Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Object

Representation ID: 1360

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The publication of the Draft Plan comes at a time of changing national planning policy, including reforms introduced by the 2023 Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, which the Council has partially acknowledged but not fully integrated into the draft Plan. The upcoming reforms, particularly those related to housing need calculations and Green Belt reviews, will have significant implications for Dudley, increasing the housing requirement to nearly 1,600 dwellings annually, up from 657. While transitional arrangements may allow the Council to avoid some of these changes, it is crucial that the emerging Plan acknowledges these policy shifts and prepares for future challenges. The draft Plan's timetable for submission in 2025 and adoption by 2026 is seen as unrealistic, given the average duration of local plan examinations.

The Council must ensure the Plan is robust to meet these deadlines, but there are concerns about the Duty to Co-operate and uncertainties about how unmet housing needs, both locally and in neighbouring authorities, will be addressed. Additionally, the housing allocations in the draft Plan are considered insufficiently robust and likely to face challenges during examination. The timescales for the Plan’s progression offer no buffer for delays in submission or examination, and further consultations or evidence may be required. As a result, the plan period should be reconsidered to ensure it extends beyond 15 years post-adoption, in line with national policy requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 1361

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The draft Plan fails to fully consider the national policy changes expected to be implemented before its submission, and the Council should review its approach in light of these changes. At a regional level, the Plan does not adequately address the ongoing challenges in the Black Country, including unmet housing needs from neighbouring authorities such as Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Sandwell, with significant uncertainty about how these needs will be met. Additionally, there is concern that Dudley should contribute to addressing these regional housing needs due to its proximity and functional relationships with neighbouring areas. The Plan also overlooks the need for sufficient employment land, especially smaller-scale sites that are necessary to free up housing allocations, and the Council must ensure realistic expectations for employment land delivery.

Support

Representation ID: 1363

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

The proposed Vision for the Borough is generally supported, but balancing all aspirations, especially conflicting ones like affordable housing and green spaces, will be challenging. Additionally, the Plan's proposed period to 2041 risks falling short of the required 15-year period post-adoption, so the Council should extend the plan period to account for potential delays and ensure compliance with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1365

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The development strategy outlined in Policy DLP1 confirms the intention to deliver at least 10,470 new homes during the plan period to 2041, alongside at least 22.62ha of employment land. The policy goes on to confirm that the full housing and employment land requirements will be met through identified sites, and through reliance on neighbouring and other local authorities. It is considered that this is not an appropriate approach to plan-making by Dudley Council, in the current policy context and whilst other authorities in the local area are facing such significant housing shortfalls as identified above. It is maintained that the Borough should at least be planning to meet its emerging housing needs in full, and potentially also considering whether a meaningful contribution towards other authorities unmet housing needs could be delivered within the Borough as identified above.

Support

Representation ID: 1366

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

In regards to Policy DLP2 – Growth Network, the approach identified through this policy maintains consistency from the adopted Development Plan, and continues to direct homes and other developments to the most sustainable locations in the Borough. In particular, the continued identification of the regeneration corridor between Brierley Hill and Stourbridge through RC2, The Draft Plan confirms that this represents a corridor that is extremely well connected to the rest of the region and hosts vibrant local centres. As such, high quality housing is to be focused within centres and along this corridor, with access to green infrastructure. This policy aspiration is welcomed and supported, recognising that within this identified corridor there is a range of services and facilities and good access to public transport, thereby representing highly sustainable location to direct further development towards.

Support

Representation ID: 1368

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

The draft Policy DLP8 identifies that the Council will support developments that create an environment that promotes healthy communities, protects and improves the health and wellbeing of residents, and which reduces health inequalities. This is supported, recognising the importance of ensuring that new developments maximise opportunities to improve health and wellbeing. However, in this regard, it is considered that the Council should recognise the importance of securing indirect opportunities to enhance heath infrastructure, such as through the realisation of development on land that the NHS currently owns, but has identified as surplus to requirements. The sale of the land to facilitate its redevelopment for housing, will provide significant capital receipts that will be directly invested into local health infrastructure, which is demonstrably required to address the health inequalities identified by the emerging Plan. This should be a strong material consideration which supports the allocation of the land for housing in the emerging Plan.

