Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Comment

Representation ID: 1509

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

The Feoffees of Old Swinford Hospital (the Foundation) is preparing its response to the Dudley Local Plan (DLP) Regulation 19 consultation, welcoming the opportunity to contribute to the plan's development. The Foundation oversees Old Swinford Hospital, a voluntary aided school in Stourbridge founded in 1667, which is now co-educational.

### The Sites:
The Foundation owns two sites in Stourbridge, both of which it is promoting for development:
1. **Racecourse Lane** (Council ref: DUD2023-048)
2. **Worcester Lane** (Council ref: DUD2023-051)

Both sites were submitted via the March 2023 Call for Sites exercise. The Foundation plans to develop these sites for new homes while preserving and enhancing green spaces. The revenue generated will support Old Swinford Hospital School.

### Racecourse Lane:
- **Description**: Racecourse Lane includes Stourbridge Golf Course and arable farmland, surrounded by residential development. It is designated as an area of High Historic Landscape Value with nature conservation sites (SINC/SLINC).
- **Development Proposal**: The plan proposes 650-700 new homes, community infrastructure (primary school, nursery, health center), and a replacement golf course. The development will focus on enhancing biodiversity, providing public open space, and improving local infrastructure, including roads. The aim is to create a sustainable urban extension to Stourbridge, incorporating significant green infrastructure.
- **Achievability**: The Foundation owns the land outright, allowing for immediate planning applications after the adoption of the DLP. There are no significant technical constraints, and the development is expected to deliver substantial ecological and infrastructure benefits. The site can be delivered in the short-medium term.

### Worcester Lane:
- **Description**: Worcester Lane is flat agricultural land, surrounded by residential properties, a railway line, and further development. It is in the Green Belt but not constrained by ecological or heritage designations.
- **Development Proposal**: The site is proposed for 120 new homes, a robust landscape buffer, and enhanced biodiversity. The development would include public open spaces, play areas, and a recreational route, with a buffer from the railway line to mitigate noise.
- **Achievability**: The site is unconstrained, in a sustainable location, and requires minimal infrastructure. The development could be delivered early in the planning period to help meet housing needs.

### National Policy Considerations:
- **Ministerial Statement (July 2023)**: The government aims to boost housing supply, including revising housing targets and Green Belt policies.
- **National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Consultation (July 2024)**: The revised NPPF proposes a new housing need standard method, which would significantly increase the housing requirement for Dudley. This would result in a housing shortfall if the DLP is adopted without addressing these needs.
- **Green Belt Review**: Both Racecourse Lane and Worcester Lane sites make a limited contribution to the Green Belt, particularly given their proximity to urban areas. The development of these sites is seen as justifiable under "exceptional circumstances" due to the urgent need for housing.

### Conclusion:
The Foundation expresses concerns about the draft spatial strategy in the DLP, which relies too heavily on brownfield sites to meet housing needs. It argues that both Racecourse Lane and Worcester Lane should be considered for release from the Green Belt to help meet the substantial housing shortfall. The representations call for a review of Green Belt boundaries and highlight the urgent need for additional housing in the area.

The full response is structured as follows:
1. **Section 2**: Detailed response to the draft policies, including an assessment of their soundness.
2. **Section 3**: Conclusion to the representations.

Object

Representation ID: 1511

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Foundation argues that Policy DLP1 in the Dudley Local Plan is unsound for several key reasons:

1. **Inadequate Housing Provision**: Policy DLP1 proposes the delivery of 10,470 homes, but Dudley’s actual housing need is 11,169 homes. This shortfall contradicts Strategic Priority 6, which aims to meet the full housing needs of the Borough, and does not align with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirements, where the housing need should be a minimum starting point.

2. **Flawed Alternatives Assessment**: The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) for Policy DLP1 only considers three housing growth options, none of which assess the potential of releasing land from the Green Belt to meet housing needs. The approach to development alternatives is seen as flawed, particularly as greenfield sites are faster to develop than brownfield sites, which are more costly and time-consuming.

3. **Unresolved Shortfall**: The shortfall of 699 homes will be transferred to other local authorities in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) through the Duty to Cooperate (DtC) process. However, many of these authorities, including Birmingham, Sandwell, and Wolverhampton, are facing their own significant housing shortfalls, and no formal agreements (Statements of Common Ground) have been made to confirm contributions from neighbouring authorities. This uncertainty makes it unlikely that the shortfall can be met.

4. **Lack of Green Belt Review**: The Foundation argues that exceptional circumstances exist to review Dudley’s Green Belt boundaries to meet the housing need. Green Belt land should be considered for residential development, including sites like Racecourse Lane and Worcester Lane in Stourbridge, to ensure a sufficient and diverse range of land is available for housing.

In conclusion, the Foundation believes the proposed strategy in Policy DLP1 is not positively prepared, justified, or deliverable, and calls for a review of the Green Belt to meet Dudley’s housing needs.

Object

Representation ID: 1513

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Following on from Policy DLP1, draft Policy DLP3 is also not considered to be sound given it intends to maintain the borough’s Green Belt boundaries without any review. As per our response to Policy DLP1, NPPF Paragraph 109 states that new development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This paragraph does not limit new development to brownfield sites only.

