Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Sandwell Local Plan (SLP). Our response is provided in plan order by individual SLP policies. Please note this represents an officer- level response at this stage, which is subject to formal Cabinet approval in 2024.
Overall, we support continued joint working and engagement under the Duty to Cooperate as our respective Local Plans progress and welcome further discussions to address the issues identified in our response.
Policy SDS1- Development Strategy
The key elements of this policy are supported by Dudley MBC, including the principle of delivering as much new development as possible on previously developed land and sites within the urban area. Sandwell MBC should continue to keep its urban capacity under review to identify any further opportunities for new development that would contribute to the shortfalls in housing and employment land supply currently identified. Please note our response to Policy SHO1 in respect of the housing land supply position.
The SLP identifies that Sandwell’s unmet housing and employment land needs will need to be provided for across the Housing Market Area (HMA), Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and other areas with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. Reference is made to the latest position in respect of the Duty to cooperate with further information contained in the supporting Draft Plan Statement of Consultation (Duty to Cooperate Statement, 2023).
This Statement (at paragraphs 31-34) identifies that there are a series of ‘offers’ from other local authorities outside of the Black Country towards the unmet housing needs of the area. Dudley MBC agrees that this largely reflects the latest position, but there are some updates to take account of. The Dudley MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (2023) at paragraph 2.27 notes that Telford and Wrekin Council has since published its Regulation 18 Local Plan (October 2023) with a potential contribution of 1,600 homes towards the Black Country’s unmet housing needs. The Lichfield Local Plan was withdrawn from Examination in October 2023. We would also note that Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire Councils’ previously paused work on their local plans following the Government’s proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework in December 2022. We are aware that work on both plans has recently recommenced.
The Sandwell MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (at paragraph 34) states that discussions are ongoing in relation to how these contributions are disaggregated between the four Black Country authorities, which is also reflected within the Dudley MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (paragraph 2.26). Dudley MBC has identified a housing supply shortfall, as detailed within our recent Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, which it is similarly working to address via contributions from relevant local authorities under the Duty to Cooperate. Dudley MBC will therefore continue to work jointly with Sandwell MBC under the Duty to Cooperate to progress this matter.
In respect of unmet employment land needs, the Sandwell MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (paragraphs 36-41) sets out the ‘offers’ from other local authorities, which reflects the information contained within the Dudley MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (2023). It is recognised that this reflects the position as was the case for the Black Country Local Plan draft plan consultation stage (as of 2021). The latest position, as contained within the up-to-date Black Country Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA, 2023) and Black Country Employment Land Supply Paper (2023) and resulting from any future updates to relevant local authority contributions, will need to be reflected at the next stage (Regulation 19) of our respective Local Plans. Dudley MBC has identified an employment land supply shortfall, as detailed within our recent Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, which it is similarly working to address via contributions from relevant local authorities under the Duty to Cooperate. Dudley MBC supports the principle of addressing the employment land shortfalls via the Black Country FEMA and will continue to work jointly with Sandwell MBC under the Duty to Cooperate to progress this matter.
For clarity, Dudley MBC is unable to contribute towards the housing and employment land supply shortfalls of Sandwell MBC.
In respect of the other strategic matters set out within the Sandwell MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement e.g., transport, natural environment, whilst it is recognised that here will be the key prescribed bodies to engage on these matters, Dudley MBC would welcome any cross-boundary considerations related to such topics also being reflected within forthcoming Statements of Common Ground between our authorities, as necessary.
Policy SDS2- Regeneration in Sandwell
Dudley MBC supports the SLP approach of focusing new development and regeneration within the identified Regeneration Areas and West Bromwich strategic centre.
The Regeneration Area of Dudley Port and Tipton relates to the draft Dudley Local Plan Regeneration Corridor 4 (the Regeneration Area of the Wednesbury to Tipton Metro Corridor is also of relevance). Dudley MBC supports references to the new public transport hub to be developed around the interchange of the Midland Metro Extension and Dudley Port railway station. Combined with the metro extension from Dudley town centre to Dudley Port, this will provide Dudley borough residents with enhanced access to the national railway network. Housing and employment development in this area is supported but should take account of any cross-boundary infrastructure requirements arising from specific proposals.
The justification to the policy references the opportunities to build upon the existing infrastructure, making the canals and greenspace a destination, linking to wider attractions such as the Dudley Canal Trust, Black Country Museum and Dudley Zoo. Recognition of these attractions and potential opportunities to enhance linkages to them is supported.
It is noted that £20million has been awarded from the Levelling Up Fund towards the regeneration of Tipton. Whilst the principle of the regeneration and redevelopment of such areas to deliver additional housing and employment growth is supported, specific proposals for the regeneration/redevelopment of the Owen Street District Centre (also known as Tipton Town Centre) should be of an appropriate scale to that centre so as not to detract from the functions of higher order centres within the vicinity, including Dudley Town Centre (identified as a Tier 2 centre within the draft Dudley Local Plan).
Policy SDS5 – Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy
Dudley MBC supports references within the justification text to assets that are also within Dudley borough, including cross-boundary sites such as Bumble Hole and Warrens Park.
Policy SNE1- Nature Conservation
Dudley MBC supports references to the protection of Fens Pool Special Area of Conservation. We would expect this to be addressed as part of the Habitats Regulation Assessment process for the SLP and individual development proposals, as necessary.
Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats
The Biodiversity Net Gain site proposals include Warren Halls Park Strategic Open Space, which represents a cross boundary opportunity with Bumble Hole Nature Reserve within Dudley borough. Bumble Hole Local Nature Reserve is identified as a potential Biodiversity Net Gain Receptor Site within the draft Dudley Local Plan.
The draft Dudley Local Plan identifies the Saltwells Local Nature Reserve as a potential Biodiversity Net Gain Receptor Site, which borders onto Mousesweet Brook Local Nature Reserve/SINC within Sandwell borough. This site is not identified within the SLP as a Biodiversity Net Gain site. There may be an opportunity for cross boundary working in relation to this area if the site was identified within the SLP. Dudley MBC will continue to work jointly with Sandwell MBC to identify any such opportunities going forward.
Dudley MBC supports the use of the Black Country Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy to maximise cross boundary benefits.
Dudley MBC welcomes the opportunity to explore and share active travel link improvements along Mousesweet Brook, Mushroom Green and Black Brook leading to Cradley Heath transport interchange (rail/bus station).
Policy SNE4- Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark
Dudley MBC supports this policy, which is consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP35 Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark.
Policy SHE2- Development in the Historic Environment
The policy and the supporting justification text references the Black Country Historic Landscape Characterisation Study (2019) and the supporting justification text references that Areas of High Historic Landscape (AHHLV) and Areas of High Historic Townscape value (AHHTV) were identified as part of this study. However, these areas do not then appear to be reflected within the policy itself (in terms of specific reference to them) or identified on the SLP Policies Map. There is also no reference made to the other two Historic Environment Area Designations (HEADS) identified in the Black County HLC - Designed Landscapes of High Historic Value (DLHHV) or Archaeological Priority Areas (APAs). For consistency in the implementation of the shared Black Country evidence base, and in recognition of cross boundary considerations in relation to the historic environment, Dudley MBC would welcome further references to these designations within the policy and for them to be reflected on the Policies Map. This is particularly relevant for site allocations which border/are adjacent to the Dudley borough boundary.
Policy SCC4- Flood Risk
The supporting justification text references the primary sources of fluvial flood risk within Sandwell which need to be addressed and considered. This includes the River Stour which crosses into Dudley borough. Dudley MBC supports these references.
Policy SHO1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
It is noted that 11,167 net new homes will be delivered over the plan period (up to 2041) with 97% on brownfield land and 3% on greenfield land. The SLP prioritises the development of previously developed land. The Plan identifies that there is a resulting shortfall of 18,606 homes against a housing requirement of 29,773 homes. The draft SLP states that Sandwell MBC is in discussions with neighbouring authorities to seek their agreement to accommodate some of Sandwell’s unmet needs (at paragraphs 3.12-3.19).
Dudley MBC is supportive of the Council’s approach in terms of prioritising brownfield land development in the first instance and appropriate greenfield sites within the urban area. The approach to the review of urban capacity is generally supported, and the application of assumptions related to discounting of the housing land supply is largely consistent with that applied in Dudley borough. It is noted that the Council consider there are no exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land to meet identified housing needs, including the housing supply shortfall.
Dudley MBC is supportive of Sandwell MBC maximising its urban area supply to meet its own housing needs as far as possible, particularly considering the scale of the current housing supply shortfall identified (representing around two thirds of the minimum housing requirement). Sandwell MBC should continue to keep its urban capacity under review to identify any further opportunities for new development that would contribute to the shortfalls in housing supply identified.
It is noted that the Council has explored opportunities for additional supply from its centres (West Bromwich, Town, District and Local Centres across the borough). This yields around 219 additional dwellings. Related Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility states that the highest densities of 100+ dwellings per hectare representing apartment schemes will only be acceptable where accessibility standards set out in Table 6 are met and the site is located within West Bromwich. We would welcome clarification on whether schemes located outside of West Bromwich namely at the other town centres within the borough (as identified in Table 10 of the SLP) could also achieve such higher densities given their accessible locations.
Achieving higher densities within such locations could potentially yield additional urban supply, albeit it is recognised this is unlikely to be significant in the context of the scale of the housing supply shortfall. This would however be consistent with the approach set out under the former draft Black Country Local Plan (2021) Policy HOU2 where such densities were identified as appropriate for strategic and town centres. The draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP11- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility identifies hat the strategic centre of Brierley Hill and its other town centres at Dudley, Halesowen and Stourbridge are in principle suitable for such high-density developments (subject to local character considerations for individual schemes). Please also see our response to Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy in respect of matters related to the housing supply shortfall.
It is noted there are several major housing allocations proposed along/nearby the boundary with Dudley borough including:
• SH25- Bradleys Lane/High Street, Tipton (189 dwellings)- no planning permission.
• SH1- Brown Lion Street (27 dwellings)- planning permission.
• SH7- The Boat Gauging House and adjacent land (50 dwellings)- subject of planning application.
• Several allocations around Cradley Heath including: SH16- Cradley Heath Factory Centre, Woods Lane (196 dwellings)- partly subject of planning application; SH4- Lower High Street – Station hotel and Dunns site (20 dwellings)- no planning permission; SH13- Silverthorne Lane/Forge Lane (81 dwellings)- no planning permission; SH15- Mcarthur Road Industrial Estate (13 dwellings)- no planning permission.
• SH34- Brandhall Golf Course (190 dwellings)- subject of planning application.
• Whilst located near to Rowley Regis, given the scale of the proposed allocation at SH37-Edwin Richards Quarry (526 dwellings within the plan period and 100 dwellings post plan period, partly subject of planning permission/application for 276 dwellings) we also note the relative proximity of this site to Dudley borough.
These allocations should take account of cross-boundary infrastructure considerations given the potential for the cross-boundary use of and impacts upon highways, health, and education services. Matters related to impacts upon amenity and character of the local area should also be considered on a cross boundary basis. Dudley MBC would welcome the opportunity to be consulted on any future masterplans/other planning documents that may be produced for these sites going forward (and any planning applications, as appropriate). We would also welcome the opportunity to be engaged on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan that will support the SLP as its progresses to the next Regulation 19 stage so that any cross-boundary issues can be identified and addressed.
In respect of education provision specifically, we would note that historically for cross-border flow of pupils the largest flow for Dudley MBC is with Sandwell MBC. As such Dudley MBCs education team would welcome ongoing discussions in relation to housing allocations nearby the boundary including updates on the proposed delivery timescales and Sandwell MBCs position on the education provision for such schemes. We particularly note that the SH25 allocation at Bradley’s Lane and the various allocations around Cradley Heath are located closer to primary schools within Dudley borough than those in Sandwell.
In respect of transport matters specifically, all developments exceeding 150 dwellings (as compliant with Local Transport Note LTN 1/20) at or near the Dudley MBC boundary should be considered in terms of impact on the surrounding network and subject to traffic impact assessments. All new developments should be considered in terms of opportunities to deliver active travel, Community Infrastructure Levy funds, Section 106 contributions and access to bus rail and tram transport across local authority boundaries.
Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
This policy is largely consistent with the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP11- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility. This is supported as it provides a consistent approach to sites which are in proximity to the Dudley borough boundary.
As per our comments on Policy SHO1, we would welcome clarification as to whether town centre locations within Sandwell could accommodate higher density developments of 100+ dwellings.
Policy SHO10- Accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Dudley MBC supports the proposed protection of existing authorised pitches (16 in total) and note that 10 new pitch allocations are proposed. The proposed allocation SG1 is nearby the Dudley borough boundary at Brierley Lane for 10 pitches, which would be an extension to an existing caravan site.
Dudley MBC would welcome clarification on the size of the existing site. As set out within the SLP supporting text (paragraph 7.71) there is generally a preference for family-sized sites of 10-15 pitches. As this allocation of 10 pitches represents an extension to an existing site, we would welcome clarification of the total eventual site size including existing and proposed pitches. We would be concerned with the delivery of a site whose scale is not well related to its surrounding area. Detailed proposals for this site should take account of any cross-boundary infrastructure issues arising and matters related to impacts upon amenity and character of the local area (including within Dudley borough).
The draft SLP policies are supported by the joint evidence base produced for the Black Country; the Black Country Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA, 2022). We welcome the use of this jointly produced evidence base. The GTTA identified a need of eight pitches up to 2031 and an additional six pitches from 2031-2041 for Sandwell. The SLP will deliver ten pitches to meet the need up to 2031 plus a buffer of two pitches (20%) - providing a five-year deliverable supply of pitches from adoption of the SLP in 2025. The approach will provide 71% of the total need for 14 pitches over the Plan period (2023-41). The SLP states that it is not possible to identify and allocate further sites to meet the remaining need for four pitches up to 2041 as no deliverable site options were put forward through the Sandwell Local Plan preparation process. Therefore, this remaining need will be met within the borough through the planning application process. This is consistent with past trends, where small windfall sites have come forward within the urban area.
The GTAA identified a need for 32 Travelling Showpeople plots for Sandwell. The SLP states it is not possible to identify and allocate sites to meet this need as no deliverable site options have been put forward through the Sandwell Local Plan preparation process. Therefore, this need will also be met within the borough, through the planning application process (and is consistent with past trends for windfall sites).
Dudley MBC is supportive of Sandwell MBC seeking to meet its outstanding needs via the planning application process. For clarity, Dudley MBC is unable to contribute towards any unmet needs of Sandwell and has identified its own shortfall in Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision within the draft Dudley Local Plan.
Policy SEC1- Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs
SLP Policy SEC1- Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs, identifies that the borough will provide at least 1,206ha of employment land. This consists of 1,177ha of occupied employment which is allocated as strategic, local or other employment land and 29ha of land that is currently vacant.
The SLP notes that the latest Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA, produced jointly in 2023 between the Black Country local authorities) identifies an employment land requirement of 185ha for Sandwell (2020-2041). The SLP (at paragraph 2.14) states that completions for 2020-2022 and the supply of land available for employment use totals 42ha, including a vacant land supply of 29ha. There is a resulting shortfall of 143ha against Sandwell’s employment land requirements. The SLP (at the supporting text to Policy SEC1) identifies that the shortfall will be addressed through the Black Country Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and that unmet needs should be exported, as far as possible, to authorities that have a strong existing or potential functional economic relationship with Sandwell. This work is ongoing under the Duty to Cooperate.
The general approach of the SLP towards employment land provision is supported by Dudley MBC, however we would note that the EDNA published as part of the SLP consultation is dated August 2023. The most up to date version of the EDNA is October 2023, which reflects the current employment land requirements and supply position for all the four Black Country local authorities. This identifies an employment land requirement of 186ha for Sandwell, which increases to 212ha if the replacement of employment land losses is accounted for (for information, the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP18- Economic growth and job creation identifies that the need for the replacement of employment land losses, equivalent to 26ha for Dudley borough, will be monitored over the plan period). We would welcome confirmation that the most current version of the EDNA (October 2023) will be used to inform the next stage of the SLP.
Dudley MBC recommends that the text at current paragraph 2.14 is replicated in the supporting justification text to Policy SEC1 to clarify that the employment land supply for Sandwell is 42ha (2020-2041). We note that EDNA and the Black Country Employment Land Supply Paper (2023) identifies an additional supply of circa 78ha arising from large and small windfall sites within the Black Country which would further reduce the employment land supply shortfall (it is noted that this figure is not disaggregated to the local authority level at this time). The borough specific contribution from the West Midlands Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (as detailed in the Stantec report of 2021)1 can also be accounted for, as per the supporting text contained within the draft Dudley Local Plan in respect of this contribution from outside the Black Country. These additional sources of supply should be recognised within the SLP supporting justification text going forward.
The latest EDNA (October 2023) and Black Country Employment Land Supply Paper (October 2023) has informed the draft Dudley Local Plan. The evidence base has been produced jointly by the Black Country local authorities, reflecting the strong FEMA that exists. This evidence base identifies individual local authority employment land requirements as part of a wider Black Country requirement. It also applies this to the employment land supply. The Employment Land Supply Paper notes the contributions that have been secured to date from other local authorities towards the Black Country employment land supply shortfall, namely from Shropshire and South Staffordshire at this time. It is envisaged that these discussions will continue as the respective local plans progress and the latest position will need to be reflected in our respective Regulation 19 local plans.
We note that there is one employment site allocation nearby the Dudley borough boundary at Coneygre Business Park for 7.22ha (reference SEC1-5). This is situated in proximity of the Strategic Employment Area (Ionic Business Park) within Dudley. The proposals for the site should take account of any cross-boundary infrastructure considerations, particularly impacts upon key infrastructure such as highways.
This site is close to the A4123/borough boundary and depending on the nature of the development, increased traffic may impact on this key route which is currently being improved to facilitate both active travel and bus route enhancements. It remains a cross boundary joint improvement initiative including input from both local authorities, Black Country Transport and Transport for the West Midlands. Continued joint working in respect of any cross-boundary implications would be welcomed, including consultations on any planning applications, as appropriate.
Policy SEC2- Strategic Employment Areas, Policy SEC3- Local Employment Areas and Policy SEC4- Other Employment Areas
Dudley MBC supports the SLP approach to Strategic Employment Areas (Policy SEC2), Local Employment Areas (Policy SEC3) and Other Employment Sites (Policy SEC4). The policy approach is broadly consistent with that set out in the draft Dudley Local Plan.
We note that the followings areas are identified as Local Employment Areas (LEA), and we support these designations as they are consistent with cross boundary/adjacent sites to the boundary of Dudley borough:
• Brymill Industrial Estate (adjacent to Budden Road, Coseley LEA in Dudley)
• The Angle Ring Company Ltd (adjacent to Budden Road, Coseley LEA in Dudley)
• Bloomfield Park (adjacent to Budden Road, Coseley and Birmingham New Road LEAs in Dudley)
• Providence Street, Cradley Heath (adjacent to Westminster Industrial Estate LEA in Dudley)
• Cakemore Industrial Estate (adjacent to Cakemore Road LEA in Dudley)
• Station Road Industrial Estate (adjacent to Nimmings Road LEA in Dudley)
It is noted that the Coneygre Industrial Estate is identified as a Local Employment Area. This lies adjacent to Ionic Business Park within Dudley borough which is identified as a Strategic Employment Area. It is noted that this reflects the findings of the Black Country Employment Area Review (BEAR, 2021).
Policy SCE1- Sandwell’s Centres, Policy SCE6- Edge of Centre and Out of Centre Development, and Town Centre Profiles
Dudley MBC supports the use of the jointly produced Black Country Centre Study update (2021) evidence base for the SLP. The draft Dudley Local Plan also utilises this evidence base.
Dudley MBC is supportive of the general approach to Centres. We are supportive of the impact test threshold of 280sqm for edge or out of centre proposals, which is consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP27 Edge of Centre and Out of Centre Development (we note that the contents of Table 10 of the SLP would appear to require updating to clarify this is the approach i.e., that proposals of more than 280sqm require impact tests). The implementation of the SLP policies should ensure that the scale of proposals for growth within the centres is commensurate to their scale, role, function and order in the hierarchy, taking account of nearby centres outside Sandwell borough including those in Dudley.
In relation to this, we note that for the Tier Two town centre of Blackheath there appear to be no significant proposals for growth identified. Some redevelopment site opportunities are identified, but these are not significant in scale and are for mainly residential use. For the Tier Two town centre of Cradley Heath, similarly there are no significant proposals for growth identified, with mostly residential redevelopment site opportunities identified.
As outlined in our response to Policy SDS2, the principle of the regeneration and redevelopment of Owen Street District Centre (also known as Tipton Town Centre) is supported however any specific proposals should be at a scale appropriate to the District Centre so as not to detract from the function of higher order centres within the vicinity, including Dudley Town Centre (identified as a Tier 2 centre within the draft Dudley Local Plan).
Policy STR1- Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network
Dudley MBC supports this policy and there are several cross-boundary projects referenced, consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP67 The Transport Network. We are supportive of the reference to the Dudley Port Integrated Transport Hub, which will link into the Metro extension for Brierley Hill-Wednesbury and provide access to the national railway network for Dudley borough residents. The Council would welcome continued joint working on the relevant evidence base for transport matters, including transport modelling to address cross boundary matters consistently.
Policy STR2- Safeguarding the Development of the Key Route Network (KRN)
Dudley MBC supports this policy which is broadly consistent with the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP68 The Key Route Network. This ensures a consistent approach to cross boundary matters related to the KRN.
Policy STR4- The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics
Dudley MBC supports this policy which is broadly consistent with the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP70 The Movement of Freight. This ensures a consistent approach to cross boundary projects related to this topic, including the reopening of the Stourbridge-Walsall-Lichfield railway line (as referenced at paragraph 11.38 of the SLP). The draft Dudley Local Plan also references this project (at paragraph 16.32).
Policy STR5- Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking
The approach is broadly consistent with the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP71 Active Travel. Dudley MBC supports the principle of this policy and welcomes the opportunity to continue joint working on the delivery of relevant cross boundary projects, including:
• Birmingham New Road (A4123)/Burnt Tree (A461).
• Tipton Road (A4037)/Birmingham New Road (A4123).
• Birmingham New Road (A4123)/Sedgley Road (A457).
Management of major works at the following locations will be key to sustainable travel and minimising disruption across the network:
• Birchley Island (A4123)/Churchbridge (A4034) (in close proximity to Dudley borough).
• Wolverhampton Road (A4123)/Hagley Road West (A456) (in close proximity to Dudley borough)
to rail stations such as Dudley Port station (i.e., A4123/A461 scheme), Tipton rail station, Old Hill station & Coseley station will be very helpful to both Sandwell and Dudley borough residents.
Please also see our response to Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats in respect of opportunities for active travel links.
Policy STR8- Parking Management
Dudley MBC supports this policy which is consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP73 Parking Management. It helps to ensure a cross boundary consistent approach to this matter, which is of relevance in relation to strategic centre and town centre parking provision. We support the use of a shared Black Country evidence base to inform this policy. The most up to date Car Parking Study has been finalised and this, or any further updates, should inform the next stage of the SLP.
Policy SWA1- Waste Infrastructure Future Requirements
This policy is broadly consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP75 Waste Infrastructure- Future Requirements and is therefore supported in terms of consistency in addressing cross boundary matters.
It is noted that the updated supporting evidence base for Sandwell and SLP Policy SWA1 sets out the waste infrastructure capacity gaps for the plan period. The draft Dudley Local Plan and its supporting evidence base has also identified waste infrastructure capacity gaps, particularly for those facilities which the borough is unlikely to be able to accommodate due to its urban nature e.g., landfill, anaerobic digestion and composting facilities. Dudley MBC would welcome further discussions under the Duty to Cooperate in relation to cross boundary waste matters, particularly given the existing waste movements between our local authorities. Dudley MBC will continue to work with Sandwell MBC on cross boundary strategic waste matters, including via the West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB).
Policy SWA2- Waste Sites
Dudley MBC supports the principle of this policy, which is broadly consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP76 Waste Sites. Dudley MBC supports the identification of strategic waste sites, applying a consistent approach in terms of how these are defined, and the use of the shared evidence base for the Black Country (Waste Study, 2020). The policy approach also helps to ensure cross boundary consistency in identifying appropriate locations for non-waste developments which do not prejudice existing waste-related operations.
We note that the Edwin Richards Landfill identified as a Strategic Waste Disposal Installation is also a proposed major housing allocation (allocation reference SH37) in the plan period. As this site is currently a recipient of relatively significant levels of waste from Dudley borough, we would welcome further information on the proposed timescales for its closure as part of our Duty to Cooperate discussions in respect of strategic waste matters.
Policy SWA3- Preferred Areas for New Waste Facilities
Dudley MBC supports the principle of this policy, which is consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP77 Preferred Areas for New Waste Facilities and is based upon a consistent evidence base for the Black Country (Waste Study, 2020). We note that the Sandwell Local Plan Policies Map identifies a ‘Preferred Area of Search’ for new waste facilities, which is a cross boundary area with Dudley borough at Bloomfield Road/Budden Road, Coseley. Whilst it is identified on the Policies Map, it is not listed in Table 13 of the supporting justification text to Policy SWA3 nor in Appendix E (where these sites are listed again). We would welcome clarification that the site is allocated and recommend it is included in the site-specific list of allocations within the SLP. Dudley MBC supports the principle of this allocation as it aligns with the draft Dudley Local Plan allocation detailed in Policy DLP77 and identified on the Policies Map. We would expect any site-specific proposals to take account of cross boundary considerations e.g., highway impacts, as part of the detailed planning application process.
We note that there are several housing allocations proposed within proximity of this preferred area (Bradleys Lane/High Street, Brown Lion Street, and The Boat Gauging House). We would expect these sites to have been assessed in terms of their potential to prejudice any existing and proposed waste operations at this location, taking account of cross boundary allocations and safeguarded sites within Dudley borough.
Policy SMI1- Minerals Safeguarding
Dudley MBC supports the principle of this policy, which is broadly consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP80 Mineral Requirements and Policy DLP81 Mineral Safeguarding. The policy approach also helps to ensure cross boundary consistency in identifying appropriate locations for non-minerals developments which do not prejudice existing minerals-related operations. Dudley MBC will continue to work with Sandwell MBC on cross boundary strategic minerals matters, including via the West Midlands Aggregates Working Group and as part of the production of Local Aggregates Assessments for the West Midlands Metropolitan Area.
Appendix B- Sandwell Site Allocations (Mixed Use Allocation SM2 Lion Farm, Oldbury)
Dudley MBC would welcome further clarification in relation to Mixed Use Allocation SM2 Lion Farm, Oldbury. This represents a major allocation which is in proximity of Dudley borough and has potential cross boundary implications given its scale and current/proposed uses. The site currently provides for 6 sports pitches which have the potential for provide for cross boundary sports provision. The SLP states that appropriate uses are the retention of 6 sport pitches. The ‘Further Information’ text states that a net loss of the pitches could be avoided which is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the borough. We would welcome clarification on whether the existing pitches are to be retained on site or relocated and if this would have any implications for cross boundary provision given the need to protect and enhance pitches across the Black Country. One of the Black Country Overarching Strategic Framework recommendations states the following for Football: Protect existing quantity of pitches, including lapsed and disused provision, until all demand is being met (unless replacement provision meets Sport England requirements and is agreed upon and provided).
The SLP states that the site will provide for 200 homes and 2.3ha of employment land. In respect of the employment land provision, we would welcome clarification if this site is proposed for B class employment use in accordance with SLP Policy SEC1. The site does not appear to be included within the B class employment land totals which are set out at Appendix C to the SLP (and already total the 29ha of vacant land referenced in SLP Policy SEC1). Dudley MBC would have concerns if this site was to be utilised for any large-scale retail development and the potential impact upon our own Tier One and Tier Two centres, plus additional impacts on highways. Any cross-boundary implications in respect of highways impacts should be fully considered. We would welcome confirmation on the specific proposals for the site.
Dudley MBC also notes the proximity of this site to the Edwin Richards Quarry site allocation (SH37). The cumulative impacts of these two allocations in terms of cross boundary infrastructure provision should be considered.

