Part Two: Centres and Site Allocations (Regulation 19)

Comment

Representation ID: 1487

Received: 11/12/2024

Respondent: Sovereign Centros

Agent: Williams Gallagher

It is noted from the Dudley Local Plan Consultation Statement October 2024 that the Council do not consider it appropriate to include the
Odeon cinema within the Core Area of Brierley Hill Strategic Centre and we are accepting of this view insofar as it would not prohibit its
current operation and / or undermine the recent improvements made to linkages between the cinema and the wider shopping centre
complex. The draft policy, alongside Draft Policy DLP24, also makes clear that this is an appropriate location for alternative main town
centre uses should a need for the repurposing of the site arise during the lifetime of Plan (certainly not envisaged at this stage).
We also note and support the findings of the Black Country Centres Study Refresh (2024) which underpins this policy and is referred to in
the supporting text. This, inter alia, makes clear that beyond 2024, town centres (including Merry Hill) are likely to need to consolidate their
retail and shopping role further with more emphasis on place and non-transactional uses including high activity-based land uses such as
health and education being located in more central locations. Furthermore, with the increasing drive towards more flexible planning there
will inevitably be more mixed-uses within town centres and this should be encouraged and planned for through enabling planning policies.
Notwithstanding the above, we do have concerns regarding the soundness of Point 5 of Draft Policy DLPBH1 – this admittedly
being a late observation on our part but one which we request is given further consideration before the Plan is submitted for
examination on the basis that it has the potential to undermine the vitality and viability of Merry Hill Shopping Centre (a key
objective of the Plan).
This part of the policy is considered unsound on the basis that it is unjustified to any reasonable extent. It furthermore
contradicts with Paragraph 16 of the NPPF which states, inter alia, that plans should contain policies that are clearly written and
unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals:
• The policy appears to relate to improving accessibility however, the requirement to 'evidence the means to which
proposals are compatible with the objectives of achieving sustainable development' could theoretically cover various
aspects of a proposal which would otherwise be covered by, inter alia, Draft Policy DLP41 (Increasing Efficiency and
Resilience). The separation of the wording ‘Brierley Hill Strategic Centre should be accessible by a variety of means of
transport, particularly walking, cycling and public transport’ from this part of the Draft Policy (now included at Point 4)
only adds to the ambiguity as to what this policy requires applicants to demonstrate.
• There is no clear explanation put forward as to how the threshold for requiring applicants to ‘evidence the means to
which they are compatible with the objectives of achieving sustainable development’ (in respect of proposals within the
Merry Hill Centre Core Area or within well-linked edge-of-centre locations to that core area) has been arrived at (i.e.
proposals for more than 500 sqm (gross floorspace)). This is presumably considered by the Council to be the tipping
point at which existing and proposed sustainable means of travel at the Centre will no longer be able to support
development – as to why this is the case does not appear to be set out / justified within the supporting evidence we have
seen, nor is there any justification for this part of the policy in the supporting text. As is highlighted by Draft Policy
DLPBHPS2 ((Priority Site) The Embankment / Daniels Land), Point 5c, ‘the site [i.e. the Merry Hill area] is highly
accessible and has direct access to numerous alternatives to private car use’. It is furthermore the case that Phase 2 of
the Black Country Metro tram extension has recently been approved with works set to begin in earnest in January 2025
(following the confirmation of Government funding announced in the October budget, through the City Region
Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) and business case approval from the Department for Transport). On this
basis, we do not see how a proposal in the region of 500 sqm in this location would be so impactful as to render the area
unsupportable by existing and proposed sustainable means of transport. A proposal in the region of 500 sqm will not
lead to a major uplift in visits to the Centre nor will it demand a modal shift in travel. It is an arbitrary figure and does not
reflect what the impact of such a proposal will have.
• The 500 sqm figure is not clearly defined insofar as it could be misinterpreted as relating to proposals affecting 500 sqm
of floorspace at the Centre leading to a burden on development that would be largely inconsequential in terms of
accessibility, but which would serve to enhance its vitality and viability (e.g. operational works / change of use that do
not create floorspace / lead to an increase in trips but which relate to floorspace > 500 sqm). It is furthermore unclear as
to what ‘additional provisions’ would be deemed appropriate / considered proportionate, noting that the Centre is
already highly accessible through various means of transport and will become even more accessible upon opening of
Phase 2 of the Black Country Metro tram extension. Our client has also recently installed charging facilities across the
scheme thereby encouraging those with electric vehicles to visit the Centre (https://mymerryhill.co.uk/yourvisit/
parking/). To all intents and purposes, there is limited scope to improve accessibility - it is also not the role of the
local plan to retrospectively impose restrictions on the operation of an established and permitted development (through
'parking regimes' such as paid for parking across the scheme) through small scale development which will have limited
impacts on existing travel patterns individually or cumulatively (developments only being required to mitigate their own
impacts as is made clear by Section 106 of the TCPA).