Draft Black Country Plan

Object

Representation ID: 18565

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

This response brings together the views of residents and Labour councillors on behalf of their communities from across the borough. In preparing our response, we have undertaken a listening exercise where we have visited every part of the Dudley Borough and listened to the views of our local community.


Our response is in the interests of the many residents who will affected by these proposals, not just those with homes being built near them but all residents who currently live in the borough who will experience the additional pressures on an infrastructure that is already struggling to cope with existing population levels. As importantly, we also make this submission in the interests of future generations who need homes that
are affordable and also access to adequate green spaces and green belt land.


Dudley Labour Group’s position on the BCP has been shaped by the views of residents and is very clear. We do not support any development of any green spaces or green belt in this Borough as there are many options that the Council has, which we consider it is deliberately not exploring. Like us, residents consider that our green spaces are too precious to destroy. We use them for leisure, to walk our dogs, to generally enjoy. They are also home to wildlife that is important to us. Once a blade of grass is gone, it is gone forever.


We also believe that we should accept when Dudley is full, rather than find ways to add additional burden on local residents, infrastructure and services. We know from residents that there just isn’t any more capacity within the infrastructure, for example, roads, schools, health facilities, for the scale of housebuilding that this government wants.


The Council must lead the way by exploring pieces of waste land which exist in the Borough, sufficient investment for remedial action on contaminated land, better town planning policy, renovating existing properties, whether these are it’s own vacant Council houses or whether these are derelict private properties which it can take on through partnership working. We understand there are around 1000 long term
empty properties in the Borough which could point the way to a solution that would prevent green belt or green spaces being developed.


In all of these instances, we would expect that the public would be involved and there is meaningful consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 18566

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[Housing numbers]

We consider there are three fundamental aspects of the process which the BCP has failed to address adequality, which, as a consequence, discredit the proposals and places them at risk of potential legal action. These include the determination of the housing need, timing, duration and nature of the consultation process (including scrutiny) and equality considerations.

Determination of housing need

The government has indicated that the Black Country has a requirement for 76,000 additional new homes and the proposals produce just 46,000 of which Dudley is proposing sites for 13,000 homes, a number that appears to be a contribution that is a disproportionately high level compared to other Boroughs. No information has been forthcoming about how government has calculated these figures or why Dudley is providing more than one quarter of the total proposed and despite
asking at every opportunity, the Authority has refused to explore this further


We consider that Dudley Council has not provided sufficient challenge regarding;


Projected Population Figures


The figures come from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The ONS have assumed growth will continue at the same average rate that it has for the last 20 years. The ONS states specifically that it has not taken account of the impact of Brexit in it’s projections and assumes the same rate of growth will continue into the future. The figures also do not
appear to account for the number of excess deaths, some of which are related to covid. It also does not appear to take account of the falling birth rate. Instead the figures presented by the ONS seem to be very
much a worst case scenario and should not be used for planning purposes.


The ONS produced a second dataset based on the previous ten years growth that takes greater account of the changes to net migration since the Brexit vote in 2016. Using this dataset, which is likely to be more realistic, the Black Country will require 10,000 fewer homes during the Plan period. Given that the plan projects that 7,000 homes will have to be built on Greenbelt land; the use of this dataset would mean that no homes will have to be built on the greenbelt or green spaces at all.


It seems inconceivable that green belt and green spaces could be lost because “someone” has decided to use an unrealistic worse case growth scenario. We believe that once greenbelt and green spaces are allocated for housing these sites will be amongst the first of the sites within the Plan to be developed, not the last as has been suggested.


If the decision to go with a particular set of forecasts has been made at Ministerial level, which we suspect, then if the new ministerial team is minded to review them, there is little point in proceeding.


Finally, on this issue, planning does not exist in isolation. It is there to help meet future needs. If those future needs are assessed wrongly the plan will be wrong. We are convinced the best strategy is to challenge the future growth projections as these are inaccurate and undermine the whole plan. The Plan should not be approved by the Council until the projections have been re-examined and adjusted to be more realistic rather than presenting the worst case scenario.

Object

Representation ID: 18567

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[Dudley housing numbers]

We consider there are three fundamental aspects of the process which the BCP has failed to address adequality, which, as a consequence, discredit the proposals and places them at risk of potential legal action. These include the determination of the housing need, timing, duration and nature of the consultation process (including scrutiny) and equality considerations.