SH3 (SA21) 88-90 Dudley Road West - The proposed allocation for housing would lead to the loss of an existing indoor cricket facility for which para 99 of the NPPF and draft policy SHW5 would apply. No reference is made to mitigating the loss of this existing sports facility or demonstrating it is surplus in accordance with these relevant policies. Sport England therefore objects to the proposed allocation, and would recommend that either the allocation be deleted from the plan, or be revised so as to ensure the sports facility is retained, or that additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation can only come forward subject to addressing the loss of the facility in line with the above policies.

SH9 (SA28) The Phoenix Collegiate, Friar Park Road, Wednesbury - Notwithstanding that the site has an existing outline planning consent for residential development, this is subject to a section 106 agreement to secure mitigation for the loss of existing playing fields. The planning consent whilst still extant has not been implemented. It is important to recognise that the site contains existing playing fields, the loss of which would need to be mitigated in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy and Guidance. As drafted the allocation does not address this and so Sport England raises an objection to the proposed allocation. To address this, the allocation wording should reference the need to mitigate the loss of playing field.

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury - Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed.

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course - The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf.

SH40 (SA94) Langley Swimming Centre, Vicarage Road, Oldbury - This existing Leisure Centre site contains two swimming pools and a health and fitness centre. The facility closed in July 2023 when the Sandwell Aquatics Centre opened for public use. The SAC provides equitable or better facilities in both quantity and quality , and is in a suitable location, in line with para 99 of the NPPF, and so Sport England has no objection to the loss of this site to sport.

SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr - The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies.

SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury - The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. We consider this allocation to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated ambitions, vision and objectives of the Draft Plan, particularly those that seek to improve the health and well-being of Borough's residents. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan.

SH3 (SA21) 88-90 Dudley Road West - The proposed allocation for housing would lead to the loss of an existing indoor cricket facility for which para 99 of the NPPF and draft policy SHW5 would apply. No reference is made to mitigating the loss of this existing sports facility or demonstrating it is surplus in accordance with these relevant policies. Sport England therefore objects to the proposed allocation, and would recommend that either the allocation be deleted from the plan, or be revised so as to ensure the sports facility is retained, or that additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation can only come forward subject to addressing the loss of the facility in line with the above policies.

SH9 (SA28) The Phoenix Collegiate, Friar Park Road, Wednesbury - Notwithstanding that the site has an existing outline planning consent for residential development, this is subject to a section 106 agreement to secure mitigation for the loss of existing playing fields. The planning consent whilst still extant has not been implemented. It is important to recognise that the site contains existing playing fields, the loss of which would need to be mitigated in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy and Guidance. As drafted the allocation does not address this and so Sport England raises an objection to the proposed allocation. To address this, the allocation wording should reference the need to mitigate the loss of playing field.

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury - Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed.

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course - The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf.

SH40 (SA94) Langley Swimming Centre, Vicarage Road, Oldbury - This existing Leisure Centre site contains two swimming pools and a health and fitness centre. The facility closed in July 2023 when the Sandwell Aquatics Centre opened for public use. The SAC provides equitable or better facilities in both quantity and quality , and is in a suitable location, in line with para 99 of the NPPF, and so Sport England has no objection to the loss of this site to sport.

SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr - The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies.

SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury - The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. We consider this allocation to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated ambitions, vision and objectives of the Draft Plan, particularly those that seek to improve the health and well-being of Borough's residents. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan.

SH3 (SA21) 88-90 Dudley Road West - The proposed allocation for housing would lead to the loss of an existing indoor cricket facility for which para 99 of the NPPF and draft policy SHW5 would apply. No reference is made to mitigating the loss of this existing sports facility or demonstrating it is surplus in accordance with these relevant policies. Sport England therefore objects to the proposed allocation, and would recommend that either the allocation be deleted from the plan, or be revised so as to ensure the sports facility is retained, or that additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation can only come forward subject to addressing the loss of the facility in line with the above policies.

SH9 (SA28) The Phoenix Collegiate, Friar Park Road, Wednesbury - Notwithstanding that the site has an existing outline planning consent for residential development, this is subject to a section 106 agreement to secure mitigation for the loss of existing playing fields. The planning consent whilst still extant has not been implemented. It is important to recognise that the site contains existing playing fields, the loss of which would need to be mitigated in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy and Guidance. As drafted the allocation does not address this and so Sport England raises an objection to the proposed allocation. To address this, the allocation wording should reference the need to mitigate the loss of playing field.

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury - Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed.

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course - The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf.

SH40 (SA94) Langley Swimming Centre, Vicarage Road, Oldbury - This existing Leisure Centre site contains two swimming pools and a health and fitness centre. The facility closed in July 2023 when the Sandwell Aquatics Centre opened for public use. The SAC provides equitable or better facilities in both quantity and quality , and is in a suitable location, in line with para 99 of the NPPF, and so Sport England has no objection to the loss of this site to sport.

SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr - The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies.

SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury - The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. We consider this allocation to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated ambitions, vision and objectives of the Draft Plan, particularly those that seek to improve the health and well-being of Borough's residents. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan.

SH3 (SA21) 88-90 Dudley Road West - The proposed allocation for housing would lead to the loss of an existing indoor cricket facility for which para 99 of the NPPF and draft policy SHW5 would apply. No reference is made to mitigating the loss of this existing sports facility or demonstrating it is surplus in accordance with these relevant policies. Sport England therefore objects to the proposed allocation, and would recommend that either the allocation be deleted from the plan, or be revised so as to ensure the sports facility is retained, or that additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation can only come forward subject to addressing the loss of the facility in line with the above policies.

SH9 (SA28) The Phoenix Collegiate, Friar Park Road, Wednesbury - Notwithstanding that the site has an existing outline planning consent for residential development, this is subject to a section 106 agreement to secure mitigation for the loss of existing playing fields. The planning consent whilst still extant has not been implemented. It is important to recognise that the site contains existing playing fields, the loss of which would need to be mitigated in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy and Guidance. As drafted the allocation does not address this and so Sport England raises an objection to the proposed allocation. To address this, the allocation wording should reference the need to mitigate the loss of playing field.

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury - Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed.

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course - The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf.

SH40 (SA94) Langley Swimming Centre, Vicarage Road, Oldbury - This existing Leisure Centre site contains two swimming pools and a health and fitness centre. The facility closed in July 2023 when the Sandwell Aquatics Centre opened for public use. The SAC provides equitable or better facilities in both quantity and quality , and is in a suitable location, in line with para 99 of the NPPF, and so Sport England has no objection to the loss of this site to sport.

SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr - The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies.

SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury - The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. We consider this allocation to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated ambitions, vision and objectives of the Draft Plan, particularly those that seek to improve the health and well-being of Borough's residents. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan.

SH3 (SA21) 88-90 Dudley Road West - The proposed allocation for housing would lead to the loss of an existing indoor cricket facility for which para 99 of the NPPF and draft policy SHW5 would apply. No reference is made to mitigating the loss of this existing sports facility or demonstrating it is surplus in accordance with these relevant policies. Sport England therefore objects to the proposed allocation, and would recommend that either the allocation be deleted from the plan, or be revised so as to ensure the sports facility is retained, or that additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation can only come forward subject to addressing the loss of the facility in line with the above policies.

SH9 (SA28) The Phoenix Collegiate, Friar Park Road, Wednesbury - Notwithstanding that the site has an existing outline planning consent for residential development, this is subject to a section 106 agreement to secure mitigation for the loss of existing playing fields. The planning consent whilst still extant has not been implemented. It is important to recognise that the site contains existing playing fields, the loss of which would need to be mitigated in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy and Guidance. As drafted the allocation does not address this and so Sport England raises an objection to the proposed allocation. To address this, the allocation wording should reference the need to mitigate the loss of playing field.

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury - Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed.

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course - The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf.

SH40 (SA94) Langley Swimming Centre, Vicarage Road, Oldbury - This existing Leisure Centre site contains two swimming pools and a health and fitness centre. The facility closed in July 2023 when the Sandwell Aquatics Centre opened for public use. The SAC provides equitable or better facilities in both quantity and quality , and is in a suitable location, in line with para 99 of the NPPF, and so Sport England has no objection to the loss of this site to sport.

SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr - The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies.

SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury - The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. We consider this allocation to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated ambitions, vision and objectives of the Draft Plan, particularly those that seek to improve the health and well-being of Borough's residents. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan.

SH3 (SA21) 88-90 Dudley Road West - The proposed allocation for housing would lead to the loss of an existing indoor cricket facility for which para 99 of the NPPF and draft policy SHW5 would apply. No reference is made to mitigating the loss of this existing sports facility or demonstrating it is surplus in accordance with these relevant policies. Sport England therefore objects to the proposed allocation, and would recommend that either the allocation be deleted from the plan, or be revised so as to ensure the sports facility is retained, or that additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation can only come forward subject to addressing the loss of the facility in line with the above policies.

SH9 (SA28) The Phoenix Collegiate, Friar Park Road, Wednesbury - Notwithstanding that the site has an existing outline planning consent for residential development, this is subject to a section 106 agreement to secure mitigation for the loss of existing playing fields. The planning consent whilst still extant has not been implemented. It is important to recognise that the site contains existing playing fields, the loss of which would need to be mitigated in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy and Guidance. As drafted the allocation does not address this and so Sport England raises an objection to the proposed allocation. To address this, the allocation wording should reference the need to mitigate the loss of playing field.

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury - Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed.

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course - The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf.

SH40 (SA94) Langley Swimming Centre, Vicarage Road, Oldbury - This existing Leisure Centre site contains two swimming pools and a health and fitness centre. The facility closed in July 2023 when the Sandwell Aquatics Centre opened for public use. The SAC provides equitable or better facilities in both quantity and quality , and is in a suitable location, in line with para 99 of the NPPF, and so Sport England has no objection to the loss of this site to sport.

SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr - The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies.

SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury - The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. We consider this allocation to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated ambitions, vision and objectives of the Draft Plan, particularly those that seek to improve the health and well-being of Borough's residents. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan.

SH3 (SA21) 88-90 Dudley Road West - The proposed allocation for housing would lead to the loss of an existing indoor cricket facility for which para 99 of the NPPF and draft policy SHW5 would apply. No reference is made to mitigating the loss of this existing sports facility or demonstrating it is surplus in accordance with these relevant policies. Sport England therefore objects to the proposed allocation, and would recommend that either the allocation be deleted from the plan, or be revised so as to ensure the sports facility is retained, or that additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation can only come forward subject to addressing the loss of the facility in line with the above policies.

SH9 (SA28) The Phoenix Collegiate, Friar Park Road, Wednesbury - Notwithstanding that the site has an existing outline planning consent for residential development, this is subject to a section 106 agreement to secure mitigation for the loss of existing playing fields. The planning consent whilst still extant has not been implemented. It is important to recognise that the site contains existing playing fields, the loss of which would need to be mitigated in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Field Policy and Guidance. As drafted the allocation does not address this and so Sport England raises an objection to the proposed allocation. To address this, the allocation wording should reference the need to mitigate the loss of playing field.

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury - Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed.

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course - The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf.

SH40 (SA94) Langley Swimming Centre, Vicarage Road, Oldbury - This existing Leisure Centre site contains two swimming pools and a health and fitness centre. The facility closed in July 2023 when the Sandwell Aquatics Centre opened for public use. The SAC provides equitable or better facilities in both quantity and quality , and is in a suitable location, in line with para 99 of the NPPF, and so Sport England has no objection to the loss of this site to sport.

SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr - The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies.

SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury - The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. We consider this allocation to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated ambitions, vision and objectives of the Draft Plan, particularly those that seek to improve the health and well-being of Borough's residents. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Maddox Planning has prepared these representations for Vulcan Property II Limited (Vulcan), in respect of the Sandwell Local Plan 2022-2041 upon which consultation is running until 18 December 2023.

1.2 These representations address the policies and supporting text of the draft Sandwell Local Plan (Regulation 18 stage). The representations are submitted in context with Vulcan land interests at Brades Road, Oldbury. The Vulcan site is included within the Sandwell Local Plan as a proposed residential development allocation (site ref: SH38) following it being put forward as part of an earlier call for sites.

1.3 The call for sites submission of March 2023 is attached at Appendix 1.

1.4 Paragraph 15 of The Framework (2023), states that the planning system should be genuine plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities; and a platform for local people to shape their surroundings

1.5 It is a statutory requirement that a body preparing a development plan publishes its draft development plan document for consultation ahead of submitting that document for independent examination; an examination to assess whether it is sound and legally compliant, alongside whether other statutory requirements are satisfied1. In preparing a development plan document, the body preparing that document must have regard to a number of matters including national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State2.

1.6 Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023), sets out that a plan should:

a) be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development3;
b) be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable;
c) be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between planmakers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees;
d) contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;
e) be accessible through the use of digital tools to assist public involvement and policy presentation; and
f) serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant).

1.7 Paragraph 11 of the Framework (2023) sets out the Government presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that for plan making this means that:

a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas4, unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in
the plan area5; or

1 Section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
2 Section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
3 This is a legal requirement of local planning authorities exercising their plan-making functions (section 39(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)
4 As established through statements of common ground (National Planning Policy Framework September 2023, paragraph 27)
5 The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 181) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 68); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.


2.0 Plan: Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives
2.1 Table 3 of the Sandwell Local Plan sets out priorities, strategic objectives and policies across 16 objectives. Strategic priorities should acknowledge that a function of a development plan is to identify the most appropriate land uses for particular locations and allocate sites accordingly, on the basis of assessed need for new homes and commercial floorspace. The identification of sites proposed for development should have regard to the vision and objectives of a plan, in this instance the strategic priorities and objectives of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, taking account of national policy and guidance and other material considerations and the need to minimise the impact of climate change whilst adapting to its effects and mitigating its current and potential future impacts.

2.2 Objective 6 as part of the Housing that meets all our needs priority, seeks to address Sandwell’s identified and wide-ranging housing need by supporting the provision of high-quality new homes with a wide mix of housing types and tenure that: meet the needs of current and future residents; provide sufficient internal and external space; and support climate change adaption through good design. Objective 6 needs to be explicit that for the achievement of this objective clear housing requirements needs to be articulated, to set a baseline for the housing need that it is planned to be met over the plan period.

2.3 The local authority should have a clear understanding of the land available within their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. Planning policies should then identify a sufficient supple and mix of sites, considering their availability, suitability, and likely economic viability. Objective 6 should explicitly commit to meeting this obligation of identifying sufficient land for homes.

2.4 Objective 7 of the Housing that meets all our needs priority, is to ensure that communities in Sandwell are safe and resilient. This objective is supported.


3.0 Plan: Spatial Strategy
Policy SDS1: Development Strategy

3.1 Policy SDS1 of the Draft Sandwell Local Plan states that at least 11,167 net new homes are to be delivered over the plan period, creating sustainable mixed communities that are supported by adequate infrastructure over the plan period from 2022-2041. The stated annual requirement for Sandwell is 1,567 based on the standard methodology (2022 workplace-based ratio), as detailed in the Sandwell Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) published in October 2023. Over the 19-year plan period this projects a total housing requirement of 29,773. The Sandwell Local Plan therefore reflects a deficit level of provision of 18,606 homes over the plan period. Policy SDS1 should be clear on how the projected provision for net additional homes is arrived at, and what provisions will be taken to ensure that delivery matches projected requirements.

Policy SDS2: Regeneration in Sandwell

3.2 Regeneration Areas as set out within policy SDS2 are the stated focus for new development, regeneration and public and the encouragement of private investment. Subsection 3(e) states that at least 2,581 new homes of mixed type and tenure are to be delivered in the regeneration areas; in sustainable locations well- supported by community services. Sandwell currently has a significant shortfall in housing delivery against Government requirements. It is highly likely that a component of any solution addressing the current housing shortfall will be higher density residential development on brownfield land included within in the identified Regeneration Areas.

Policy SDS4: Achieving Well-Designed Places

3.3 The Sandwell Local Plan discusses that well-designed places should accord with the latest National Planning Guidance and other material considerations. Point 9 of the policy states that a design code will be produced for Sandwell which shall reflect local character and design preferences, providing a framework for creating high-quality places. This approach is supported and in accordance with National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, provided that it incorporates the requisite flexibility necessary to address local market conditions and the impact that these have on development values.


4.0 Plan: Sandwell’s Natural and Historic Environment
Policy SNE2: Protection of Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

4.1 Paragraph 8 (c) of the Framework refers to improving biodiversity and paragraph 174 (d) to providing net gains for biodiversity. Draft policy SNE2(1) states that

‘All development proposals in Sandwell shall deliver a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity value when measured against baseline site information. Where achievable, a higher net gain may be agreed. Losses and gains will be calculated using the extant national Biodiversity Metric…’

4.2 Vulcan agrees with policy SNE2 and reflecting the forthcoming mandatory requirement for a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain across all major development.

Policy SNE1: Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees

4.3 Policy SNE1 (11) includes a blanket statement that

‘Development should be designed around the need to incorporate trees already present on site, using sensitive and well-designed site layouts to maximise their retention’.

There should be acknowledgement that there will not be the justification for the retention of some trees, particularly in the context of poor specimens and wider development benefit. The policy text should be consistent with the Framework (2023), which says planning policies should ensure ‘…that existing trees are retained wherever possible’ (paragraph 131).

4.4 The policy also sets out at SNE1 (9) that

‘…tree planting on new development sites should make a minimum contribution of 20% canopy cover and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across the site, especially in areas where evidence demonstrates that current levels of canopy cover are lower than the local average.’

It is noted that this is based upon the Emergency Tree Plan for the UK – The Woodland Trust 2020 but there is no basis in the Framework (2023) or Planning Practice Guidance for the introduction of blanket thresholds for canopy cover.

The same observation is made in respect of SNE1 (18) and its requirement that

‘…removal of trees, suitable replacement trees must be provided onsite. Where sufficient suitable onsite replacements cannot be provided, off-site planting or woodland enhancement, including support for natural regeneration, in the near vicinity of the removed tree(s) must be provided, in line with the mitigation hierarchy set out in Policy SNE2.’

The requirement for replacement trees and the number to be provided should be the subject of site-by-site assessments, alongside a measured consideration of biodiversity net gain.

Policy SNE6: Canals

4.5 Policy SNE7 is positively written, and Vulcan supports the reference to the canal network being a focus for future development through its ability to deliver a high-quality environment and enhanced accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-car-based modes of transport.

4.6 Policy SNE6(d) refers to development proposals
‘…promoting high quality design, including active frontages onto the canal and improving the public realm...’.
The policy should acknowledge that such aspirations should be pursued where possible. Canalside development also offers the potential for waterfront views particularly from residential properties, and this should be stated in the context of seeking to achieve high-quality urban design and cross- referencing urban design policies.


5.0 Plan: Climate Change
Policy SCC1: Increasing efficiency and resilience

5.1 The Framework sets outs clear guidance on planning for climate change:

‘Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating from rising temperature’6.

5.2 It continues that development plan policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts, such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure. New development should be planned for in a way that avoids increased vulnerability, manages risks and makes best user of location, orientation and design. There is support for the use and supply of low carbon energy, including community-led initiatives.

5.3 Paragraph 157 of the Framework sets out that local planning authorities should expect new development to comply with any development plan policy on decentralised energy supplies, and take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption

5.4 Paragraph 16 of the Framework is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals.

5.5 To provide clarity for applicants, draft policy CC1 should include assessment criteria against which the local planning authority can determine whether a development compliant with its climate change and energy policies in the context of local requirements and site-specific circumstances.

5.6 Whilst the sentiment of maximising opportunity and minimising impact where possible is in the spirit of the guidance provided by the Framework, it does not make for a development plan policy that is easily applied to individual development proposals. The policy is arguably not sound in the absence of prescriptive, unambiguous assessment criteria.

Policy SCC2: Energy Infrastructure

5.6 Draft policy SCC2 sets out that:

‘Any development including ten homes or more, or non-residential floorspace of 1,000m2 or more must include opportunities for decentralised energy provision within the site, unless it can be demonstrated that the development is not suitable, feasible or viable for district heat or decentralised energy networks.’

5.7 Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023) is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous. Draft policy SCC2 is not clear in respect of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that development is not suitable, feasible or viable for district heat or decentralised power networks. Draft policy SCC2 needs to provide clear direction in this regard. It is also without justification why the threshold for compliance is ten units/1,000 sq. m and why there are no further thresholds at greater unit numbers/floorspace, which would allow for proportionate consideration of proposals relative to scale. The draft policy should be revised to remove ambiguity and introduce additional trigger thresholds to ensure that it is sound in the context of being clear and positively prepared.

6 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 153

Policy SSC3: Managing Heat Risk

5.8 Draft policy SCC2 (Energy Infrastructure) sets minimum thresholds for development proposals to which the policy applies. Policy SSC3 is drafted such that it applies to all development proposals without distinction. Whilst all development proposals can be subject to design materials choices in the context of managing heat risk, it is potentially only on larger development sites where there is the potential for layout and orientation choices to have a nearing on heat risk. Similarly, the cooling hierarchy set out in the draft policy is not necessarily appropriate or applicable to all development proposals.

5.9 Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023) is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous. Draft policy SCC3 should be revised such that it is clear for which size/scale of development the draft policy can be reasonably applied and include a clear indication of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that expectations cannot be viably or reasonably met, including in context with the cooling hierarchy. Added clarification is necessary to ensure that the draft policy is sound in the context of it being clear, positively prepared and fit for purpose in seeking to managing in the most effective way heat risk from new development.

Policy SCC4: Flood Risk

5.10 Draft policy SCC4 (13) should be clear on what basis the proposed distance limitations on development that is proximate to an ordinary watercourse are derived. It should also include detailed justification for the proposed limitations, and how the policy text as drafted relates to any local byelaws set under the Land Drainage Act 1991.

Policy SCC5: Sustainable drainage and surface water management (SuDs)

5.11 Paragraph 169 of the Framework states that:

‘Major developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate’. The draft text to Policy SCC5 states that ‘All new developments should incorporate SuDS and all development proposals should provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance, and management of SuDS’.

The proposed policy SCC5 requirement that all new development incorporate SuDS is inconsistent with the Framework and should be amended to meet the test of soundness.

Paragraph 167(c) of the Framework (2023) states the requirement for development proposed in an area at risk of flooding incorporate sustainable drainage systems is also subject to a caveat ‘…unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate’. This should be reflected in the draft development plan policy.

Policy SCC6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

The supporting text to draft policy SSC6 (paragraph 5.59) discusses the requirement that major
5.12 developments achieve a 31% carbon reduction improvement upon the Part L requirement of The Building Regulations 2010 (as amended).

5.13 The supporting text (paragraph 5.62) also includes the caveat, in respect of all new development contributing towards renewable and low carbon energy generation, that it is not practical to provide more than 20% renewable energy generation within a new development.

6.0 Plan: Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell
Policy SHW3: Air Quality

6.1 Paragraph 186 of the Framework (2023) sets out that planning policies should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking in account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clear Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts form individual sites in local areas. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities. Paragraph 188 of the Framework (2023) is clear that the focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes).

6.2 Policy SHW3 includes a blanket statement that new development must be at least air quality neutral. This element of the draft policy does not reflect the Framework or the Planning Practice Guidance, in its blanket approach. The PPG sets out that plans may need to consider:

- what are the observed trends shown by recent air quality monitoring data and what would happen to these trends in light of proposed development and / or allocations;
- the impact of point sources of air pollution (pollution that originates from one place);
- the potential cumulative impact of a number of smaller developments on air quality as well as the effect of more substantial developments, including their implications for vehicle emissions;
- ways in which new development could be made appropriate in locations where air quality is or is likely to be a concern, and not give rise to unacceptable risks from pollution. This could, for example, entail identifying measures for offsetting the impact on air quality arising from new development including supporting measures in an air quality action plan or low emissions strategy where applicable; and
- opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts, such as through traffic and travel management and green infrastructure provision and enhancement7.

