Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 21329

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: DT Rushton Associates Properties

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

SA-0079-DUD - Land at Wynall Lane, Wollescote

l. INTRODUCTION


l.l. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to consultation until ll October 2021. It is made on behalf of DT Ruston Associates Properties Ltd, in respect of their land at Wynall Lane, Wollescote. The site entirely falls within Dudley Borough.

1.2. The site was previously submitted to the Black Country Plan call for sites in 2018, and was assessed under site reference SA0079-DUD. The site was ruled out on largely 'harm to landscape' and greenbelt grounds.

1.3. The site is roughly rectangular in shape extending to approximately 0.94ha and lies immediately adjacent to the existing built-up area to the east of Wollescote. The site comprises mainly brambles, scrub with some trees and is enclosed on its northern, eastern and southern boundaries by native hedges. The western boundary is formed by boundary treatment
associated with the rear gardens of dwellings accessed off Farmside Close. A site location plan has been provided below, detailing the extent of the site.


1.4. Wynall Lane South is elevated above the site by approximately lm with the southern boundary of the site comprising an embankment. Views of the site from Wynall Lane South are provided below.

1.5. There are no known public rights of way within the site. A footpath also extends along the northern boundary. Analysis of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council's interactive planning policy map does not indicate that this is a public right of way. However, there is evidence that this footpath is used by the general public and it connects to other routes within the open countryside.

1.6. The site falls entirely within flood zone l, as shown on the attached Environment Agency Flood



1.7. The site falls into a SLINC designation (Wynall Lane SLINC), however the site is unmanaged and is covered in brambles currently. The owner proposes to commission an ecology survey shortly to ascertain just how valuable the site is in biodiversity terms.

1.8. The site does not have any heritage assets within it and does not impact on the setting of any heritage assets.

1.9. The site is highly sustainable, benefitting from being within walking distance from a number of services and facilities within Wollescote. These include a Cost Cutter Supermarket, Wollescote Primary School, numerous public houses, as well as being approximately 8 minute drive from
Stourbridge Town Centre and the services and facilities that the town centre offers (travel time demonstrated below).


1.10. The following document covers a number of policies and paragraphs in the plan which are considered to be relevant to DT Ruston Associates Properties Ltd and/or the site they are promoting.

l.ll. The client reserves the right make further representations in due course. It should be noted that not commenting on an aspect of the emerging plan does not mean they agree with that
content.

1.12. The remainder of this representation document is as follows:

• epresentation

• Conclusion


2. REPRESENTATION


2.l. We consider that Land at Wynall Lane, Wollescote presents an opportunity for new housing to be delivered within the next plan period.

2.2. The site is greenfield land in Green Belt, but given its locational sustainability would form a logical addition to the settlement edge.

2.3. The following table summarises the policies that we have commented on in this representation:

Table 1-- Policies/Paragraphs subject to comment:

Policy/Para Title Page

HOUl Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and
Table 4)
HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96

HOU3 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and 101
Self Build/ Custom Build Housing
CC2 Energy Infrastructure 267

CC7 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM 290
Standards


HOUl - Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

2.4. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039. We welcome this as a minimum target.

2.5. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial number of sites within Dudley Borough that have not come forward because of persistent viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination, landscape harm and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post-remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.

2.6. Further, the BC authorities propose to 'export' 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary- but as South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.

2.7. At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high - it represents around 16% of the total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerably proportion. Given the requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being 'positively prepared' given this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the NPPF sets this out clearly: 'Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source ofsupply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development ofresidential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.'


DT RUSTON ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES LTD
8 ]R C A R E G E N E R A T IO N ] P LA N N IN G R E P O R T ] R C A 60 8b






HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

2.8. We are broadly supportive of the densities proposed in the emerging plan, however we consider they are aspirational when it comes to the central areas of the main Black Country settlements, with the exception of perhaps Wolverhampton, because of viability (specifically build costs v likely sales values). Apartments continue to be difficult to sell in much of the Black Country and
it is hard to imagine how (post-covid) high density apartment schemes will, in reality, come forward on any great scale. We would urge the BC authorities to reconsider their expectations on this moving forwards.