Dudley’s housing contribution within the BCP


We consider that Dudley Council has not fought the corner of residents by offering land for 13000 homes, which is more than it’s fair share of the total identified. However, we do not hold the other three authorities
responsible for this as they are merely doing right by their own residents.
The responsibility lies solely with Dudley Council which has failed to provide anywhere near a fair share of employment land. It has proposed just 22 hectares, a small fraction of the 354 hectares identified, which explains the possibly there has been a trade-off between the authorities between land for homes and for employment. Employment land gives rise to far fewer people and traffic movements and therefore provides less pressure on the infrastructure than new homes with a permanent
day and evening population. Providing so many homes with so few additional local employment opportunities will also increase people and traffic movements as employment opportunities are sought by the additional population outside the borough.

Object

Representation ID: 18568

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[General brownfield]

We consider there are three fundamental aspects of the process which the BCP has failed to address adequality, which, as a consequence, discredit the proposals and places them at risk of potential legal action. These include the determination of the housing need, timing, duration and nature of the consultation process (including scrutiny) and equality considerations.

Investment in the remediation of brownfield sites


At a Cabinet meeting held in July 2021, which considered the report on the Black Country Plan, including the public consultation on it, the Leader of the Council, Patrick Harley indicated that local residents should be fully involved in the public consultation process as well as prioritising the use of brownfield sites when it comes to future development. He acknowledged that there were previous brownfield sites that had been approved for development, however, he noted no
progress had been made and therefore planning officers were requested to review what was proposed for every brownfield site in the borough.
He commented that the council’s future Scrutiny Committee may wish to consider a review of the full use of current and future brownfield sites, as well as scrutinise those green belt sites that had been proposed within the BCP.


This has not happened and there is no such further transparent mapping exercise been carried out of brownfield sites that we can see the results of. The Labour Group insists on a full review of the use of all current and future brownfield sites in the borough and until and unless this is done, the process should be put on hold.

Object

Representation ID: 18570

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[Consultation Process]

Consultation Documents and Consultation process

There have been ongoing issues with the consultation process which have caused confusion and frustration for residents and councillors alike.


Timing and Duration of the consultation process


We have taken issue with the choice of date to announce the start of the consultation and the length of time residents have had to respond. It is
important to make the point that at no time before the consultation was announced have residents been officially informed which sites are at risk. The formal consultation that took place previously only developed policies that would determine choices and did not name specific sites. A number of committees held in public have discussed the plan and there have been various reports which have given an indication of which sites might be at risk but this information could not be relied on until the plan was signed off. Ahead of the consultation there are examples of councillors trying to alert residents near some of those sites that those sites are at risk, only for residents who have then enquired with the Tory
Councillors and/or their MPs that this is scaremongering, and those sites wouldn’t be in the final proposals, only then to find that the sites made it to the final consultation document. The consultation was then launched under the radar, during the summer months, omitting any direct communications with those affected so that many residents were not aware that those sites were at risk until weeks into the consultation period.


The Council has indicated that the standard consultation period of 6 weeks has been extended to 8 weeks, however this still gives insufficient time for residents with limited resources and often without access to IT and social media to get themselves organised and to mount an effective opposition to the plans. Councillors have seen those residents, especially those near to the affected sites, placed under extreme duress trying to organise campaigns during a period of the year where they are still battling with the impact of Coronavirus, are apprehensive about returning to “normal activities” and might still be working whilst also
trying to take holidays as well as having other pressing responsibilities such as childcare.


This unacceptable worry and pressure for residents could have been averted if the council had, in the first place, adopted a transparent process that was fit for purpose and had actively engaged with those residents most affected ahead of the publication of the proposals.
The online consultation and related errors


The existing online and hard copy versions of the consultation were confusing and contained numerous errors. The online response documentation was also difficult to navigate and resulted in many residents abandoning their efforts to make a response. Examples of errors included;



• Conflicting information in documents about which sites are affected
• Difficulty in finding information about sites within the documents that councillors and residents understand would be affected
• Lack of clarity about which sites are ruled in and ruled out


Also, while green belt sites at risk have been highlighted, equally important green spaces at risk have been difficult for residents to identify. The quality of maps has been poor and in many cases it has been difficult to pinpoint the exact locations of some of the sites. Many residents were also deterred from continuing with their response when required to provide an electronic signature. Some residents expressed this at the public meeting that was organised, and despite hearing this the Council has decided to continue – with no change at all.