6.3 The PPG continues to explain that the test is the impact of proposed development and potential impact on future occupants:

- whether the proposed development could significantly change air quality during the construction and operational phases (and the consequences of this for public health and biodiversity); and whether occupiers or users of the development could experience poor living conditions or health due to poor air quality8.
6.4 A requirement for development being air quality neutral is justified where there are sensitive receptors such that anything other than air quality neutral would be unacceptable or a proposed development would otherwise lead to a deterioration in existing poor air quality. For the policy to pass the test of soundness it should add criteria into its air quality neutral requirement, to set out on what basis such an expectation is justified and how an applicant might demonstrate the acceptability of a development ion circumstances where such a requirement is justified.
Policy SHW4: Open Space and Recreation

6.5 Policy SHW4 states that:

7 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 32-002-20191101- Revision date: 01 11 2019
8 Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 32-005-20191101 - Revision date: 01 11 2019

‘All new housing sites providing over ten units will be expected to contribute towards the provision of unrestricted open space, in line with the standards set out in Appendix K. Where such provision on- site would make a site unviable or where there is no physical capacity to include it, the Council will in exceptional circumstances accept a commuted sum for nearby off-site provision in lieu or for the improvement of existing facilities within walking distance.’

6.6 The policy is rightly targeted at major development proposals but fails to acknowledge that the expectation of contribution to unrestricted open space should be based upon whether there is a demonstrable shortfall locally of unrestricted open space.


7.0 Plan: Sandwell’s Housing
Policy SHO1: Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

7.1 Policy SHO1 discussed that the Sandwell Local Plan will deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022-2041.

7.2 Table 5 discusses the Housing Land Supply for the brough setting out the minimum housing target of the plan period and the key sources of housing land supply. The total from identified sites is 9,080, with the remainder a windfall allowance.

7.3 Policy SHO1 should be clear on how the quoted requirement of net additional homes is arrived at.

Policy SHO3: Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

7.3 Point 4 of policy SHO3 details the appropriate density and where appropriate house type mix, to be sought on each housing allocation site in accordance with minimum densities set out within table 6.

7.4 Policy SHO3 then goes on to discuss that achieving an appropriate density of house type mix is crucial to both the success of each new housing development and the sustainability of the area. This is also in accordance with the Sandwell spatial strategy and national planning guidance which states that housing mix and tenure will reflect local needs.

7.5 Table 7 of policy SHO3 states the New Housing Type and Tenure in Sandwell. Point 7.22 states that

‘‘The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (HMA) 2021 demonstrates that new households generated by 2039 will need the following mix of home tenures and types.’

It continues that it is important for housing provision to reflect the varying needs for each of the four local authorities, as set out in the HMA.

The supporting text to policy SHO3 should be explicit that the table which follows paragraph 7.22 is not setting an expected mix of home tenures and types for all development sites, rather it is presenting the assessed overall requirement for the Sandwell area.

Policy SHO3 should be consistent with policy SHO4 and policy SHO5 and be explicit that the dwelling mix and any mix of tenures will be site specific and subject to a consideration of local needs at the time of a proposed development coming forward.

Policy SHO4: Affordable Housing

7.6 Supported is the acknowledgement in SHO4(1) and SHO4(4) that the range of tenure be provided, and the proportion of any affordable housing should both be dependent upon any affordable housing should both be dependent upon an assessment of financial viability. SHO4 (4) effectively summarises a justifiable position that

‘the tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations.’

However, the reference to a ‘minimum proportion of affordable housing’ to be provided is inconsistent with the earlier stance on viability and potentially ambiguous, given that there will be some sites where no affordable housing is financially viable.

Paragraph 16 of the Framework sets out that development plan policy should be ‘…clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals.’

The inconsistency between dependence upon financial viability and a minimum requirement falls short of being unambiguous. This element potentially fails the test of soundness and is inconsistent with the Framework (2023).

Policy SHO5: Delivering Wheelchair Accessible and Self / Custom Build Housing

7.7 A policy requirement for a minimum proportion of new housing be designed to meet M4(2)/M4(3) standards is unclear and ambiguous in the context of provision also being said to be dependent upon whether this is financially viable. This element fails the test of soundness and is therefore inconsistent with the Framework. Categories M4(2) and M4(3) are optional requirements which local planning authorities can apply through local planning policies where there is an identified local need, and the viability of development is not compromised. M4(2) and M4(3) are optional requirements, as defined in building regulations. An optional requirement only applies where a condition that one or more dwellings should meet the relevant optional requirement is imposed on new development as per the process of granting planning permission. That requirement is rightly policy led, but the policy should be clear that any requirement is dependent upon a demonstrable need and a demonstration that development viability would not be adversely impacted upon.

7.8 Clarity would be provided through reference to NDSS. Paragraph 130(f) of the Framework (2023) refers to creating places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. In doing so, it references NDSS9 stating that:

‘Planning policies for housing should make use of the Government’s optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable housing, where this would address an identified need for such properties. Policies may also make use of the nationally described space standard, where the need for an internal space standard can be justified’

7.9 Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A of the Act to have regard to this and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified demand.

7.10 Policy SHO5 (4) sets out that where there is a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the self- build and custom build register (for the administrative area where a development site is located) at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower.

7.11 Policy SHO5 (4) does not acknowledge that site characteristics might justify self-build/custom build exemption, irrespective of whether there is a current register need. The potential exemption on viability or other grounds of sites from self-build/custom build requirements should be set out clearly in policy SHO5 (4).

9 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – footnote 49


8.0 Plan: Sandwell’s Economy
Policy SEC1: Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs

8.1 Policy SEC1 (4) is concerned with the regeneration of existing employment areas:

‘Within the existing employment areas subject to Policies SEC2, SEC3 and SEC4, the Council will support, with public intervention as necessary, the regeneration and renewal of such areas, including their environmental enhancement and incorporation of sustainable measures to mitigate climate change impacts. Industrial developments will need to demonstrate how they have been designed to maximise resistance and resilience to climate change, as set out in Policy SCC1.’

8.2 SEC1 should acknowledge that the housing policies of the Sandwell Local Plan include existing/former employment sites/areas that are allocated for and transitioning to residential use. Some of the existing/former employment sites/areas being brought forward for housing will be alongside other employment areas being retained in employment use. SEC1 should set out that any proposals for the regeneration or renewal of existing employment areas will be considered in context of the potential impact on neighbouring land uses, both existing and proposed.

Policy SEC3: Local Employment Areas

8.3 Supported is the inclusion of the clarification at SEC3 (3) that not all areas will be suitable for all employment uses. SEC3 should include specific reference to the fact that the housing policies of the Sandwell Local Plan include existing/former employment sites/areas being brought forward for housing will be alongside other employment areas being retained in employment use. SEC3 should set out that any proposals for new uses in local employment areas that require planning permission will be considered in context of the potential impact on neighbouring land uses, both existing and proposed.


9.0 Plan: Transport
Policy STR8: Parking Management

9.1 STR8 (1c) references maximum standards and ‘…ensuring that a consistent approach to maximum parking standards is enforced in new developments as set out in the guidance and standards contained at Appendix L…’ The policy should also reference the Framework (2023) and its support for walking and cycling as set out within paragraph 106(d) where it is clear that planning policies should:

‘…provide for attractive and well-designed walking and cycling networks with supporting facilities such as secure cycle parking (drawing on Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans)…’

9.2 Paragraph 110(c) of the Framework (2023) continues it should be ensured that ‘…the design of streets, parking areas, other transport elements and the content of associated standards reflects current national guidance, including the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code’10.

9.3 Whilst Policy STR8 refers to ‘‘…ensuring that a consistent approach to maximum parking standards is enforced in new development as set out in supplementary planning documents’, paragraph 108 of the Framework (2023) states that:

‘Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network, or for optimising the density of development in city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport...’

Policy STR9: Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

9.4 During 2019, the Department for Transport and Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV) ran a joint consultation on proposals to alter existing residential and non-residential building regulations to include provisions for electric vehicle charging points and associated infrastructure. Government outlined that:

- for proposed new residential buildings with more than 10 associated parking spaces, developers will need to ensure that ducting infrastructure is installed for every parking space;
- for proposed non-residential buildings (and buildings undergoing a major renovation or a material change in use) with more than 10 parking spaces, developers will need to ensure that at least one charge point is installed and ensure that ducting infrastructure is installed for at least 1 in 5 parking spaces; and from 2025, existing non-residential buildings with more than 20 parking spaces will need at least 1 charge point to be installed.

9.5 Policy STR9 states that the UK government has committed to banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030. The Prime Minister had pushed this back to 2035. Despite this, the resultant societal shift from petrol and diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to ULEVs will require widespread support from local authorities. It is projected that there will an addition 42,500 ULEVs within the Black Country by 2025 and a significant proportion of these will be on Sandwell roads.

9.6 Vulcan is supportive of encouraging a move away from fossil fuel vehicles through the introduction of all- electric and hybrid alternatives, as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority commitment to setting a 'net zero' emissions target by 2041, with a climate action plan being approved by the WMCA board in January 2020. This is in part facilitated through amendments to the Building Regulations 2010, and it is suggested that there is no explicit need for policy STR9 given that this is part of the national agenda on sustainability.

9.7 Policy TRAN 8 is also ambiguous in that it refers to new developments including adequate provision for charging infrastructure, without defining what adequate infrastructure means. Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023) sets out that development plan policy should be ‘…clearly written and unambiguous, so it

10 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 110(c) and footnote 46

is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals’. The reference to adequate provision is without clarity. This element fails the test of soundness and is therefore inconsistent with the Framework (2023).


10.0 Plan: Waste
Policy SWA5: Resource Management and New Development

10.1 The requirements of policy SWA5 in respect of minimising waste in new development, re-use of materials following redevelopment and/or remediation and use of alternatives to primary aggregates in construction are couched in terms of as far as possible and wherever possible. Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023) is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous. Draft policy SWA5 should be redrafted with clear targets and the requirements of applicants providing justification for the approaches to waste management and the use construction materials in any given development project

11.0 Plan: Development Management
Policy SDM1: Design Quality

11.1 The approach of the Sandwell Local Plan to design quality should accord with the Framework (2023) guidance (paragraphs 126 to 136). Policy should be clear about design expectations and how proposals will be tested against policy, having regard to national guidance and other material considerations. The references to the National Design Guide11, Manual for Streets12, NDSS13, Building for a Healthy Life14 and accordance with agent of change principles15 are noted but Sandwell should prepare design guides and/or design codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, and which reflect local character and design preferences. If these are to follow as supplementary planning documents, given the reference to local housing design SPDs for new housing developments, then the draft development plan policy should be explicit in this regard.

11.2 Policy SDM1 should provide clarity over what development proposals should address within design and access statements, within the Sandwell-specific context:

a. ‘the ten characteristics of the National Design Guide, to provide a high-quality network of streets, buildings and spaces;
b. the principles of Manual for Streets, to ensure urban streets and spaces provide a high-quality public realm and an attractive, safe and permeable movement network;
c. use of the Building for a Healthy Life criteria (or subsequent iterations) and Sandwell's local housing design codes, masterplans and guidance for new housing developments, to achieve high design standards, good place-making and sustainable development;
d. crime prevention measures, Secured by Design and Park Mark principles and the requirements of Part Q of the Building Regulations 2010 or any successor legislation;
e. the agent of change principle, in relation to existing uses adjacent to proposed development sites.’



11 MHCLG National Design Guide – published 1 October 2019/last updated 30 January 2021
12 CIHT Manual for Streets (2007) and Manual for Streets 2 (2010)
13 MHCLG Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard published 27 March 2015
14 Birkbeck D and Kruczkowski S et al (2020) Building for a Healthy Life
15 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 187

12.0 Plan: Sandwell Site Allocations
12.1 The inclusion of Brades Road, Oldbury as a proposed site allocation (site reference: SH38) is fully supported by Vulcan for the reasons set out in the March 2023 call for sites submission attached at Appendix 1. The site is clearly consistent with the Government agenda of brownfield first and maximising development within areas with high sustainability credentials that are accessible by a choice of means of transport.

12.2 Vulcan also fully supports the inclusion of adjoining land on Dudley Road East (site reference: SH21) for the same reasons.

12.3 The estimates shortfall of 18,606 homes over the period to be covered by the Sandwell Local Plan indicates very strongly that Sandwell will have to look to high density solution within the plan area. There is potential for Brades Road to come forward earlier in the plan period than 2033 and there is justification for it being identified for delivery earlier in the housing trajectory. The significant shortfall in housing provision over the plan period and the uncertainty over housing numbers to be provided out of area through ‘duty to co-operate’ suggests very strongly that sites that are suitable and available should be identified as coming forward earlier in the housing trajectory, where there is potential for this to happen. There is good reason to expect that delivery out of area will be skewed to the latter stages of the Sandwell Local Plan period, given that those neighbouring authorities will justifiably prioritise meeting their own housing requirements. This suggests that there is good reason to front-load the proportion of new homes delivered within the Sandwell area, where there is evidence that sites are available and deliverable.

12.4 Brades Road is potentially available in the shorter-term, and earlier delivery than 2033 is possible.


13.0 Conclusions
13.1 Vulcan reserves the right to change, add to or withdraw representations made on the draft Sandwell Local Plan 2023-2041 and at this stage intends to take part in the future examination of the Plan.

13.2 Vulcan is fully supportive of the inclusion of the Brades Road site within the allocated sites as a residential allocation.

13.3 The key benefits that weigh heavily in favour of the proposed allocation are:

- Delivery of homes on a sustainable site, helping to meet local housing need in the context of persistent past under delivery, a lack of a demonstrable five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and a generally bleak housing land supply position locally;
- Brownfield regeneration of a life-expired employment site;
- The potential for a masterplan-led design alongside other housing regeneration sites;
- Significant public benefits through significant canal environment improvements; and
- Other wider community benefits.

Proposed development sites crossed or in close proximity to NGET assets:

Following a review of the above Development Plan Document, we have identified that one or more proposed development sites are crossed or in close proximity to NGET assets. Details of the sites affecting NGET assets are provided below.

Development Plan Document Site Reference
SEC1-9 Roway Lane, Oldbury - VT ROUTE TWR (019 - 036): 400Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: KITWELL - OCKER HILL

SEC1-7 Site of Bilport Lane, Wednesbury - VT ROUTE TWR (001A - 016): 400Kv

SM2 (SA-199) Lion Farm, Oldbury - YJ ROUTE: 275Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: KITWELL - OCKER HILL 275Kv Underground Cable route: KITWELL 275KV S/S

70-74 Crankhall Lane - VT ROUTE TWR (001A - 016): 400Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: BERKSWELL - OCKER HILL

A plan showing details of the site locations and details of NGET assets is attached to this letter. Please note that this plan is illustrative only.

Without appropriate acknowledgement of the NGET assets present within the site, these policies should not be considered effective as they cannot be delivered as proposed; unencumbered by the constraints posed by the presence of NGET infrastructure.

We propose modifications to the above site allocations and/or policies to include wording to the following effect:

SEC1-9 Roway Lane, Oldbury
“The development will be developed with the following site-specific criteria.

A strategy for responding to the NGET overhead transmission lines present within the site which demonstrates how the NGET Design Guide and Principles have been applied at the masterplanning stage and how the impact of the assets has been reduced through good design.”

Please see attached information outlining further guidance on development close to NGET assets.

NGET also provides information in relation to its assets at the website below.

• https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/network-and-infrastructure/network-route-maps

Utilities Design Guidance

The increasing pressure for development is leading to more development sites being brought forward through the planning process on land that is crossed by NGET infrastructure.

NGET advocates the high standards of design and sustainable development forms promoted through national planning policy and understands that contemporary planning and urban design agenda require a creative approach to new development around high voltage overhead lines and other NGET assets.

Therefore, to ensure that Policy SDS1 Development Strategy is consistent with national policy we would request the inclusion of a policy strand such as:

“p. take a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to development including respecting existing site constraints including utilities situated within sites.”

Further Advice

NGET is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning their networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us.

1. Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives

The ten ambitions for a successful Sandwell as set out in the Sandwell Vision 2030 continue to represent a set of aspirations to which the waterway network can successfully contribute, particularly:

- Ambition 1 (delivering strong policy support to combatting climate change adaptation and mitigation; and protecting and enhancing the natural environment, nature conservation and open spaces; and delivering opportunities for biodiversity net gain, landscaping and tree planting)
- Ambition 2 (protecting, enhancing and making accessible land for sport and leisure including active and passive recreation; and providing clear policy support for development aimed to deliver health and welfare infrastructure)
- Ambition 5 (promoting the development and improvement of attractive, safe and accessible public realm, support services and community infrastructure as part of new development and project delivery)
- Ambition 6 (delivering a co-ordinated and strategic travel and transport network through Sandwell that links communities to opportunities both within and beyond its boundaries, supported by appropriate planning policies and land use designations), and,
- Ambition 8 (promoting and supporting sustainable development that helps to meet local need/demand; and providing for sufficient services and facilities in locations accessible to all in Sandwell's communities.)