Object

Representation ID: 1514

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Draft Policy DLP10 of the Dudley Local Plan aims to deliver at least 10,470 new homes by 2041. However, the Foundation argues that this target is unlikely to be met due to several issues:

1. **Reliance on Occupied Employment Sites**: A significant portion (11%) of the proposed housing supply comes from occupied employment sites (1,204 homes). There is no evidence to show these sites are available or deliverable, and some have been allocated since 2017 without progress. These sites should be removed from the housing supply.

2. **Viability Issues with Brownfield Sites**: Most of the priority sites for development are brownfield sites, with four out of five deemed "marginal" in terms of viability. These sites require significant investment for remediation, infrastructure, and overcoming constraints. The Council's Viability Assessment suggests that external funding (such as grants) will be needed to unlock many of these sites, but such funding is not guaranteed. Relying on sites that depend on uncertain funding could undermine the delivery of housing.

3. **Brierley Hill Strategic Centre**: The plan expects 1,546 homes to be delivered in Brierley Hill, but so far only 564 homes have been built, against an indicative target of 2,939 homes. Housing delivery is expected to increase with the completion of the Metro Extension, but this has been delayed due to funding issues. Until these issues are resolved and evidence is provided, the Brierley Hill site should be removed from the plan.

4. **Regeneration Corridor 2**: The proposed 972 new homes for this area are questionable due to a significant shortfall in delivery (only 1,171 homes have been built against a target of 2,060). Given past delivery rates, it is unclear whether the target can be met within the plan period, raising concerns about the feasibility of the housing strategy for this corridor.

In conclusion, the Foundation argues that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the deliverability of the proposed housing supply in the plan, and the issues outlined could prevent the target of 10,470 homes from being met.

Object

Representation ID: 1515

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Foundation objects to the wording of draft Policy DLP49, which states that a "strong Green Belt will be maintained" to promote redevelopment and provide access to the countryside, while protecting the land's landscape, nature conservation, and recreational value.

The Foundation argues that **exceptional circumstances exist** for Dudley Borough to consider **releasing suitable Green Belt land** to meet housing needs. Ensuring an adequate land supply, including from both brownfield and greenfield sites (such as Green Belt), is critical to addressing Dudley’s housing requirements. The Foundation calls for the plan to be more **ambitious** in tackling this issue, as identifying sufficient land will improve residents' quality of life and accommodate future generations who wish to live in Dudley.

Object

Representation ID: 1516

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Foundation evaluates the **soundness** of the Dudley Local Plan (DLP) based on the criteria outlined in **NPPF Paragraph 35**. The key points of the evaluation are:

1. **Positively Prepared**:
The DLP does not meet Dudley’s **objectively assessed housing needs**. There have been discussions with neighboring authorities, but no formal agreements to accommodate unmet need elsewhere. As a result, the DLP is not considered **positively prepared**.

2. **Justified**:
The site assessment methodology in the DLP is **insufficient** and does not evaluate sites outside the urban area. There is no strong justification for this approach, meaning the DLP is not **justified**.

3. **Effective**:
The DLP fails to address **unmet housing needs** within Dudley’s boundaries and defers this issue to neighboring authorities, which is not an effective approach. There is no **Statement of Common Ground (SoCG)** with neighboring authorities, so the DLP is not **effective**.

4. **Consistent with National Policy**:
The DLP does not meet local housing needs or support the Government’s goal of boosting housing supply. It does not align with national policy on **sustainable development**, meaning the DLP is not **consistent with national policy**.

The Foundation concludes that the DLP fails the soundness test, and suggests that the Council should **amend the Green Belt boundaries** to meet housing needs fully, as exceptional circumstances exist due to the plan’s **unjustified supply** and pressing housing demand.

Object

Representation ID: 1517

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Feoffess of Oldswinford Hospital (Foundation)

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Foundation raises concerns about the **review mechanism** for the Dudley Local Plan (DLP) in light of the upcoming **new NPPF** (National Planning Policy Framework). Key points include:

1. **Lack of Clear Review Mechanism**:
The DLP does not specify how or when it will be reviewed once adopted. According to **Regulation 10A** of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012, local plans must be reviewed at least once every **5 years** to ensure they remain relevant and address local needs.

2. **Timing and NPPF Compliance**:
The DLP is scheduled to be submitted in **Spring/Summer 2025**, while the new NPPF is expected in **December 2024**. The draft NPPF (Paragraph 226a) requires a review of local plans if they have a **shortfall of more than 200 homes**. The DLP currently has a **shortfall of 699 homes**, meaning it would need to be **revised** to comply with the new NPPF policies.

3. **Council’s Strategy**:
The Council plans to submit the DLP by **December 2024** to benefit from Paragraph 226c of the draft NPPF, which allows plans submitted within one month of the new NPPF’s publication to avoid applying the updated policies. However, this would trigger a need for a **new plan** to address the housing shortfall if the plan falls more than 200 homes short of the **local housing need (LHN)**, as stated in **Paragraph 227** of the draft NPPF.

In summary, the Foundation stresses the importance of incorporating a clear review mechanism in the DLP to ensure it remains compliant with national policy and effectively addresses Dudley’s housing needs.