Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Object

Representation ID: 1208

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Clowes Development LTD

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Vision Point 4 seeks to deliver sustainable urban growth to meet the needs of communities and businesses and it is supported by Strategic Priority 4 regarding the fostering of economic growth and development. Strategic Priority 4 seeks to deliver conditions to support growth, including ‘ensuring a supply of employment land to contribute towards meeting the Borough’s strategic needs.
To deliver the Vision and Objectives, the Plan must plan to meet both its economic and housing needs in full and this should be set out clearly in the Vision. For reasons set out in later sections of this representation the Plan is not currently identifying sufficient land to meet its economic needs. The Plan will therefore be unsound as it cannot be positively prepared if it doesn’t meet its own needs.

Object

Representation ID: 1209

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Clowes Development LTD

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Council are, however, not planning so ‘significantly boost’ their supply of housing by only planning to meet the minimum requirements. There is also no identified buffer included, so that there would still be delivery of housing to meet target should a site fail to deliver.
None of the Options for delivery of housing referred to increased or higher growth numbers and therefore all reasonable alternatives have not been assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (September 2024).
It is therefore considered that the Plan should include for a 5% or 10% uplift on housing figures, which will allow the Council to plan for delivery of growth in accordance with the spatial strategy, in sustainable locations and have a buffer should any sites not deliver as expected or become stalled for any reason.
Due to the revised NPPF expected to be delivered in December 2024, it appears prudent to revisit the identification of land for housing growth and seek to identify additional land for housing. As drafted, it appears that the Plan may not be sound as it is unlikely to be consistent with national policy and the revised standard method and therefore cannot be seen to have been positively prepared.
There is no clear approach to how the Council’s unmet need will be met in neighbouring authorities, and with other neighbouring authorities declaring unmet need that they are looking to Dudley to assist with, the Council appear to not be addressing their unmet need through the Duty to Co-Operate and indeed are not fulfilling the Duty to Co-Operate duty.

Employment
Similarly, the employment target set out in the Plan and chosen spatial growth option 2 (meeting all need in the urban areas and via DtC contributions). But neither option considered an increased or higher amount of employment land and therefore all reasonable alternatives have not been assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (September 2024).
it is not considered that the Duty to Co-Operate has established 50ha of land which can be delivered elsewhere to meet Dudley’s needs. If this is the case, then the Plan is unsound as it will not meet the area’s needs and is therefore not positively prepared.
With reference to both housing and employment land, it is not considered that all reasonable alternatives have been assessed for meeting Dudley’s growth needs, and the Council have not met their Duty to Co-Operate requirement, or clearly identified where unmet needs are going to be delivered in neighbouring authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 1210

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Clowes Development LTD

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Clowes land interests at Ham Lane/Oak Lane sit right on the edge of Regeneration Corridor 1 as identified in the draft DLP – Kingswinford to Pensnett.

As drafted the Regeneration Corridor 1 will not deliver its overall purpose. Table 5.1 identifies that the Corridor is only proposed to deliver 585 dwellings between 2024-2041 and only 3.08ha of land for employment uses. If Regeneration Corridors are to be a focus for growth as set out in draft Policy DLP1 then they should be accommodating as much growth as possible and all options, including Green Belt release, should be considered.

There is land available near the Regeneration Corridors, such as Clowes’ land interests at Ham Lane/Oak Lane that could deliver development to meet Dudley’s identified needs in a suitable and sustainable location.
The Site was considered in the Green Belt Assessment within a Wider parcel of land (Parcel B45) where the overall parcel was considered to contribute to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as follows:
• Strong contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas
• Strong contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
• Weak/no contribution to preventing the merging of towns
• Weak/no contribution to preserving the setting and special character of historic
towns

The site itself was not assessed in terms of its contribution to the Green Belt, but it is considered that its contribution to Green Belt is more limited than other areas within the same parcel may be.
The Plan is currently unsound as it is not justified, it has not considered all reasonable alternatives or land available to meet its own needs, in locations that would support its proposed Development Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 1211

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Clowes Development LTD

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Of the 21ha of land within Dudley, 11ha of it is proposed to be delivered through existing allocations. The soundness of those allocations is questioned, particularly as some date back to 2011 and the Black Country Plan. If existing allocations have not come forward in the current Plan period, it is considered they are likely to be subject to constraints that will prevent their development. They must therefore be carefully scrutinised at examination if they are to be found sound.
The Council’s Duty to Co-Operate (DtC) Statement identifies that (whilst related to the then Black Country Plan), Shropshire were planning on delivering 30ha of employment land to meet the Black Country needs, but it is noted at para 4.4 that the apportionment of such delivery for Dudley’s needs will now need to be clarified.
14ha of land within South Staffordshire also appears to have been identified to deliver part of Dudley’s unmet need as set out in the Plan, but this is not mentioned in the Duty to Co-Operate paper specifically, rather the only reference is to a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) with South Staffordshire, which has not yet been published. Furthermore, that land is related to the West Midlands Strategic Rail Freight Interchange and it is a specific type of employment land, for logistics/distribution and that does not address the broad range of required employment land.
Similarly, the DtC notes that discussions with neighbouring authorities (which are seemingly still being undertaken jointly across the Black Country Authorities have identified land to meet the employment needs shortfall. Buit the location of that land is not set out and no agreed DtC or SoCG is apparent on this point.
Notwithstanding, such allocations should take place as close as possible to the Black Country boundary in order to help support the expansion of existing businesses in that area and land off A491/Wolverhampton Road Wall Heath, whilst in South Staffordshire, is well placed to fulfil the needs of local businesses for future floorspace Should review green belt boundaries to allocate employment land.