As such the Trust endorses the Sandwell Local Plan Vision 2041 and its emphasis on tackling climate change, and the promotion of the natural and historic environments, active and passive recreation and leisure opportunities, access to district and low-cost energy and heating projects, delivery of sustainable drainage, and emphasis on active and sustainable travel opportunities. In particular we support and acknowledge our allied role in delivering a number of the draft Plan’s key priorities and objectives under the headings of:

- Climate Change (notably Objective 1: Ensure new development takes a proactive approach to climate change mitigation, adaptation and carbon reduction, and that development is resilient to climate change, and Objective 2: Deliver sustainable development in locations where people can access jobs and services, delivering wider positive social and economic outcomes and protecting and enhancing local built and natural environments)
- Enhancing our natural environment (notably Objective 3: To protect and enhance Sandwell's natural environment, natural resources, biodiversity, wildlife corridors geological resources, countryside and landscapes, whilst ensuring that residents have good access to interlinked green infrastructure)
- Enhancing our historic environment (notably Objective 4: To protect, sustain and enhance the quality of the historic built environment, ensuring the retention of distinctive and attractive places and beautiful buildings, including listed parks, scheduled monuments and their settings, and Objective 5: To manage and maintain the wider historic environment across Sandwell, including parks and gardens, areas of industrial heritage value, sites of geological and archaeological interest and locally listed buildings, structures and historic assets)
- Improving the Health and Wellbeing of residents and promoting social inclusion (notably Objective 10: To provide a built and natural environment that supports the making of healthier choices through provision for physical activity and recreation, active travel, encouraging social interaction and discouraging harmful behaviours; Objective 11: Ensure new development and open spaces support health and wellbeing for all, reduce health inequalities and encourage active and healthy lifestyles, and Objective 12: To provide a built and natural environment that protects health and wellbeing through minimising pollution (air, noise and other forms), providing healthy homes, reducing the negative health effects of climate change and providing streets safe for active travel, and low emission travel for all)
- Good Design (notably Objective 13: Require new development to deliver a high standard of design reflecting local character and distinctiveness and that creates greener and safer places that people feel proud to live and work in)

- Promoting sustainable transport and active travel (notably Objective 16: To prioritise sustainable and active travel and seek to improve transport infrastructure to ensure efficient and sustainable accessibility within an integrated network), and,
- Meeting our resource and infrastructure needs (notably Objective 18: Ensure development is supported by essential infrastructure and services and promotes safe movement and more sustainable modes of travel through promoting greener travel networks for walking, cycling and public transport)

2. Spatial Strategy

2.18 The Trust endorses the ‘key issues addressed in the SLP’ as including Nature Conservation; Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain; Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows; Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country; Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark; Canals; The protection and enhancement of designated and undesignated heritage assets; and, Rejecting poor design.

2.30 As such we acknowledge the approach of Balanced Green Growth in forming the basis of the Sandwell Local Plan's Development Strategy (Policy SDS1). However, the Trust requests that our canal network be included within Figure 2 - Sandwell Spatial Map so that the contribution our network makes towards the delivery of Sandwell’s Spatial Strategy and overall Sandwell Local Plan Vision 2041 can be fully appreciated and realised by citizens and developers alike. (ACTION REQUEST)

3. Development Strategy

As set out within our response to the Issues and Options consultation the Trust welcomes the retention and enhancement of a canal-specific policy (Policy SNE6) within the Reg 18 SLP and as such does not seek the addition of replica canal-specific wording within every other relevant policy wording within the SLP. However, where specified we request cross-referencing to Policy SNE6 as identified in the requests below as a means of identifying the needs and opportunities of the waterway network in delivering Sandwell’s vision.

Specifically, the Trust notes Policy SDS2 – Regeneration in Sandwell and the extent to which the Dudley Port and Tipton, Wednesbury and Smethwick Regeneration Areas interact with the canal network. The Trust welcomes mention of our network within both policy wording and justification text for these areas and requests continued engagement through existing (e,g, Smethwick-Birmingham Corridor Framework and Rolfe Street Masterplans) and newer stakeholder engagement groups and the implementation and development of associated Supplementary Planning Documents resulting throughout the plan period (ACTION REQUEST).

Placemaking – achieving well-designed places

The Trust requests incorporation of cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the justification text to Policy SDS4 - Achieving Well-designed Places, for example at para 3.64, to reflect the role active incorporation of the canal network can have in delivering good design, well-being, and sustainable travel and the need to take the canal into account when designing new development near it (ACTION REQUEST).

We believe protection and enhancement of the canal network through design, layout and integration into developments should always be an expectation for canal-side sites, as this is consistent with the NPPF chapters on design and the historic environment and the National Design Guide on integrating nature and public spaces. The avoidance of fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour reduction can also be achieved through the use of good design techniques. Future local Design Codes can also provide developers with detailed guidance encouraging high quality design, following on from the principles advocated within the National Design Guide and Design

Code. Given the importance and extent of canals within the borough such codes will need to address waterside developments specifically and various key design principles for successful canal-side developments could be outlined within them, including creating activation with the canal, natural surveillance and appropriate landscaping. The Trust requests consultation on any local design codes which are to be developed (ACTION REQUEST). We acknowledge that positive place-making next to a canal, waterway or water body is often site-specific on a case- by-case basis, and therefore early consultation with the Trust is recommended to receive guidance on the best approach to achieving good design. This could be through stakeholder-led master planning approaches or through individual pre-application engagements. The Trust requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and can also encourage developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-were- interested-in/pre-application-advice (ACTION REQUEST)

Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy

The Trust welcomes inclusion of the canals within both Policy SDS5 - Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy and its justification text.

Green and Blue Infrastructure

The Trust welcomes inclusion of the canals within Policy SDS7 - Green and Blue Infrastructure in Sandwell and its introductory and justification texts. We also request partner engagement with the Council in the forthcoming preparation, adoption and implementation of a Green Infrastructure Strategy as identified in Policy SDS5 sub- section 1a.

The Trust reiterates its Issues and Options advice in relation to Green Infrastructure improvements, “There are opportunities for developers and other agencies to contribute towards further GI improvements through a variety of mechanisms, such as developer contributions through the planning process, corporate partnerships https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate/partner-with-us/corporate-partnerships or adopting a section of canal https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate/partner-with-us/volunteering-in-partnership . Improvements could also be made through the design of canal-side developments providing open space and landscaping adjacent to the waterside. Any future policy should acknowledge such opportunities and will need to set out the requirements for GI developer contributions consistent with para 34 of the NPPF.

GI Improvements could also be made through the provision of recreation facilities for use by the public. In the context of the canal network this could range from paddle craft launching provision and fishing pegs, including wheelchair accessible pegs, to larger visitor attractions, such as at the Roundhouse (albeit not an example within Sandwell), which provides for guided tours, visitors centre with exhibitions, events, and a café within a canal-side Grade II* Listed Building.

The Plan should recognise that GI improvement opportunities can come about through future development providing a policy framework for securing improvements whether that be through the design and layout of a site, through financial contributions or other means. It is also important to acknowledge that the quality of GI is dependent on its ongoing maintenance, which should be addressed in policy and considered early on at the design stage, to ensure it continues to provide benefits for users.”

4. Sandwell's Natural and Historic Environment

Nature Conservation

This section contains a number of policies in relation to Nature Conservation (SNE1), Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats (SNE2 including Biodiversity net gain, Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy, and Local opportunities for habitats and wildlife); Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands, And Hedgerows (SNE3); Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark (SNE4); and The Rowley Hills (SNE5).

In relation to Policy SNE2 – Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats the Trust considers that the value of the canal network to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) will manifest itself as the implementation of BNG gains traction in 2024 and beyond. For example, canals are part of the local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and as such will provide an increasing value and essential role in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Canals more broadly play a crucial role within Sandwell for nature conservation and provide large populations of urban dwellers with access to nature. As such Sandwell's canals should be recognised for the crucial role they facilitate in priority species movements and recovery through the West Midlands.

More specifically, and as an example, the Great Canal Orchard project potentially includes spaces for BNG orchards both as pockets and linear habitats along the canal, incorporated into developments where national priority habitats are not already present. Orchard trees also provide air quality improvements, a role in flood prevention, shade for climate adaption, free healthy fruit resources for communities, and potential for green economy gain if scaled up. Species recovery strategies under the Environment Act 2021 consider species of importance for Sandwell to include water vole, otter and soprano pipistrelle bats along canal corridors. As commented elsewhere in this response, water quality should be protected and improved, air quality must be protected from degradation and more broadly improved, and dark corridors should be protected from light pollution where these protected species are present, or could be recoverable.

Accordingly, we seek on-going engagement in the evolution of BNG-related policy wording throughout the plan preparation stages over 2024, including Examination stages (ACTION REQUEST)

Canals in Sandwell – SNE6

The Trust welcomes the inclusion of canal-specific Policy SNE6 – Canals within the draft plan, and further that it enhances the previous ENV4 policy wording within the adopted Black Country Core Strategy. In particular, clear reference has been added in relation to the importance of assessing impact on structural integrity, maintaining opportunity for canal restoration, and in identifying the role the canal network can play in delivering good design. We further welcome mention of delivery of integrated sustainable travel through towpath and way-faring enhancements. In relation to design quality, the canal network presents also opportunities for positive placemaking and the reduction of anti-social behaviour.

In terms of additions the Trust requests the following:

- Amend ‘reinstate and/or upgrade towpaths,’ to ‘reinstate, introduce and/or upgrade towpaths and access points’ within sub-heading 2(g)
- Add ‘To be delivered through the reasonable use of planning conditions or S106/CIL obligations’ to the end of 2(g)
- Add 2(h) for ‘use of canals for surface water management purposes, provided that SuDS and other mitigation measures are built into a scheme’
- Add into 3(a), “and delivery of the wider well-being agenda”
- Include an additional sub-section specifying, ‘Facilitate continued access to Trust assets for inspection and maintenance purposes’
- In relation to Residential Moorings, add to 10 that moorings also should not be permitted near existing uses which currently give rise to adverse amenity impacts, noise for example, in accordance with ‘agent of change’ principles
- The justifying text on 4.101 should identify that the assessment of ‘all necessary boating facilities’ should consider bin storage, collection and waste disposal, water and power supplies, and car parking provision

on a case-by-case basis to allow greater flexibility in relation to site-specific needs. Para 4.101 should also state that need for parking and access requirements for residential moorings is to be assessed against other relevant SLP policies and SLP car parking standards on a case-by-case basis.
- The justification text within 4.102 and 4.103 should state that the identified Trust and non-Trust residential mooring sites may not remain in existence for the whole duration of the Plan until 2041, and up-to-date statistics for our own moorings are available from us on request. (ACTION REQUEST)

The Historic Environment

This section includes a number of policies in relation to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (SHE1), Development in the Historic Environment (SHE2), Locally Listed Buildings (SHE3), and Archaeology (SHE4).

In particular the Trust welcomes mention of ‘the canal network and its associated infrastructure, surviving canal- side pre-1939 buildings and structures, and archaeological evidence of the development of canal-side industries and former canal routes’ within SHE2 5e. Similarly, we welcome the addition of Chances Glassworks, Smethwick Engine Arm Aqueduct, and Smethwick Engine House within the list of Scheduled Ancient Monuments within Sandwell and acknowledges the protection afforded to them under SNE4 - Archaeology.

The Trust also requests cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the justification text to this section of the Policy SHE2 – Development in the Historic Environment, to reflect the role of canal network can have in conserving locally distinctive historic aspects of Sandwell, both designated and non-designated (ACTION REQUEST).

5. Climate Change

This section contains a number of policies in relation to Increasing efficiency and resilience (SCC1), Energy Infrastructure (SCC2), Managing Heat Risk (SCC3), Flood Risk (SCC4), Sustainable drainage and surface water management (SCC5), and Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards (SCC6).

The Trust notes that retrofitting is only briefly mentioned in Section 5, para 5.15, of the justification text to Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience, namely: ‘where possible and appropriate, the retrofitting of residential and other properties to achieve higher standards of energy and water efficiency will be encouraged and supported.’ The Trust considers that for a high proportion of heritage property stock, as well as modern up to the early 21st century stock (prior to BREEAM standards), retrofitting will be the substantial mainstay for making a property energy efficient and sustainable. The design and installation of solar panels, heat source pumps and triple glazing etc., their position on a building or location on site can be significantly detrimental, and risks degrading a building that makes a positive contribution through its architectural attributes or local distinctiveness. Accordingly, we request that para 5.15 be augmented to reflect this reality and to require that development proposals ensure that the chosen approach considers any consequential visual impacts on the canals' setting, heritage significance, or amenity value. (ACTION REQUEST). Reference is also drawn to advice contained within Historic England Advice Notes, in particular that to be found within the HEAN on Heat Pumps within Historic Buildings (2023) ( https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/find/latest-guidance/ )

The Trust welcomes mention of the canals as a potential component of heat risk management within Policy SCC3 – Managing Heat Risk, and associated text within para 5.43.

Given the increasing susceptibility of the historic canal network to climate change stress the Trust welcomes the inclusion of ‘there is an extensive canal network throughout the Sandwell area, including culverts and feeder streams’ within 5.48 of the justification text to Flood Risk Policy SCC4. Given this we request that Canal and River

Trust are listed within the bodies to be consulted on site-specific requirements within sub-section 16 of SCC4 and that citizens and developers can access our open source mapping data to identify our assets here:

https://data-canalrivertrust.opendata.arcgis.com/ (ACTION REQUEST).

The Trust also considers that a similar list of bodies to be consulted should be included within the policy text for Policy SCC5 - Sustainable drainage and surface water management, and that Canal and River Trust be listed within them given the risk of polluting ground and surface water to our network, and other watercourse, from the ‘legacy of contaminated land created by heavy industry and extractive activities in Sandwell’ identified in para
5.56 (ACTION REQUEST).

The Trust reiterates its Issues and Options stage advice in relation to flood risk and surface water management, “Subject to the Trust’s owner agreement to technical and commercial details, surface water can potentially be sustainably discharged to the canal network. Water levels in the canal network are managed by the Trust using control structures such as weirs and sluices to maintain a suitable depth for navigation by boats, but also to try to avoid water levels becoming too high in periods of heavy rainfall where runoff from hard surfaces can lead to excess water passing into the canals. Given this, surface water discharge to canals can be a highly effective way of managing local surface water flood risk and may allow development of sites that would otherwise not be viable due to concerns with alternative site drainage options.

SUDs adjacent to or connecting to canals will need to be maintained to ensure they function as they were designed to and do not cause pollution or excess flows. In the interests of local flood risk management and the protection of water quality, where a site proposes SUDs, this system should be designed in a way that if it were to fail the canal would not be inundated with water.

In many areas canals will also provide developers with opportunities to dispose of surface water drainage, noting that drainage to surface water bodies, such as canals is higher up the drainage hierarchy than discharge to sewers and drains. With the right investment they could also play a role in some places in mitigating flood risks. Accordingly, canals as an option for surface water drainage should be listed within forthcoming drainage policies provided that SuDS and appropriate pollution control and mitigation measures are built into the development scheme.”

Finally, the Trust welcomes inclusion of our network within Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards sub-section 5 and justification text para 5.61 in relation to the potential for use of our network for water-source heat pumps.

6. Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell

This section contains a number of policies in relation to Health Impact Assessments (SHW1), Healthcare Infrastructure (SHW2), Air Quality (SHW3), Open Space and Recreation (SHW4), Playing Fields and Sports Facilities (SHW5), and Allotments (SHW6),

Given our request above that the canal network’s contribution to the broader well-being agenda be explicitly included with the wording of Policy SNE6 - Canals in Sandwell, the Trust requests the incorporation of cross- referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the introductory text to this section, for example after para 6.11. (ACTION REQUEST).

In relation to Air Quality the Trust welcomes the inclusion of ‘Emissions from Construction Sites’ within the wording of policy SHW3 (sub-section 7) as this aligns to our regular requests for Construction and Environmental Management Plans within our statutory consultation responses to planning applications.

The Trust also welcomes mention of canal corridors within para 6.50 of the justification text for Policy SHW4– Open Space and Recreation and the restoration of towpaths as a component of enhancing green networks through the mechanisms of planning conditions and obligations.

7. Sandwell's Housing

The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Housing need and supply policies and allocated sites can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals in Sandwell (as requested amendments above refer). However, inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly, ideally at pre-application stage. The Trust therefore requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-were- interested-in/pre-application-advice (ACTION REQUEST).

See also comments on Appendix B below.

In relation to towpath improvement aspirations the Trust has identified the Tame Valley Canal, Walsall Canal and the Old Wednesbury Canal as priority areas for upgrading over the plan period, and will seek to request Section 106/CIL monies from appropriate schemes where they arise in proximity to these stretches of the network.

The Trust also advises that it has some specific critical assets within the Sandwell area such as Spouthouse Embankment, Titford Pools feeder, and Netherton Tunnel which will require careful assessment of allocations for impact and mitigation under the provisions of SNE6 – Canals, particularly in relation to matters of land stability and infrastructure maintenance, cross-referenced with historic coal mining activity within Sandwell.

8. Sandwell’s Economy

The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Economy policies and allocated sites can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). However, inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly, ideally at pre- application stage. The Trust requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-were- interested-in/pre-application-advice (ACTION REQUEST).

See also comments on Appendix C below.

9. Sandwell's Centres and 10. West Bromwich

The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Centres policies and allocated sites can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). However,

inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly, ideally at pre- application stage. The Trust requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-were- interested-in/pre-application-advice (ACTION REQUEST).

See also comments on Appendix D below.