2.9. We would seek some flexibility in the application of accessibility standards - particularly as a result of the move towards more sustainable personal travel modes, such as electric cars.

2.10. We would also seek flexibility in the application of housing mix standards, where evidence from the availability of second hand stock within the immediate area demonstrates an oversupply of a particular size of dwelling.

HOU3 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build/ Custom Build Housing

2.11. We are broadly supportive of the affordable housing policy but would suggest the policy is slightly reworded to make it absolutely clear that those minimum proportions should only be required where viability demonstrates it is deliverable. Setting minimum levels are laudable, but unlikely to make a difference in reality if viability is an issue (as is the case on many BC sites).

2.12. We are broadly supportive of the requirements to make more homes accessible for disabled people.

2.13. The 5% self-build requirement does raise some concerns, however - related to maintaining health and safety on large housing sites, as well as in relation to the ultimate control over phasing. Given the council's strong reliance on windfall sites - many of which are likely to be self or custom build, we cannot see why the council can justify requesting a proportion of self-build on large housing developments that are proposed for allocation.

CC2 - Energy Infrastructure

2.14. We are concerned about the proposal to require a decentralised energy network on sites of 10 dwellings or more. We remain unconvinced that decentralised energy is always appropriate in anything other than unconstrained, strategic level development sites {OOO's rather than OO's of dwellings), and certainly not for smaller schemes.

2.15. This is because of the limitations this can place on the ultimate consumer -where decentralised energy can limit consumer choice in terms of energy provider and where the consumer may wish to add further energy saving measures - such as solar power, heat pumps, etc.

2.16. It is not clear from this policy why it would be beneficial: district heating systems have had a mixed result, where residents have had to sign up for long term contracts of 25 years or more. Efficiencies tend to be a lot lower for small schemes, as the infrastructure costs can be the same, so the larger the scheme, the more viable it could be. The industry itself is not regulated in the same way and physical problems with a district heating system or decentralised energy system can often result in whole areas being without heating or hot water for period of time.

2.17. We would therefore urge the BC authorities to reconsider the wording of this policy to
'encourage' the use of such systems, but not to stipulate that they must be used.



DT RUSTON ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES LTD
9 ]R C A R E G E N E R A T IO N ] P LA N N IN G R E P O R T ] R C A 60 8b






CC7 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

2.18. We consider that, linked to the above policy CC2, the aims of CC7 are laudable, it is clear that there is some duplication between this planning policy and Building Regulations, which are delivered in any case. There are therefore elements of this policy which are not particularly justified or necessary, insofar as they effectively repeat Building Regulations requirements.


3. CONCLUSION


3.l. We consider that there is a strong case to include Land at Wynall Lane, Wollescote as a residential allocation within the Black Country Plan. The development of the site would have a minimal impact on the landscape character of the area and openness of the Green Belt. As discussed, the site is largely enclosed by native hedges along its boundaries so this reduces the visual openness of the Green Belt in any case.

3.2. The site is situated in a highly sustainable location, benefiting from the services and facilities of
Wollescote and Pedmore as well as being within easy access to Stourbridge town centre.

3.3. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is affected by a SLINC designation, the landowner intends to conduct an ecology survey. The land is completely unmanaged and covered in brambles and
it is their view that the ecological value of the site is perhaps not as high as the council considers
it to be.

3.4. It is also noted that there are no public rights of way across this land, other than the undesignated footpath as discussed previously, the enjoyment of this landscape from the public domain is therefore limited.

3.5. We urge the council to consider the site for additional housing, to deal with some of the unmet need within Dudley Borough.

3.6. We have made comments on more generic planning policies where we consider it is justified, and we urge the BC councils to consider the points we have made