Early in the process, including the day of the publication of the consultation, councillors received many enquiries relating to these errors. Consequently, a request was made to the Leader via the Chief Executive that the process should be paused then restarted when all were confident that the consultation was fit for purpose. The Labour group also proposed an extension to the consultation period of 4 weeks
to allow sufficient numbers of residents to respond and to be informed of any new information that might arise through the scrutiny process which
did not begin until September. The decision to extend the consultation needed the approval of the Conservative Cabinet and we are disappointed but not surprised that this request was rejected.


Finally, in regard to the online consultation we heard from CAPA at the scrutiny committee last Wednesday that just 10,000 unique visits were made from across the four Black Country boroughs to the online consultation. Considering this was their primary tool for collecting comments, it is another demonstration of how ineffective the Council has been in engaging residents.

In person consultation


Until the first scrutiny meeting took place which highlighted issues with the consultation process, there had been no in person consultation conducted with affected residents. Consequently, almost halfway into the consultation period, ‘drop in’ sessions were hurriedly arranged by Dudley Council, most taking place during office hours when the public were not available and therefore not surprisingly, attracting just 99 visits in total. Public meetings were better attended, but most of these were organised by residents and campaigners themselves, with differing degrees of formality, structure and support.

Other communications


Following the first scrutiny committee, one of the measures proposed was to alert members of the public to the fact that the BCP proposals had been published and to encourage them to respond. Just 2 weeks before the closing date for the consultation, an A5 leaflet was posted to households, many wrapped in other unrelated commercial materials delivered at the same time. An opportunity had also been lost through the way in which the issue featured in the August edition of My Home magazine. CAPA explained that the magazine had to go to print before the consultation was launched which is why it didn’t contain much detail about the BCP. However, this does not explain why the article did not feature more prominently in the magazine, which on page 14, half way through, risked most readers not reading it.

Object

Representation ID: 18571

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[Dudley specific consultation]

Concerns relating to the scrutiny process


When the Labour group on the Future Council Scrutiny Committee proposed a special scrutiny exercise to examine the BCP proposals in public and this received cross party support, we were hopeful that we would have a robust and fair process that combined all the best features
of scrutiny as described by the Centre for Public Scrutiny, specifically accountability, transparency and involvement (of the public). Regretfully, the exercise failed on all three counts.


Accountability
The Labour group expected to see a clear demarcation between witnesses and scrutineers and Hansard style recording of proceedings throughout. This did not materialise.


Transparency
The Labour group also expected the committee to be able to call on independent expert witnesses in each of the themes the committee agree to examine to maximise the information and range of opinions available. This too did not materialise and instead the Council appointed it’s own officers to respond to questions.


Public Involvement
The Labour group also expected the public forum be structured to ensure voices of the most vulnerable/controversial sites were
considered, especially green sites and other sites that have been difficult for residents to locate and about which there is little information and for residents to be able to get satisfactory answers from independent
experts if Council officers and leading politicians were unable to provide them. Residents did not get this opportunity and not all questions received a satisfactory response.


Some attendees, who were considered experts representing areas of concern openly admitted at the meeting that they were not the right people to answer the most basic of questions posed by the scrutiny committee.


The initial special meeting of the BCP was also poorly chaired, the public section was unstructured and dominated by the Cabinet Member and by all accounts an example of how scrutiny should not be conducted. Following the meeting, the Labour Group wrote to the Chair of the Committee to suggest improvements and to seek assurance in respect
of subsequent meetings. This letter is attached as an appendix.

To date there has been no response to the letter from either the Chair of
Vice Chair.


In addition, at the Future Council meeting held on 8 September, there was a commitment given to hold a minimum of 2 special scrutiny meetings to examine the BCP. However, the second meeting held took place 5 weeks after the first, albeit with the vice chair chairing the meeting, and just 5 days before the consultation ended. This gave the impression there was never any intention by the administration of enabling time for 2 meetings or enabling the scrutiny to be completed in time to hear from the ten or more independent experts that the Labour group had identified and who would have properly informed residents as they make their responses ahead of the closing date.