11. Transport

The Section contains a number of polices in relation to transportation, including the promotion of active and sustainable travel through modal shift. The canal network can provide robust opportunities for promotion of these agendas and the Trust welcomes the inclusion of the canal network within sub-section 3 of Policy STR5 – Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking. However, the Trust requests inclusion of the canal network within Figure 13 - Transport Key Diagram, overlaying with cycle and walking networks, to enable its role in the delivery of sustainable transport and modal shift to be more readily identified in conjunction with the implementation of Policy STR5 – Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking (ACTION REQUEST).

Similarly, the Trust welcomes mention of encouragement of use of the waterways within sub-section 1 of Policy STR4 – The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics as a sustainable alternative to road-based freight movement.

12. Infrastructure and Delivery

The Trust welcomes mention of the potential for use of canal towpaths for the provision of 5G network infrastructure within sub-section 3d of Policy SID1 - Promotion of Fibre to the Premises and 5G Networks and requests additional wording as follows, ‘To be delivered through the reasonable use of planning conditions or S106/CIL obligations.’ (ACTION REQUEST).

13. Minerals and Waste

The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Minerals and Waste policies and allocated sites (identified as being preferentially within Local Employment Sites) can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). However, inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly. The Trust therefore requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-were- interested-in/pre-application-advice (ACTION REQUEST).

See also comments on Appendix E and Appendix F below.

14. Development Constraints and Industrial Legacy

The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Development Constraints and Industrial Legacy policies can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). Accordingly, we request the incorporation of cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the introductory text to this section, for example after para 14.5. or more specifically in the justification texts for Policies SCO2 - Pollution Control and Policy SCO3 - Land contamination and instability (ACTION REQUEST).

Similarly, we request para 14.17 of the justification text lists potential receptors of light pollution impact and includes the canal network within that list. (ACTION REQUEST).

15. Development Management

The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Development Management policies can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). Accordingly, we request the incorporation of cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the introductory text to this section, or more specifically in the justification texts for Policy SDM1 – Design Quality, Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards, and Policy SDM3 – Tall Buildings and Gateway Sites.

In relation to design quality, the canal network also presents opportunities for positive placemaking and the reduction of anti-social behaviour as commented on above in relation to Policy SDS4 - Achieving Well-designed Places.

In relation to tall buildings and gateway sites the Trust requests that Policy SDM3 – Tall Buildings and Gateway Sites sub-heading 5(c) specify that this relates to both designated and non-designated heritage assets (ACTION REQUEST). The associated justification text should also contain reference to the need for impact of tall buildings within typically lower height profile canal environments to be a material consideration, to enable assessment of impact on the prevailing visual environment and character of the canal network (ACTION REQUEST).

Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

The Trust requests opportunity to engage with the Council on an on-going basis throughout the plan period to secure the benefits to the canal network envisaged by the Plan’s suite of policies (ACTION REQUEST).

Furthermore, the Trust notes that use, delivery and monitoring of Section 106 and CIL payments is not included within the policy wording and queries its absence (ACTION REQUEST).

APPENDIX A – Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

The Trust seeks to maintain engagement with the Council on the evolution of BNG delivery within Sandwell in its forthcoming formative roll-out stages (2024/25) and thereafter on an implementation basis throughout the plan period (ACTION REQUEST).

APPENDIX B - Sandwell Site Allocations

SH7 - The Boat Gauging House and adjoining land, Factory Road, Tipton – development proposals should have particular regard to the heritage assets on site in scale, form and impact on character

SH14 - Langley Maltings, Western Road, Langley – development proposals should have full regard to adjacent heritage assets in scheme layout, design and appearance

SH19 - Land at Horseley Heath, Alexandra Road, and Lower Church Lane, Tipton – development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the nature conservation needs of the SLINC

SH21 - Dudley Road East, Oldbury – development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the nature conservation needs of the adjacent SINC

SH30 - Land to east of Black Lake, West Bromwich - development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the nature conservation needs of the adjacent SINC

SH35 - Rattlechain site - land to north of Temple Way, Tividale – development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the land contamination, water quality and land stability issues arising from this site

SH36 - Land between Addington Way and River Tame, Temple Way (Rattlechain) – comments as SH35 above

SH41 - North Smethwick Canalside – development proposals where adjacent to the canal should pay full regard to Smethwick-Birmingham Corridor Framework (2022) and the Rolfe Street Masterplan (2023)

SH53–58 – various sites within the Part of Grove Lane Masterplan – comments as SH41 above

SM1 - Chances Glass Works, Land west of Spon Lane, north of Palace Drive – development proposals should have particular regard to the heritage assets on site in scale, form and impact on character

APPENDIX C – Employment Allocations – vacant land

SEC1-10 - Brandon Way/ Albion Road - development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the land stability issues of the canal


APPENDIX D – West Bromwich Masterplan and Carter's Green Framework Plan

The Trust has no comment to make on these proposals.

APPENDIX E – Strategic Waste Sites

The Trust notes the identification of the existing Strategic Waste Sites within the Black Country authorities, (rather than just Sandwell) and raises no additional comments subject to statutory consultation on any forthcoming planning applications on any of these sites within our notified areas, and assessment in line with the emerging Policy SNE6 - Canals (for any sites within Sandwell) if applicable.

APPENDIX F – Minerals

The Trust notes the identification of existing Key Mineral Infrastructure sites and raises no additional comments

subject to statutory consultation on any forthcoming planning applications on any of these sites within our notified areas, and assessment in line with the emerging Policy SNE6 – Canals, for sites within Sandwell, if applicable.

APPENDIX G – Site allocations - changes

The Trust notes the changes in allocations, largely from housing to employment uses, and raises no additional comments subject to statutory consultation on any forthcoming planning applications on any of these sites within our notified areas, and assessment in line with the emerging Policy SNE6 - Canals.

It is noted that in principle some employment uses may give rise to additional assessment needs and mitigation requirements in relation to operational pollution control e.g. air and water quality.

APPENDIX H – Rowley Hills

The Trust has no comments to make on the proposed Extent of Strategic Open Space Designation.

APPENDIX I – Sandwell Local Plan Housing Trajectory

The Trust has no comments to make.

APPENDIX J – Sandwell Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy (extract)

The Trust has no comments to make.

APPENDIX K – Open space and play provision standards for development

The Trust has no additional comments to make on the proposed standards.

APPENDIX L – Transportation Policy

The Trust has no comments to make on the proposed parking standards.

APPENDIX M – Glossary

The Trust has no comments to make on the proposed definitions.

On behalf of Chance Heritage Trust (CHT), we welcome the opportunity to submit representations to the Draft Regulation 18 Sandwell Local Plan Consultation in respect of the Chance Brothers Glassworks, Smethwick (‘the Site’).

CHT aims to enrich the community of Sandwell through the restoration and protection of buildings and assets of cultural and heritage importance and aims to provide the advancement of education concerning the social, economic and architectural history and heritage of the buildings in the area. The overarching vision of the Trust is to regenerate two significant sites within Sandwell, the Soho Foundry and Mint, and the Chance Glassworks, which are subject of two separate representations. Their aim is to protect and celebrate the highly significant industrial heritage of the area and to act as a beacon of hope and create a new vibrant, urban community generating employment, training, learning and leisure opportunities for all. Because CHT is a community-owned and led organisation, the community is at the heart of these large scale urban regeneration schemes

The Chance and Soho Foundry and Mint sites are key regeneration sites within Sandwell, identified within the Sandwell Regeneration Strategy 2022-2027 as priority projects to become places to be “revived for modern uses”, with an expected delivery date of 2027. The Site supports significant heritage assets that are in a state of disrepair and their maintenance and up-keep can only be delivered by a comprehensive redevelopment of the Site.

The CHT have previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council, to support the regeneration of the Chance Glassworks and Soho Foundry sites. This demonstrates the commitment at a senior Council level to the regeneration of these important sites and CHT are pleased to see this reflected in the emerging policy position for the Chance Glassworks site.

It is clear that the existing adopted policy has not worked in bringing about the regeneration of these assets, therefore CHT are grateful that the Council have recognised that a shift in policy is imperative to prevent the ongoing decay and safeguard this unique site for future generations, and have provided the site with a bespoke allocation that reflects the aspirations of the Vision Document shared with the Council as part of the previous Issues and Options consultation.

CHT considers that the emerging policy in this regard accords with Paragraph 122 and 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by adapting the policy position to reallocate land and setting a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the heritage assets on the Chance Glassworks site, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.

The Chance Heritage Trust wish to see the sensitive, heritage-led regeneration of the Chance Glassworks Site remain a priority for Sandwell Council throughout the Local Plan process. The proposals will continue to be shaped by extensive engagement with the Local Planning Authority and other key stakeholders.

On behalf of Chance Heritage Trust (‘CHT’), Iceni submit representations to the Draft Regulation 18 Sandwell Local Plan Consultation in respect of the Soho Foundry and Mint, Smethwick (referred to as ‘the site’, identified in Figure 1 below).

CHT aims to enrich the community of Sandwell through the restoration and protection of buildings and assets of cultural and heritage importance and aims to provide the advancement of education concerning the social, economic and architectural history and heritage of the buildings in the area. The overarching vision of the Trust is to regenerate two significant sites within Sandwell, the Soho Foundry and Mint, and the Chance Glassworks, which are subject of two separate representations. Their aim is to protect and celebrate the highly significant industrial heritage of the area and to act as a beacon of hope and create a new vibrant, urban community generating employment, training, learning and leisure opportunities for all.

The Soho Foundry and Mint hold pivotal historical importance to Sandwell, the United Kingdom, and the world. It was established in 1775 as the world's first purpose-built steam engine manufactory and was first gas lit factory in the world. Today, the Soho Foundry is one of a handful of Foundry’s which survive today, however, the Grade II* Listed Buildings are presently on the Heritage at Risk register, which necessitates an urgent positive policy response to ensure their restoration and use. Chance Heritage Trust wish to stress that the maintenance, up-keep and restoration of the site can only be achieved if it is technically feasible and financially possible to do so. Furthermore, it relies on funding which may be jeopardised if the allocation does not support a mix of uses.

Whilst there are some technical constraints to bring the Site forward for regeneration, it must be acknowledged that the negatives of not bringing the Site forward, such as decay of significant heritage assets, are too significant for inaction. The CHT have previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council, to support the regeneration of the Chance Glassworks and Soho Foundry sites. This demonstrates the commitment at a senior Council level to the regeneration of these important sites. Unfortunately, this commitment to restore these significant heritage assets at the Soho Foundry does not seem to be reflected in the emerging Local Plan.

CHT consider that the proposed employment allocation in the draft Local Plan does not provide sufficient flexibility to bring about the regeneration of the site and a bespoke and flexible policy allocation to realise the potential of the site should be provided in the emerging Local Plan to celebrate the heritage assets and uphold the heritage aims identified in Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

As outlined below, the adopted policy has not worked in bringing about the regeneration of these assets, and the proposed draft policy would be more restrictive and less favourable, potentially significantly limiting the deliverability of the site. The Council must recognise that a shift in policy is imperative to thwart the ongoing decay to safeguard this unique site for future generations.

To make the Soho Foundry regeneration project feasible and deliverable, the site should be afforded a bespoke allocation for flexible uses which is not limited by the industrial development of the wider site.

CHT are considering several options comprising a mixture of leisure, tourism, education and conference facilities, along with employment. This aligns with the Sandwell Regeneration Strategy 2022-2027 which identifies Soho Foundry as a priority location to be “revived for modern uses”, with an expected delivery date of 2027.

This letter outlines the site and its surroundings, provides an overview of the emerging proposals for its redevelopment, and then responds to several of the Policies within the consultation document relevant to the regeneration of the site.

Figure 1: Soho Foundry and Mint site, Smethwick (see attachment)

a. Site Context

The Soho Foundry and Mint is located on Foundry Lane in Smethwick, close to the canal/railway line. The Foundry was constructed in 1775 for the manufacture of steam engines and was of pivotal importance to the industrial revolution and evolution of mass production techniques. It was closely associated with the pioneering endeavours of Boulton, Watt and Murdoch and subsequently the site became the home to a new mint building in 1860. Both the Foundry and Mint are Grade II* listed buildings. Whilst the Foundry and Mint buildings are now unused and have a temporary roof covering to protect their structures, the wider site was acquired by W&T Avery in 1895 who continue to operate from the adjoining buildings.

In terms of designations, the site comprises a Scheduled Monument by virtue of the significant areas of archaeological survival that are known to still exist within the site, including the bases of up to six furnaces and associated major tunnels and flues. The site also contains two listed structures - the Former Soho Foundry at Grade II* level, and the Towpath Bridge at Grade II. The listed buildings are in varying states of deterioration and disrepair (included on the Heritage at Risk Register 2023) which needs to be arrested imminently to avoid irreparable damage being sustained. The site is part of the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark, designated in 2020 in recognition of the international importance of its natural and cultural heritage which helped to shape the industrial revolution and the world.

The site is highly significant nationally and internationally for:

• Becoming the first purpose-built steam engine manufactory in the world.

• Being the first factory to be lit by gas.

• Its association with Boulton and Watt.

• Its association with the Soho Manufactory.

• Its involvement in the development of steamships.

• The great surviving documentation of the Soho archive in Birmingham Library.

• The site’s rarity, with so much historic fabric having already been demolished.

Incredibly, few foundries from this era survive, making the Soho Foundry rare and of major national and international importance. Working buildings usually need to adapt to new requirements and so tend to be heavily altered, demolished or in recent times converted to new uses. It is thought that only a dozen or so surviving foundries have been surveyed across Britain. Therefore, the specialness of Soho Foundry is in part attached to its rarity as a type, as well as its significance to the history of human technological advancement at a key turning point. The site therefore presents a once in a generation opportunity for Sandwell to deliver a sensitive, heritage-led, mixed-use regeneration which will bring these significant heritage assets, of international importance, back into use, but this can only be achieved if the right planning policy position is provided.

Given the exceptional heritage value of the site and the state of the current assets, the site would need to be restored and which will require a substantial investment of finances and time to bring it into this use. Furthermore, it is important to note that Chance Heritage Trust are reliant on funding which may be jeopardised if the allocation does not support flexible uses as it would significantly hinder the public enjoyment of the assets.

Recent employment development on the site includes the Avery Weigh-Tronix building/s, which are traditional warehouse/manufacturing in style.

The site is not in any flood risk area, although some small parts of the site are vulnerable to surface water flooding. There are no Tree Protection Orders on the site, and the site is not subject to any ecological designations.

b. Adopted Policy Considerations
At present, the site is allocated in the Sandwell Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (2012) for mixed-use development, to include an element of housing. The site is also allocated in the Smethwick Area Action Plan (2008) for ‘primarily industrial (B1 uses) but with potential to include elements of Community, Leisure and Educational uses’ under Policy SME8. In the adopted Smethwick Area action plan, the supporting text to Policy SME8 states:

• The restoration proposal of the site should be comprehensive and not phased.

• The potential for additional community, leisure and educational uses is recognised as a way to re- use of Soho Foundry.

• Development of this site will also promote more usage of the canalside which may necessitate a commuted sum for improvement to the canal infrastructure.

• The allocation for B1 uses sought to improve the environmental quality of the area by removing heavy industrial operations.

• The mixed use allocation has been extended onto land currently occupied by Dunn’s to enable a more comprehensive development to come forward should this use relocate in the future.

• Some Community and/or Leisure uses may be considered appropriate for the building as well as educational facilities to highlight the importance of the historic site and buildings and to act as a catalyst for future development.

This mixed-use allocation was proposed to be retained by the Draft Black Country Plan (now abandoned), within the Sandwell Central Core Regeneration Area. Whilst the site was also proposed to be allocated as a Local Employment Area under draft Policy EMP3, which may have appeared to restrict the uses permissible on the site to employment or waste related uses, the virtue of the mixed- use allocation would enable other uses to come forward to support the regeneration of the heritage assets on the site.

c. Proposed Use

The site is ideally suited for mixed-use development, occupying an accessible location close to employment centres within the District, along the canal. CHT considers that the delivery of employment and/or leisure, tourism, education or conference facilities, or a mix of all these types of development, could unlock the heritage regeneration of these assets and provide an important contribution to Sandwell that would become a celebrated community facility, that will bring activity and a sense of place and life to the area.

Detailed proposals will be formulated in due course, taking account of a thorough study of the site’s constraints and opportunities, and having regard to a wide range of forthcoming technical work to support the emerging plans for this site. CHT are in the early stages of preparing detailed proposals for submission as part of a future planning application and will undertake extensive consultation and seek to work closely with the Council, statutory consultees and other stakeholders to ensure that the final proposals are entirely acceptable with regard to all relevant considerations.

An Options Appraisal has been undertaken, to consider which mix of uses is the most suitable in enabling the site to come forward for development. This has considered the following four options:

• Option 1 – retention of industrial uses.

• Option 2 – an activity centre, making use of larger industrial spaces for various indoor activities and entertainment such as a roller rink, skate park and indoor climbing centre.

• Option 3 – exhibitions spaces, rentable office/ workshop space and outlets combined with dining and entertainments facilities.

• Option 4 – varying conference facilities including large banquet halls, theatres, exhibition halls and catering facilities.

In this regard, it will clearly be important that any future allocation and policy relating to this site is sufficiently flexible to enable the emerging proposals to be duly formulated as the masterplanning exercise progresses, having regard to technical advice and with input from and collaboration with relevant stakeholders as appropriate.

d. Response to Sandwell Local Plan

It appears from the Draft Sandwell Local Plan that the mixed-use allocation of the site is being dropped and the site will only retain a Local Employment Area allocation. This could be catastrophic to the regeneration of the heritage assets on the site, which require a flexible and adaptive policy position to support the most appropriate regeneration approach to the heritage assets.

