Draft Black Country Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 23354

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
2.3. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039.
2.4. 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 and other issues which include
tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (postremediation).
We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.5. 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.
2.6. 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
of supply. 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 of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’

Support

Representation ID: 23355

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.7. 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.
2.8. 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.
2.9. 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.

Support

Representation ID: 23356

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU3 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
2.10. 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).
2.11. We are broadly supportive of the requirements to make more homes accessible for disabled
people.
2.12. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 23357

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

CC2 – Energy Infrastructure
2.13. 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 (000’s rather than 00’s of
dwellings), and certainly not for smaller schemes.
2.14. 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.
2.15. 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.

2.16. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 23358

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

CC7 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards
2.17. 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 23359

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Sandyfields, Sedgley
This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of Seven Homes.
1.2. This document is submitted alongside a Vision Document for land at Sandyfields Road, Sedgley,
which largely falls within South Staffordshire with a very small area falling into Dudley Borough.
1.3. The Vision Document explains the background work that has been undertaken and how the site
constraints and characteristics have influenced a framework masterplan, which Seven Homes
would like both Dudley and South Staffordshire Councils to consider. Similar representations will
be made to the South Staffordshire Preferred Options plan, where consultation is due to begin in
the coming weeks.
1.4. The following document covers a number of policies and paragraphs in the plan which are
considered to be relevant to Seven Homes and/or the site they are promoting. Seven Homes
reserve 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.

We consider that Dudley and South Staffordshire councils should work more closely together to
deliver growth along the western boundary of Dudley – as is the case with the boundary with
South Staffordshire and its shared boundary with Wolverhampton. We consider there is a real
risk of a missed opportunity to make the most of the linkages to existing services and facilities in
areas such as Sedgley. Paragraph 24 of the NPPF sets out clearly that councils have a duty to
cooperate over strategic matters including housing and infrastructure delivery.

We consider that there is a strong case to include the land at Sandyfields Road, Sedgley as a
residential allocation within the emerging Dudley and South Staffordshire Local Plans because
much of the site offers only a very limited contribution to the role and function of the Green Belt.
The site is visually well related to the edge of Sedgley and the site is sustainably located for the
purposes of accessing employment in Pensnett, Brierley Hill, Dudley and Wombourne, as well as
being close to local schools, shops, sporting facilities and other services.
4.2. We have produced a Vision Document (shown in attachment) which sets out how the site could deliver housing with significant benefits for the wider community in a sustainable way.
4.3. The site offers significant opportunities to add new open spaces for future and existing residents,
where access to the land is currently limited to a small number of public rights of way. We urge
the council to consider the site for allocation, to deal with some of the unmet need within Dudley
Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 23360

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This is a representation to the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan which is subject to
consultation until 11 October 2021. It is made on behalf of Seven Homes.
1.2. This document is submitted alongside a Vision Document for land at Sandyfields Road, Sedgley,
which largely falls within South Staffordshire with a very small area falling into Dudley Borough.
1.3. The Vision Document explains the background work that has been undertaken and how the site
constraints and characteristics have influenced a framework masterplan, which Seven Homes
would like both Dudley and South Staffordshire Councils to consider. Similar representations will
be made to the South Staffordshire Preferred Options plan, where consultation is due to begin in
the coming weeks.
1.4. The following document covers a number of policies and paragraphs in the plan which are
considered to be relevant to Seven Homes and/or the site they are promoting. Seven Homes
reserve 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.

2. REPRESENTATION
2.1. We consider that Dudley and South Staffordshire councils should work more closely together to
deliver growth along the western boundary of Dudley – as is the case with the boundary with
South Staffordshire and its shared boundary with Wolverhampton. We consider there is a real
risk of a missed opportunity to make the most of the linkages to existing services and facilities in
areas such as Sedgley. Paragraph 24 of the NPPF sets out clearly that councils have a duty to
cooperate over strategic matters including housing and infrastructure delivery.
2.2. 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
HOU1 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth 89 (Table 3 and
Table 4)
HOU2 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility 96
HOU3 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and
Self Build / Custom Build Housing
101
CC2 Energy Infrastructure 267
CC7 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM
Standards
290
HOU3 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
2.3. The BC authorities aspire to deliver 47,837 new homes over the course of the plan period 2020 to
2039.
2.4. 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 and other issues which include
tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (postremediation).
We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.
2.5. 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.
2.6. 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
of supply. 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 of residential
gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.’
HOU2 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
2.7. 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.
2.8. 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.
2.9. 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
2.10. 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).
2.11. We are broadly supportive of the requirements to make more homes accessible for disabled
people.
2.12. 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
2.13. 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 (000’s rather than 00’s of
dwellings), and certainly not for smaller schemes.
2.14. 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.
2.15. 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.

2.16. 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.
CC7 - Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards
2.17. 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.

4. CONCLUSION
4.1. We consider that there is a strong case to include the land at Sandyfields Road, Sedgley as a
residential allocation within the emerging Dudley and South Staffordshire Local Plans because
much of the site offers only a very limited contribution to the role and function of the Green Belt.
The site is visually well related to the edge of Sedgley and the site is sustainably located for the
purposes of accessing employment in Pensnett, Brierley Hill, Dudley and Wombourne, as well as
being close to local schools, shops, sporting facilities and other services.
4.2. We have produced a Vision Document which sets out how the site could deliver housing with
significant benefits for the wider community in a sustainable way.
4.3. The site offers significant opportunities to add new open spaces for future and existing residents,
where access to the land is currently limited to a small number of public rights of way. We urge
the council to consider the site for allocation, to deal with some of the unmet need within Dudley
Borough.
4.4. 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.

Seven Homes - Land to the West of Sandyfields Road. Development Vision Document August 2021- submitted with representation. Please see attachment.