The requirement identified within Policy DLP8 to provide health impact assessments for all planning applications over 150 dwellings / 5ha in size is queried however, as it appears to represent an arbitrary threshold that hasn’t been justified. If the Council is seeking health impact assessments for such developments, the policy and supporting text should clarify what the purpose of this is, and why it is considered appropriate, in order to ensure that the policies are justified and requirements set appropriately, in accordance with the tests of soundness set out in Paragraph 35 of the Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 1370

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy highlights the importance of protecting healthcare facilities but should also support the repurposing of surplus healthcare buildings and land for non-healthcare uses, enabling reinvestment in other healthcare infrastructure. The land at Corbett Hospital, identified as surplus to healthcare needs, should be considered for residential redevelopment. The policy requires major residential developments to be assessed against existing healthcare capacity, but this requirement is unclear and potentially conflicts with national policy, as NHS capacity issues are typically addressed through consultation, not planning obligations. Legal precedents have shown that contributions to healthcare services should only be required when a clear funding gap linked to development impact can be demonstrated.

Object

Representation ID: 1371

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The draft Plan proposes to deliver at least 10,470 new homes by 2041, but it is argued that this figure does not fully address the Borough’s housing needs, and the plan period itself is considered inadequate. To meet the soundness tests of the Framework, it is suggested that the plan period should be extended to 2043, and additional housing allocations should be made to ensure full housing need is met. The Council's approach to housing allocations is criticized, particularly regarding the inclusion of sites already constructed or under development, which should not count towards future allocations. It is further noted that sites with planning permission or previously allocated but undeveloped sites need robust evidence of suitability and availability to be relied upon in the Plan. Constraints on delivering housing from brownfield sites and former employment land are acknowledged, with discounts applied to their delivery projections, but these sites still face significant delivery challenges. The Council is advised to revisit both the housing supply and the sites it is relying on to ensure the Plan meets national policy requirements. Additionally, sites like Land at Corbett Hospital, located in a highly sustainable urban area, could be included as a housing allocation to address housing shortfalls. This revision would enhance the Plan's ability to meet emerging housing needs and meet the delivery requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 1375

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Council’s approach to density responds positively to the requirements of the Framework to make effective use of land. However, the minimum densities set out in criteria 3 of DLP11 is a concern, when taking into consideration other requirements for developments including mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain, SUDS, proposed requirements for tree planting, public open space and other infrastructure needs.

It is considered that if the Council has based the capacity of site allocations on achieving or exceeding these minimum densities, the proposed capacity of housing allocations should be taken with caution, noting that it may not be feasible or appropriate to seek to deliver these densities. Further to concerns regarding the number of dwellings proposed through this emerging Plan in any case, the council should ensure that a robust and realistic approach to housing numbers has been taken in this regard. This should also be a consideration in respect of other priorities for the emerging Plan, recognising the need to balance expectations in terms of design and green infrastructure, whilst also seeking to secure appropriate levels of housing density to seek to meet local housing needs and respond positively to national policy requiring effective use of land. It is considered that the Plan as currently drafted has not given enough consideration to the inter-related nature of these issues, and there is a conflict in policy that should be addressed before the Plan proceeds to examination.

Object

Representation ID: 1377

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The draft policy on affordable and accessible housing is deemed contradictory and ambiguous, particularly regarding the tenure split and site-specific decisions on affordable housing, which should be clarified. The requirement for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant housing is not adequately justified, as the policy fails to consider site-specific factors or evidence of actual need, potentially placing an undue burden on viability. The proportion of M4(2) and M4(3) compliant housing, especially for M4(3) dwellings, is considered excessive and not sufficiently supported. The Council is advised to reconsider the policy, focusing on more appropriate housing types, such as specialist housing for older people, and ensuring the policy is justified and positively prepared.