwellings.

The DLP approach through DLP1 is flawed. The Sustainability Appraisal fails to take into account the reasonable alternatives for housing growth and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).

There is seemingly no rationale for the three housing options appraised, other than that they “have been identified through consultation and close working with stakeholders, considering the most recent stakeholder comments received in response to the Regulation 18 DLP consultation and the use of the Council’s supporting evidence base document ‘Options to the Preferred Strategy’.” (para 5.2.2) Notwithstanding this, the DLP’s approach is flawed.

Firstly, the preferred option, option 3, is effectively a duplication of Option 2, especially if the potential (and unconfirmed) contributions to Dudley (table 4.2 of the Duty to Co-operate Statement, October 2024) do not ultimately get agreed or confirmed. The result would be greater shortfall in housing supply. Option 3 is somewhat disingenuous as it refers to meeting its housing requirement whilst proposing a element to be exported out of the Borough. Also in this respect, the PPG1 confirms that the reasonable alternatives are to be identified “taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme”. Consequently, it is not within the remit or scope of the SA to appraise the sustainability credentials of exporting housing growth outside of the administrative area of the Dudley Borough. Indeed the SA confirms: “The high- level assessment of housing growth is limited, as the options relate to broad distribution of housing within the borough and a proportion to be exported through DtC, resulting in uncertain impacts being identified for some SA Objectives”. Which the Council are obviously used to given the previous working together of the Black Country Authorities under the preparation of the Black Country Plan.
This option should therefore be removed, and the SA be amended to clarity that the growth options presented by the Council are therefore Option(s) one or two.

By omitting a growth option that aligns more closely with the likely growth required under the draft NPPF 2024, for example an option with a range of between 23,698 (1,394 dwellings per annum x 17 years) and 27,098 (1,594 dwellings per annum x 17 years). The DLP has artificially omitted a reasonable and realistic alternative which is highly likely to become the position required to be undertaken once confirmed in the next couple of months. This approach would be more positive and less negative in sustainability impacts, whilst still meeting the objectives of the DLP.

Consequently, the SA as currently prepared is unsound as the DLP has failed to identify and test the sustainability implications of a growth option within a range of between 11,169 and 27,098 dwellings as a reasonable alternative.

DUTY TO COOPERATE
In the absence of any signed statements of common ground, RPS disagrees that the DLP is fulfilling the Duty requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 1174

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

GREEN BELT STUDY


Whilst the Stage 2 Harm Assessment has considered the sub-parcel at a smaller scale, which is more broadly
aligned to the promoted site ID 379, the assessment of harm of ‘Very High’ has effectively been derived from
an average of the scorings identified at Stage 1, therefore ultimately being skewed by the Stage 1 findings.

This is a fundamental flaw in the methodology of the Green Belt Study which results in a failure to account for
a more localised assessment of how sub-parcels and promoted sites perform against the Green Belt purposes.
As a result of this shortcoming, the land of Uffmoor which abuts a clear edge of woodland forming a strong
defensible boundary, would have otherwise been selected for Green Belt removal, has artificially been omitted.
Further issue is held with the lack of an update to the Green Belt Study as a whole. Indeed, due to Green Belt
study being out of date it fails to reflect upon newly consented development within the Green Belt south of
Manor Way. Two applications to note particularly include two battery energy storage system developments
(Ref. P23/0940 and 3341383), which fundamentally change the characteristics of the Green Belt in these
locations and the surrounding area. Furthermore it was found that very special circumstances exist which
justify development in the Green Belt. In the appeal case, the Inspector assessed the site’s contribution to
checking urban sprawl. Repeating the same exercise for Uffmoor, it is clear that the effect is also limited, as
the conurbation of Birmingham on the east of the M5 is not immediately apparent from the site, or indeed from
other viewpoints to Halesowen given the trees along Manor Way. Similarly due to its distance from Halesowen
and lack of adjacency to Birmingham, Uffmoor makes little contribution to preventing the merging of that town
with any other town.
The Green Belt Study methodology should be reviewed and amended to address these issues, and the land
at Uffmoor should be proposed for removal from the Green Belt and allocated for housing accordingly.

see attachement for full assessment