Object

Representation ID: 18572

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[EIA]

Equality Considerations


The Labour group is aware that since 2012 there has been no requirement for Councils to conduct full equality impact assessments (EIAs) when developing policy or making decisions. However, there is
an expectation that if a full EIA is not conducted, there is still evidence to show that the protected characteristics (as per the Equality Act 2010) have been properly considered.


There is no evidence of any assessment in the BCP proposals of the disproportionate adverse impact on certain groups that the proposals will have and this includes the particular impact on children and young
people and on those with mental health and well-being concerns. If a competent equality impact assessment had been carried from the beginning as it should have been, it is almost certain that the green belt
and green spaces that we oppose development of would not have been included in the draft plan.


If these equality considerations continue to be ignored then the council is leaving itself open to the risk of initiation of Judicial review proceedings
in this matter, as it is currently in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Object

Representation ID: 18573

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

Affordable Housing


The purpose of the plan is to ensure that there is a sufficient number of homes to meet housing need in Dudley. However, just as the Labour Group is not convinced that the projected need for total housing is accurate, in the absence of any transparent formula, we are also not convinced that the figures determining the percentage of affordable housing required is accurate or sufficient and we are very concerned about the lack of affordable housing identified for a borough with overall low levels of income, and for people whose economic status and employment prospects are and will continue to be affected by such factors as the pandemic and the rising cost of living. If it is accurate that
32.7% of housing needs to be affordable over the plan period under the Black Country Housing Market Assessment, we are concerned that the plan sets a minimum requirement for affordable housing on sites between 10% and 30%, which risks not meeting that target. We are concerned that these proposed homes will lead to accommodation that will attract buyers from outside of the Borough and therefore Dudley residents will be making sacrifices from which they nor their families will receive any benefit.


Furthermore, the Council is offering it’s own land for sale. So far, there has been no satisfactory response to requests to the Council to explain why land is being sold off to developers when the Council itself could borrow to build its own affordable housing for sale or rent to help achieve what we consider to be the under-estimated targets it has been set.

Object

Representation ID: 18574

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

Infrastructure


The Labour group is concerned that there has been no proper (or any) consideration of the impact of these proposals on the local infrastructure, i.e. roads, highways, health care, education, transport, which are already under significant strain in an already over developed borough.


Residents and councillors have been told verbally at public meetings that infrastructure modelling was ‘too expensive and too difficult to do at this moment in time’. This is clearly not true. Officers have received funding and had several years to work on these proposals and are still hiding behind the excuse of ‘too expensive and too complicated’.


There is also the question of the extent to which developers will fund additional infrastructure and in any event the obligations on them fall short of the impact that their developments are likely to place on local communities. For example, they are unlikely to agree to fund expensive transport improvements such as new roads near proposed developments and are not obliged to fund new health facilities. This will lead to a position, where local residents will end up paying for the profits made from these developments.


Until and unless these issues are resolved, then all proposals should be placed on hold.

Object

Representation ID: 18575

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

Nature conservation and other environmental considerations


The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in Europe and very recently, environmental experts have reiterated their concerns that the continuing loss of biodiversity in the UK is at crisis point and that expanding towns and cities through house building and road construction will exacerbate an evolving problem.


One of the stated aims of the BCP is to use the opportunity that additional housing provides to improve the environment. Given the views of experts on the causes of the loss of biodiversity, it is not certain how this is possible. Even the language used in the plan suggests one of
mitigation rather than improvement. For example, in reference to green belt development, the Black County Authorities have agreed a policy of
‘least harm’.

There are also several unanswered questions relating to trees with protection orders and if felled to make way for development, where they will be alternatively planted and the impact on habitats that could be destroyed at or near to the affected sites. In the case of several sites, it is obvious from the RAG rated assessments for each site, that in many cases, the assessment of the biodiversity at them is incomplete and therefore, these sites should not have been put forward. There is also reference to the Fens Pool Nature Reserve, an SSSI site at the heart of the borough, which is not proposed for development but is referred to in the context of the uncertainty that development of the borough will have on biodiversity at this site. This is of great concern for a site which is of significance to an area with pockets of high deprivation including poor health and for which there are plans to introduce a wildlife corridor and eventually attract green flag status to provide biodiversity and regeneration as a visitor attraction.