The CHT therefore request further consideration into the Local Employment Area in this location and request that the Local Employment Area wash over be removed from the Soho Foundry and Mint parts of the site (area outlined in red in Figure 1 below). It is recommended that a site specific mixed-use allocation and policy is included for area identified in red, that allows for flexibility and enabling uses to be explored, to ensure these important heritage assets are brought back to life, as outlined below.

Policy SEC3 – Local Employment Areas
The site forms part of the Foundry Lane (south) SEC3 Local Employment Area Allocation. Accordingly, under this proposed policy, only industrial uses, and ancillary uses which support the LEA’s function, will be supported in the LEA.

The rationale for this policy is stated in the supporting text. It notes that LEAs play an important role in the local economy as they offer a source of mainly low-cost industrial units. The supporting text notes that one of the key characteristics of LEAs is “a critical mass of active industrial and service uses and premises that are fit for purpose”.

The financial feasibility of restoring the heritage assets on the site is significantly compromised within the framework of this allocation, as it is tailored more for generic industrial spaces, trade, haulage or logistics related uses and doesn’t recognise the unique circumstances of the site. Currently, the heritage assets on the site are not in active industrial use and the restoration of the assets for these uses is not the optimal viable use, nor are these uses suitable for the existing buildings and structures on the site, and are likely to jeopardise the funding available to CHT and/or others to deliver the restoration and regeneration works.

The Council’s own site assessment report of the March 2023 states “it is accepted that the future of the site is somewhat dependent on introducing a high quality, mixed use, heritage led, regeneration programme”, however, this assessment has not been reflected in the proposed policy position in the Draft Local Plan, as Policy SEC3 only allows for more traditional industrial uses. This represents a significant potential policy hurdle and blocker to the regeneration aims and objectives of this site, and does not accord with Paragraph 190 and Chapter 16 of the NPPF, which requires Plans to “set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk of neglect, decay and other threats. This strategy should take into account a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation…”

Without the retention of the mixed-use allocation and/or the provision of a site specific allocation to support alternative, viable, feasible and most optimal use of these buildings, the site is likely to remain vacant, rundown and closed to the public. CHT, a trust which is driven by the protection, restoration, and celebration of the Soho Foundry buildings, consider that the inclusion of the site within the wider employment allocation would render it undeliverable, and provides a significant barrier to the restoration of the site.

If the site remains in a predominantly industrial allocation, CHT may have no choice but to abandon the site, which begs the question as to whether a commercial developer or industrial business will be willing to take on this financial cost and afford equal priority to the history and celebration of these assets. CHT agree that some employment uses could form part of the mix of uses proposed, but if the policy position is overly restrictive, as currently set out in the Reg 18 Local Plan, then it is likely that funding availability to restore the site will be limited.

Policy SEC3 Response – Site specific allocation
To facilitate the regeneration of the site, it is essential to carve out a specific site allocation that caters solely and explicitly to the Soho Foundry buildings, so it is viable and not hinged upon the wider industrial-led regeneration of the area. This bespoke allocation should provide the flexibility needed to explore a range of uses that align with heritage-led regeneration, enabling CHT to achieve its mission without the constraints imposed by the Policy SEC3 framework

There is a clear policy rationale at the national level for a new approach to be considered in the next Local Plan. Paragraph 122 of the NPPF emphasises the need for planning policies to reflect changes in demand for land. Given the prolonged lack of progress under the existing policy, it is prudent to reassess and reallocate the land for a more deliverable use. The proposed draft policy hinders the ability of the site to be restored and fulfil alternative needs, including the restoration and celebration of unique heritage assets of national value.

The rationale for a bespoke application is also supported by NPPF Paragraph 206, which outlines the importance of seeking opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. In the case of the Soho Foundry buildings, their status as a heritage asset is indisputable, and therefore supports the Council’s rationale to explore opportunities that can increase their significance.

The Soho Foundry buildings, being part of a Conservation Area, require a nuanced strategy that goes beyond a generic allocation for industrial redevelopment. A bespoke allocation would allow for careful consideration of the heritage significance and a tailored approach to development, ensuring that the setting is preserved and, where possible, improved to better reveal the historical importance of the site. Moreover, unlike industrial uses, the alternative uses proposed in this representation would make the buildings open to the public which would promote their significance.

Overall, there is a clear rationale for the site to be removed from Policy Allocation SEC3 and granted a bespoke allocation which better reflects the circumstances of the site.

Policy SHE1 – Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
Among the several aims of Policy SHE1, point 6 recognises the need for flexibility and exploration of alternative uses for heritage-led developments, particularly when such uses contribute to the preservation and enhancement of heritage assets. This indicates that the alternative uses proposed in this representation could be supported by the Council, however, as the site is designated under Policy SEC3, development of the site is restricted to industrial uses indicating that there is an inherent policy conflict for the site.

For the reasons outlined in the previous section, CHT consider that the existing allocation on the site fails to recognise the unique circumstances of the site. To reflect the aspirations of Policy SHE1, a bespoke allocation should be provided in the emerging Local Plan to enable adaptive reuse options to be explored so that the historic asset can be preserved whilst remaining financially viable.

To address this inherent conflict, there is a pressing need for the site to be removed from policy allocation SEC3 and for the site to have its own bespoke allocation, which would allow for the exploration of alternative uses under the principles outlined in Policy SHE1. This would result in a more balanced approach that not only preserves and enhances the unique heritage embodied by the Soho Foundry buildings, but also make it deliverable within the plan period.

Policy SDS2 – Regeneration in Sandwell
Another Policy potentially at odds with Policy SEC3 is Policy SDS2, which also covers the site. Policy SDS2 designates Regeneration Areas as the primary focus for new development, regeneration, and investment. The site specifically is located within the Smethwick to Birmingham Canal Corridor Regeneration Area, where Policy SDS2 promotes “new green neighbourhoods on re-purposed employment land and accessible active travel routes.”

CHT support Policy SDS2 and consider that the Soho Foundry would be a prime opportunity to meet this aim. The site is located along the Canal Corridor and contains exceptionally significant buildings

which are capable of promoting the area’s unique history and provide significant community facilities for the public. The site could also be safely accessed by pedestrians from the canal, promoting active travel along this route. Despite this, the inclusion of the site within Policy SEC3 will mean that the restoration of the site would be restricted to industrial uses, which would work against the aspiration to create green neighbourhoods using re-purposed employment land and therefore strongly hinder the public enjoyment of these assets. Therefore, the site should be removed from Policy Allocation SEC3 and a bespoke allocation which supports flexible uses included within the emerging Local Plan if the regeneration aims of Policy SDS2 are to be achieved.

Policy SWA2 – Waste sites and adjoining Employment Land

The Soho Foundry site neighbours an established recycling facility, allocated under Policy SWA2, known as Simm’s Metals. The allocation of this waste facility and the surrounding employment land, for waste and continued employment uses represents a significant missed opportunity to redevelop all the land bound by Foundry Lane, the B4136 and the canal as a wider heritage-led regeneration scheme. It is recommended that the Council considers options for the wider regeneration of this area.

e. Conclusion

In conclusion, the representations put forth by CHT underscore the unique challenges and opportunities associated with the Soho Foundry and Mint site. The Grade II* listed buildings and rich industrial heritage of the site demand a tailored approach that goes beyond the industrial use constraints of proposed Policy SEC3.

Rather than perpetuate the historical ineffectiveness of the prior allocation, a fresh approach is needed to realise the restoration of site, in accordance with Paragraph 122 of the NPPF. The site has significant potential not only to meet the Council’s heritage aims (under Policy SHE1), but also create a substantial regeneration opportunity (in accordance with Policy SDS2). However, without the removal of the site from allocation SEC3 and the granting of a bespoke site specific and flexible allocation which reflects the unique circumstances of the site, this will never be achieved.

CHT believe that the site could potentially accommodate a range of business, tourism and leisure uses that would foster the public enjoyment of these assets. Further technical work will be prepared in due course to bring forward masterplan proposals for the site.

CHT would like to work with the planning policy team and relevant consultees in this process to ensure a suitable solution is found, which supports the heritage regeneration aspirations of the Trust.

Legal Compliance

2. In response to the Sandwell Local Plan Issues and Options consultation earlier this year HBF underlined the importance of ensuring that any ‘rolled forward’ policies in the draft Black Country Plan remain appropriate and are fully supported by the evidence base.

3. HBF is pleased that our earlier comments have been taken on board. It is important that any of the “previously seen” policies in the draft Black Country Plan, which are now being proposed to be rolled forward and “adapted” in the Sandwell Plan, and the evidence supporting them, are subject to full public consultation. HBF remain of the view that the issue of the housing need for Sandwell, the housing requirement for Sandwell, the potential unmet need of Sandwell and Green Belt designations, are key issues that impact on the fundamental Strategic Policies that will be an essential part of good plan- making in Sandwell. HBF is pleased that some additional information has now been made available as part of this consultation. However, it will remain important that the evidence base continues to be updated, and made available, as the plan-making process continues.

Duty to Cooperate

4. HBF note that following the collapse of Black Country Plan, Sandwell has had to undertake its own calculations for the housing need and requirement and must robustly test how much of this can be met within Sandwell and how much (if any) is an unmet need. The Council will then need to work with neighbouring authorities to identify how that unmet need will be redistributed and prepare a Statement of Common Ground on this issue. The Council should also prepare a Duty to Cooperate Statement.

5. Currently there is not enough information available for HBF to come to a view as to whether or not Sandwell has met, and is meeting, the Duty to Cooperate. The Council will need to evidence its ongoing work with the other neighbouring authorities within the HMA. This will need to be evidenced with more than words of good intentions and be supported with a clear Plan of how all the housing needs of Sandwell will be met. We hope this evidence will be forthcoming, and in light of the known issue around housing numbers and unmet need, it is essential that does.

6. HBF’s main concerns around Duty to Cooperate relate to ensuring the required amount of housing is delivered in reality. This is particularly important because the current Plan indicates a significant amount of unmet need. The issue of fully meeting housing needs within Sandwell remains. Our more detailed comments on this issue can be found in response to Policy SDS1.

7. HBF suggest that the Council prepare a signed Statement of Common Ground between the Council with each of the neighbouring authorities setting out if and how they will contribute to meeting Sandwell’s unmet needs. Such statements will be essential as the Plan progresses. HBF notes the Council’s stated intention to be proactive and pro-growth. However, the issue of potential unmet need requires clearly evidenced and ongoing cooperation. This will be essential to show that the Duty to Cooperate has been met.

Vision for Sandwell

8. HBF support the need for the Vision for Sandwell to include reference to the need for new homes to meet housing need, as included within Ambition 7 but suggest this should be amended to be more explicit about the requirement to meet the development needs of the area. HBF would suggest that both the Vision and Objective Six should be more explicit about the need to plan for both open market and affordable housing to meet housing needs and support the Council’s growth aspirations.

Policy SDS1- Development Strategy

9. The Plan proposes at least 11,167 net new homes and at least 1,206ha of employment land (of which 29ha is currently vacant). It is noted that paragraph 2.6 explains that “There is still, despite the number of housing sites that have been identified and allocated, a shortfall in the numbers of houses that need to be built to meet identified needs. Housing need is calculated using the Government’s standard method based on household growth projections.


• Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes by 2041.
• The supply of suitable residential land based on the most recent evidence stands at 11,167 homes.
• There is an unmet need for 18,606 homes.
• The SLP provides for around one third of the housing need on the land that is available.

10. As Council is planning only to meet one third of their proposed housing number, this means two thirds are not being planned for. As HBF believe the housing requirement should be higher to start with, the actual percentage of unmet need would be even higher. Even, setting the appropriate housing number issue is aside for now, HBF is very concerned about this proposed shortfall. Failure to meet the housing needs of Sandwell will inhibit growth and do nothing to address the current housing crisis, with implications for the economy and population of wider region. It will be important for the Council to clearly show how the unmet need will be met, and what they will do to ensure that it is. However, the Council needs to first establish the appropriate housing requirement for Sandwell before considering if and how this could be met.

11. Paragraph 2.14 explains that “Employment land need is based on economic forecasts in the EDNA up to 2041.
• Sandwell is subject to a demand for 185ha of employment land.
• The supply of land available and suitable for employment use is 42ha (after completions between 2020 – 2022 are considered). This includes windfall supply, generated through intensification / recycling, and includes a vacant land supply of 29ha.
• Based on the amount of land required to grow the economy, there is a shortfall of around 143ha.
• In addition, the plan allocates 1,177ha of occupied employment as strategic, local or other employment land.

12. HBF notes that the Plan therefore proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This would further constrain the ambitions for Growth in Sandwell, and the wider region. HBF suggest these circumstances warrant a full Green Belt review and the allocation of sites to meet the housing and employment requirements of the Borough even if these are within the current Green Belt.

13. With regards the housing requirement itself, HBF strongly support the need for more housing in the Sandwell Local Plan for a variety of reasons including addressing the current housing crisis, meeting housing need, providing affordable housing and supporting employment growth. HBF would request that the Council considers the annual LHN as only the minimum starting point and fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels
of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing.

14. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF requires that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption. HBF note that the current plan period is to 2041 but would still question if the plan period is long enough to cover this requirement. This Reg 18 consultation closes at the end of 2023 and then the representations need to be considered an analysed, a submission plan prepared and consulted, examination, main modifications consultation, inspectors report and adoption by the Council.

15. HBF suggest that the plan-making process may take some time, especially if additional Green Belt release is needed, and suggest that the plan period could be extended now, especially as this would require an update to the evidence base as is important for the evidence base to be consistent with the Plan Period. Extending the plan period would also require an increase to the housing requirement to cover the additional years, and consequential additional housing supply.

16. The Government has made it clear that it still supports the national target of 300,000 new homes per year. The standard method housing requirement has always been the minimum starting point for setting the housing requirement, and HBF support more housing than the standard method housing requirement in order to support economic growth, provide a range and type of sites and to support small and medium house builders.

17. HBF suggest that each of these reasons on its own could justify an increase in the housing requirement for Sandwell and the Council should consider planning for an additional amount of housing to address each reason in turn. However, as previously mentioned it is important that the housing requirement is established, before any consideration is given to any issues around housing land supply, or lack thereof.

18. The plan-led system requires Council to proactively plan to meet the needs of their community. This means that there is a need to provide a range and choice of sites, a need for flexibility and viability considerations to be taken into account, and a need for the Council to consider whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure the delivery of affordable housing and/or support economic growth. HBF can not see how planning to meet only one third of the housing need for the area represents a positively prepared plan for the future of the area for the next fifteen years and beyond.

19. Once the housing requirement has been set, the next phase is to consider housing land supply. It is important to both minimise the amount of any unmet needs that cannot be accommodated within the Borough and clearly set out how any unmet need will be addressed elsewhere. HBF recognise the Council’s view as to the constrained nature of the Borough and the amount of current Green Belt designation, but would also highlight the size of the shortfall in Housing and Employment land being proposed in this plan. It is important that the housing needs of Sandwell are met in full.

20. Although HBF is pleased to see the Council commit to ongoing working with neighbouring authorities to try an address this matter under the Duty to Cooperate (or its replacement) the fact remains that the Local Plan’s policies should ensure the availability of a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to deliver Sandwell’s housing requirement. If it is not possible to do this within the boundary then Green Belt release may be needed.

21. Criteria 3 of the policy sets out that “Appendices B and C show how the housing and employment land ambitions for Sandwell will be met. Those development needs that cannot be accommodated within the borough will be exported to sustainable locations in neighbouring local authority areas, following consultation.” HBF would question the appropriateness of this approach, but if it is to be pursued then this should be set out as an integral part of the policy and not deferred to Appendix B and C. Surely Housing Allocations should be made as an integral part of the Plan and not in an Appendix.

22. HBF believe that Sandwell’s inability to meet its housing (and employment) needs requires revisiting the Spatial Strategy and results in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would require the need for a Green Belt review as set out in para 140 of the NPPF.

23. HBF notes that the issue of fully meeting housing needs within Sandwell remains, despite the ending of the work on Black Country Plan. Sandwell therefore needs to undertake its own calculations for the housing need and requirement, robustly test how much of this can be met within Sandwell and how much (if any) is an unmet need. The Council then need to work with neighbouring authorities to identify how that unmet need will be redistributed and prepare a Statement of Common Ground on this issue. This issue is both a soundness and a Duty to Cooperate issue. At this stage HBF do not believe the Council has done enough to try and meet all its needs, or explored every and all option to do so.

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

24. HBF strongly disagree with the conclusion in para 3.84 which says:

“It is the Council’s view that there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development. While there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough.

HBF would argue that the current housing crisis and the inability of Sandwell meet its own needs (the Plan is looking to plan for only a third of the identified housing need) provide just such exceptional circumstances to necessitate a Green Belt review, which must include the consideration of both employment and housing sites.

25. NPPF (para 20) is clear that “Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development”. Para 11 of the NPPF states that “all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects”.

26. HBF cannot see how a plan that provides for only a third of its housing requirement standard method baseline (and HBF argue the housing requirement itself should be higher) can meet the requirements to be positively prepared and set out a clear long term vision for the area which is the purpose of plan-making. NPPF para 60 clearly states that “to support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.”

27. HBF believes the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing consider is a factor that constitutes the exception circumstances that justify Green Belt release.

