Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 19)

Object

Representation ID: 1253

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: St Phillips Land Limited

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

St Philips objects to draft Policy DLP1 on the same basis as raised within St Philip’s regulation 18 representations. Although the housing requirement has been amended from 10,876 dwellings to 10,470 dwellings in the plan period against a Local Housing Need (“LHN”) of 11,169, it still leaves a shortfall of 699 dwellings which is to be exported through Duty to Co-operate.

Paragraph 69 requires that the Council needs to ensure that additional housing land should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability to deliver specific deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan period and deliverable sites of broad locations to meet needs for years 6-10 and 11-15 of the plan periods.

The Council has not done this and consequently Policy DLP1 in relation to housing land supply is not sound.
Proposed NPPF is not acknowledged in the plan.
In this regard, St Philips considers that the DLP’s approach through draft Policy DLP1 is flawed on several grounds, and these are summarised below:

1 Local Housing Need: The Council has not assessed whether a housing requirement greater than the LHN is justified.
2 Changes to the Standard Method and NPPF: The Council does not acknowledge the draft NPPF and the changes in national policy on plan-making.
3 GBBCHMA Unmet Needs: The DLP fails to acknowledge the unmet housing need arising from the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area [GBBCHMA] when seeking to export Dudley’s housing shortfall. Duty to Cooperate: The Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled and the unmet housing need identified has been deferred rather than dealt with, contrary to NPPF paragraph 35(c).
5 Sustainability Appraisal: The Draft Sustainability Appraisal fails to consider all of the options available to meet the LHN as well as the GBBCHMA’s unmet need, and therefore would not be justified as per NPPF paragraph 35(b).
6 The Deliverability of Brownfield Land: The proposed supply of brownfield land and windfall sites is an unrealistic and unviable strategy. In reality, the shortfall of housing land is greater than what has been stated within the DLP.
7 Transitional Arrangements of the Draft NPPF: Based on the current arrangements, it is considered unlikely that the DLP will proceed through examination.
8 Exceptional Circumstances and Green Belt Release: The DLP does not seek to identify, allocate and release a sufficient supply of land within the Green Belt for housing. The DLP does not recognise that exceptional circumstances for the release of land from the Green Belt exist.
As a result, St Philips strongly contend that draft Policy DLP1 is unsound as it fails to acknowledge and address the unmet housing need arising from the GBBCHMA, and instead seeks to increase the shortfall and defer this matter to other authorities. An approach that is fundamentally contrary to NPPF paragraphs 35(b & c), as the Duty to Cooperate has not been fulfilled.
Enclosed table demonstrates a shortfall of 38,498 dwellings in the Black Country which is also going to be exported to neighbouring authorities, highlighting the level of pressure the BCA’s are already under.

Duty to Cooperate
This confirms that Dudley is yet to agree to a Statement of Common Ground with the neighbouring HMA authorities in regard to how the contributions will be distributed within the Black Country. There is therefore a degree of uncertainty in regard to how Dudley’s housing shortfall will be met. In the absence of any signed SoCG, there is no agreement between the Councils, raising concern on the certainty associated with the distribution of the allocated and emerging contributions given that there is significant shortfall within the GBBCHMA.
Sustainability Appraisal
As currently presented it appears there is no justification for the three housing options appraised, other than to achieve a predominantly brownfield-led development strategy, resulting in a shortfall which is to be exported to neighbouring authorities. As such, St Philips maintains its stance that the SA, which underpins Draft Policy DLP1, is unjustified as it does not take into account all reasonable alternatives for meeting the unmet housing need and providing a sufficient contribution toward the HMA’s unmet housing need, contrary to paragraph 35(b) of the NPPF.
Deliverability of brownfield land can be challenging, as set out in full in the representation. St Philips consider no one spatial strategy approach should be taken in isolation, and it is considered that a mix of brownfield and greenfield/Green Belt land is necessary to meet the Council’s housing needs and make provision for a mix of types and tenures of dwellings to meet specific needs in line with the requirements of paragraphs 60,63 and 64 of the NPPF.

NPPF Reform
Given the substantial increase in LHN of 143%, the Council is strongly encouraged to pause the progress of the DLP and identify a sufficient land supply to meet the required LHN at the earliest stage of plan production. Due to the significant scale of LHN, it is considered entirely reasonable and consistent with the NPPF for the Council to release Green Belt land to assist in addressing their own housing needs and supporting the GBBCHMA.

Notwithstanding St Philips position that the DLP should be complying with the draft NPPF, should the plan proceed through examination it its current format, the Council still cannot meet its existing LHN, let alone, the proposed LHN from the revised NPPF. As such, under the transitional arrangements of the NPPF in paragraphs 226-229, given the substantial increase the LHN, the Council will be required to undertake a local plan review immediately to identify a housing supply to meet the revised LHN. As a minimum, St Philips considers it appropriate at this stage of plan-making to safeguard land in order to quicken the process as part of the next LP review.

Object

Representation ID: 1254

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: St Phillips Land Limited

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

As such, the draft Local Plan proposing for a viability assessment to be undertaken for all applications demonstrates a clear conflict with national policy which indicates it’s at the applicant’s discretion to produce a viability assessment under particular circumstances, and not on a site-by-site basis. This point is reinforced by paragraph 15 of the NPPF which states that “the planning system should be genuinely plan-led” and not led on a site-by-site basis.

St Philips therefore objects to draft Policy DLP12 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self-Build/Custom-Build Housing) and finds the Draft Policy to be unsound as the reliance on application-led viability testing within the draft Dudley Local Plan would appear contrary to paragraph 58 of the NPPF.

Viability Assessment
The Council has not provided an updated viability assessment as part of the regulation 19 consultation. As such, St Philips comments raised in the regulation 18 consultation via a review by CBRE still stand. A summary of CBRE’s review of the Viability Assessment is provided as follows.