28. HBF support ambitious growth aspirations in Sandwell. HBF highlight the need to consider the interaction between employment and housing. An increase in the number of jobs can it itself generate a requirement for additional housing, and failure to provide housing can have negative impacts on the economic and social wellbeing of the area. The Plan must recognise and reflect this reality.

29. The Plan need to ensure there is a sufficiency of Housing Land Supply (HLS) to meet the housing requirement, ensure the maintenance of a 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT) performance measurements. HBF cannot see how achieving these aims is possible without Green Belt release. It is noted that this may in turn also effect the spatial strategy for the Local Plan.

30. HBF also suggest the Council should give explicit consideration to whether BNG development is acceptable within the Green Belt and/or if Green Belt boundaries need to be revised accommodate schemes that deliver off-site BNG, and possibly even on-site biodiversity gains.

31. Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

32. HBF has been involved in a significant amount of work, being led by the Future Homes Hub, on BNG preparedness for some time and note that it is somewhat unfortunate that the timing of the release of the draft Planning Practice guidance from DLUHC and the Draft DEFRA BNG Guidance has seen this information released midway through your consultation period.

33. HBF note that there is a new information for the Council to work though and consider the implications of, in order to make the necessary changes to the Biodiversity Net Gain policy, so that it complies with the latest policy and guidance as it finalised.

34. The BNG PPG has been published in draft form to allow for “familiarisation” and as such some details may change between now and the implementation date in January 2024. Similarly, HBF understand the DEFRA Guidance is still being refined before the implementation date, and indeed may be further refined once mandatory BNG is working in practice, to reflect any early lessons learnt. Further additional guidance on phased developments is also expected.

35. There are clearly some areas of the Sandwell Local Plan BNG policy and guidance that will need revising and updating, particularly because the (draft) PPG is clear that there is no need for Local Plan policies to repeat national guidance. For example, HBF would suggest criteria two and eight are not necessary as they are merely repeating national policy.

36. It will be important for the Council to fully consider the PPG and DEFRA guidance once it has been formally published, which HBF notes will be in January 2024, after the close of this consultation period. Although no significant changes to the approach to BNG are expected, further clarity may be needed on some of the finer details, and some amendments and additional advice and guidance are anticipated.

37. It is the HBF’s opinion that the Council should not deviate from the Government’s requirement for biodiversity net gain as set out in the Environment Act. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery.

38. Any requirements to go beyond 10% BNG needs to be clearly demonstrated with evidence including considering the implications of the policy approach as part of the whole plan viability appraisal. In particular, HBF would question how the viability of more than 10% BNG can be established when the market for off-site credits, and therefore the costs of delivering the 10% mandatory BNG system are still emerging.

39. HBF note that work undertaken by DEFRA to inform the national percentage BNG requirement found that a 20% net gain requirement would add c.19% to the net gain costs, over and above the minimum requirement of 10%. The report concluded that:

“While this suggests that varying the level of net gain between 5% and 20% has very limited impact on the outcome, there is a trade-off between cost implications for developers and the likelihood of net gain being delivered at a national level (e.g. less costly/likely at 5% net gain compared to 10%, and vice versa for 20%). Our chosen policy approach, which sets out that 10% is the right level to demonstrate net gain, considers this trade-off among other issues.”

40. HBF also notes that the proposed policy wording and supporting text in the Local Plan will need to reflect both that the Environment Act which requires 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, and the emerging policy, guidance and best practice on how Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain will be implemented. There is an important policy distinction to made between the national mandatory requirements and any optional further requests from LPAs to go further and faster. In particular the 10% national target is non-negotiable from a viability perspective, but policies seeking over 10% can be challenged on viability grounds. This distinction needs to be recognised within the Local Plan.

41. HBF suggest particular care is needed in terminology to ensure the Sandwell policy reflects the national policy and guidance. For example, on-site and off- site biodiversity is referred to as units, and the statutory national credit system of last resort is referred to as credit. It is important for the wording of the policy to accurately reflect the legalisation and guidance.

42. HBF question the wording of criteria six, as it should be for the BNG plan to set out what happens if monitoring shows any BNG measure are ineffective. For large and complex sites where the development is phased, the guidance is clear that the 10% must be delivered at the end of the development, and this may not result in 10% BNG on each phase.

43. It is also important to note that Local Nature Recovery Strategies are new initiative, and one has yet to be prepared that covers Sandwell. As the LNRS emerges it will be important for this Local Plan to be kept under review and further public consultation on the interaction between the two documents and/or changes to Local Plan policy to reflect the LNRS may be needed.

Policy SNE3 – Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

44. HBF would question how the Council arrived at the requirement for 3 replacement trees for everyone lost and what (if any) assumptions have been relation to the size and standard of trees. HBF considers that a three for one replacement policy could impact on the land uptake for any development and may have implications for the density of developments, which in turn has the potential to have an impact on the viability of developments.

45. HBF suggest further flexibility is needed in the policy, for example hedgerow removal may be an essential to gain access to a site, but BNG policies which require 10% net gain from the pre-development baseline so any loss would already have to be compensated. HBF suggest the Council should give more thought to how the suite of environmental policies are intended to work together so that developers are completely clear what is expected of them, and to ensure that the policies do not serve to make development undeliverable. The interrelationships between the BNG policy and other environmental policies needs to be fully considered and explained.

Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience

46. The HBF supports the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is
standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers. The Councils do not need to set local energy efficiency standards in a Local Plan policy because of the higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard, which are currently out for consultation.

47. HBF also draws the Council’s attention to the recent Ministerial Statement on this issue which says “the Government does not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale.” See https://questions- statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-12-13/HCWS123

Policy SCC2 – Energy Infrastructure

48. HBF is concerned about mandatory requirements to connect to district heating networks. HBF considers that it is important that this is not seen as a requirement and is instead implemented on a flexible basis. Heat networks are one aspect of the path towards decarbonising heat, however, currently the predominant technology for district-sized communal heating networks is gas combined heat and power (CHP) plants. Over 90% of district networks are gas fired. As 2050 approaches, meeting the Government’s climate target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero will require a transition from gas-fired networks to renewable or low carbon alternatives such as large heat pumps, hydrogen or waste-heat recovery but at the moment one of the major reasons why heat network projects do not install such technologies is because of the up-front capital cost. The Council should be aware that for the foreseeable future it will remain uneconomic for most heat networks to install low-carbon technologies. This may mean that it is more sustainable and more appropriate for developments to utilise other forms of energy provision, and this may need to be considered.

49. Government consultation on Heat Network Zoning also identifies exemptions to proposals for requirements for connections to a heat network these include where a connection may lead to sub-optimal outcomes, or distance from the network connection points and impacts on consumers bills and affordability.

50. Furthermore, some heat network consumers do not have comparable levels of satisfaction as consumers on gas and electricity networks, and they pay a higher price. Currently, there are no sector specific protections for heat network consumers, unlike for people on other utilities such as gas, electricity or water. A consumer living in a building serviced by a heat network does not have the same opportunities to switch supplier as they would for most gas and electricity supplies.

51. The Council’s proposed policy approach is unnecessary seeks to go beyond the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard without justification. It is the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is
standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers.

52. The Council should be aware that the long awaited consultation on the Future Homes standard was published on Dec 13th 2023 and consultation closes in 6 March 2024. The consultation documents can be found online at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-homes-and- buildings-standards-2023-consultation

Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

53. HBF is concerned about any policies which mandate on-site renewable energy generation. HBF considers that it is important that this is not seen as a requirement and is instead implemented on a flexible basis. HBF recognises that there may be potential for renewable energy generation on- site, however, it may be more sustainable and efficient to use larger scale sources rather than small-scale, it is also noted this policy also takes no account of the fact that over time energy supply from the national grid will be decarbonised.

Policy SHW1– Health Impact Assessments


54. HBF is unclear why the Health Impact Assessment is seeking to assess if a development “will provide a range of housing types and tenures that meet the needs of all sectors of the population including for older people and those with disabilities requiring varying degrees of care; extended families; low-income households; and those seeking to self-build as set out in Polices SHO3, SHO4 and SHO5”. This matter is already adequately addressed in the specific housing policies and should not need to be repeated in a HIA.

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

55. In relation to criteria one, HBF’s detailed comments in relation to the amount of housing needed in Sandwell can be found in our response to policy SD1: Development Strategy. In summary, HBF request that the standard method LHN should be the minimum starting point for establishing the housing requirement and the Council should then fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing. HBF suggests that these considerations should result in a higher housing requirement for Sandwell which set be set out in the Local Plan. Only then should consideration around deliverability and housing land supply come into play, the housing requirement should be established first.

56. In relation to criteria two, HBF note that the Council is looking to phase the plan and delivery of the housing requirement. For the plan to be effective and justified, a clear explanation of this approach and the reasoning behind for it is needed. As HBF is of the view that the overall housing requirement for Sandwell should be higher, it follows that our view is that the numbers in each phase should be higher too.

57. HBF supports the principal of discounting the housing land supply assumptions to take account of non-implementation rates. We note that site with planning permission include a lapse rate of 5% other commitments are SHLAA are discounted by 10% and occupied employment land discounted by 15%, but these figures should be clearly evidenced. HBF also notes that no allowance is made for non-delivery of windfall sites and we believe one is needed. HBF would question if the discount rates should in fact be higher especially for sites that are currently occupied in employment use. The anticipated loss of current employment sites to housing further underlines the need for housing and employment to be considered together, and for the potential implications of not meeting with the housing and employment need of the borough to present the exceptional circumstances required to justify Green Belt release.

58. Para 7.4 of the Plan states that “A balanced range of sites has been provided, in terms of size, location and market attractiveness, which will help to maximise housing delivery over the Plan period. Across the borough, 10% of identified supply in the Plan and in the most recent Brownfield Register is on sites no larger than 1ha, which is in accordance with the requirement set out in the NPPF at paragraph 069.”

59. The NPPF requires Local Plans to identify land to accommodate at least 10% of the housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare, unless there are strong reasons why this cannot be achieved. HBF has undertaken extensive consultation with its small developer members. One of the chief obstacles for small developers is that funding is extremely difficult to secure without a full, detailed, and implementable planning permission. Securing an implementable planning permission is extremely difficult if small sites are not allocated. Without implementable consents lenders are uneasy about making finance available or the repayment fees and interest rates they set will be very high. Small developers, consequently, need to invest a lot of money and time up-front in the risky business of trying to secure an allocation and a planning permission, and this is money that many small developers do not have.

60. HBF would therefore wish to see the 10% small sites allowance delivered through allocations. Indeed, we would advocate that a higher percentage of small sites are allocated if possible. Such sites are important for encouraging the growth in SME housebuilders who will tend to develop these sites but rarely see the benefits that arise from the allocation of sites in a local plan. Up until the 1980s, small developers accounted for the construction of half of all homes built in this country resulting in greater variety of product, more competition, and faster build-out rates. Since then, the number of small companies has fallen by 80%.

61. HBF also note that support for small and medium builders need not be limited to only small sites of less than 1Ha. SMEs also deliver on other types of non- strategic sites (for example up to 100 units). The inclusion of additional non- strategic allocations would expand the range of choice in the market, and be of a scale that can come forward and making a contribution to housing numbers earlier in the plan period.

62. In relation to criteria three, HBF notes that NPPF (para 71) only permits an allowance for windfall sites if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available and will continue to be a reliable source of supply. HBF are also of the view that any buffer provided by windfall sites should be in addition to the buffer added to the housing need figures derived from the Standard Method to provide choice and competition in the land market. However, by including windfalls within the Plan’s housing requirement supply, any opportunity for windfalls to provide some additional housing numbers and flexibility is removed. Windfalls do not provide the same choice and flexibility in the market as additional allocations.


63. Criteria 3 indicates that regular monitoring will be undertaken annually of housing delivery, but this does not tally with the Monitoring Framework at the end of the Plan. It should also be possible to see from Housing Trajectory how much reliance is being made on windfalls, or from when. To be both justified and effective the Housing Trajectory should include break down the housing numbers into different sources of supply. HBF are of the view that any allowance for windfall should not be included until the fourth year of a housing trajectory, given the likelihood that dwellings being completed within the next three years will already be known about (as they are likely to need to have already received planning permission to be completed within that timeframe).

64. HBF also question the need for Criteria 6 about BNG to be repeated here within the policy (and in other policies elsewhere in the Plan) when this matter has already been addressed elsewhere within the Plan, and the Plan should be read as a whole. To repeat this only this policy requirement here seems repetitious and confusing. HBF comments on BNG can be found in response to Policy SNE2 which is the appropriate place for them to be considered.
HBF does not believe it there is any need to repeat the requirements of policy SNE2 here.

65. Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

66. As outlined above HBF are concerned about the Councils reliance on windfall in place of allocating housing sites. HBF also question whether it is appropriate to treat council owned land differently in policy terms from any other land. Consideration of who the applicant or landowner is, is not normally considered a to be a planning matter. The allocation of sites and the granting of permission for windfall housing should be considered on their planning merits and the contribution they can make to sustainable development, not who is the owner of the land.

67. HBF contend there is need for greenfield development in Sandwell to address the housing crisis and meet the housing requirement, some of these greenfield sites may need to be on Green Belt land. If monitoring showed underperformance of housing delivery additional housing will need to brought forward which could include allowing additional green field sites. The policy should be amended to account for this possibility.

68. It should be noted that HBF also support the need for additional greenfield allocations to meet the housing requirement.

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

69. This policy requires a density of 100 dwellings per hectare for areas of ‘very high-density’ housing areas, 45 dwellings in ‘high accessible areas’ and 40+ for ‘moderate area’. Although the Table Six uses 100+, 45+ and 40+, so there is a need for consistency between the two.


70. Is it unclear from the policy wording if this policy only applies to allocated sites, or all development over 10 units. It is also unclear how a developer would know which target applied to their development and which standard to apply on a site not allocated in the Plan. The Plan needs to better explain and justify its approach.

71. HBF would also question how realistic such high densities are, noting that the setting of residential density standards should be undertaken in accordance with the NPPF (para 125). HBF would also question how this policy links into other policies in the Plan including the policies that seek to protect family housing, resist HMOs, limit tall buildings, prevent intensification, resist windfalls, and require a range and mix of housing. All of these policies may prevent densification. Indeed, even the amount of land now required for on- site BNG delivery may impact on the density that is delivered.

72. HBF suggest that density needs to be considered on a site by site basis to ensure schemes are viable, deliverable and appropriate for the site, and policy needs to include some flexibility if needed to enable it to respond to site specific circumstances.

73. HBF would question of the density proposed are realistic deliverable and viable as the deliverability of high-density residential development in Sandwell will be dependent upon the viability of brownfield sites and the demand for high density city centre living post Covid-19. It is important that delivery of the housing requirement does not rely overly ambitious intensification of dwellings.

74. HBF also question why there is need for a specific mention of 4+ bedroom houses in Criteria 6 of the policy as the wording of the policy as this presupposes no need for four bed houses in the evidence which may not be the case. The plan should also be read as a whole and the matter of responding to housing need it terms of size and type of units is already covered elsewhere in the Plan.

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

75. HBF welcomes the recognition that the delivery of affordable housing in Sandwell may raise issues of viability. Viability must be an integral part of the plan-making process, and the findings of the viability appraisal should have helped inform and test policy development. HBF are particularly concerned about the disconnect between the Nov 2023 viability study and the policies in the Sandwell Local Plan.

76. Para ES17 of the Aspinall Verdi, Nov 2023, Viability Report says “Based on our residential market research, we recommend that the policy should be differentiated by housing market zone and greenfield/brownfield land. This reflects the range of values across Sandwell and the different risks/costs associated with greenfield and brownfield development. This approach optimises the ability of SMBC to deliver affordable housing and fund infrastructure (through land value capture) with-out undermining delivery.


ES 18 The table below sets out our recommendations for the affordable housing targets, derived from the viability analysis herein. These targets assume no grant. These are in line with Sandwell’s affordable housing policy.

New Value Zones
Affordable Housing Greenfield
(baseline 25%) Brownfield
Affordable Housing (baseline 25%)
High Value Zone 25% 25%
Medium Value Zone 15% 10%
Lower Value Zone 10% 0%”

77. Policy SH04 however seeks 25% affordable housing where viable and does not differentiate between greenfield and brownfield sites. The policy therefore does not reflect the evidence and the evidence does not reflect the policy.

78. By way of another example, para ES19 of the study says:

“In the Lower Value zones where the affordable housing threshold for viability is below 10% the Council could rely on the NPPF paragraph 64 (February 2019) which requires that, ‘planning policies… should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership’ (subject to exemptions for: a) Build to Rent homes (see below); b) specialist accommodation for specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students); c) custom self[1]build; or d) is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception
site).

We suggest SMBC could therefore keep the affordable housing target at 10% in-line with national policy and consider other proactive interventions in the market to deliver the housing. SMBC will need to be more proactive to deliver housing and regeneration in these areas. In this respect consideration could be given to, inter alia:
• facilitating development on Authority owned land e.g., with deferred land payments and/or overage;
• direct development of housing by SMBC (for lower profit margins);
• partnering with Registered Providers;
• establishing an Urban Development Company to act as master- developer and de-risk sites;
• delivery of brownfield/regeneration sites (e.g., in the strategic centres) through partnership and delivery funding schemes;
• use of grant funding for remediation of Brownfield land and soft-loans etc.

79. HBF do not recognise this interpretation of the NPPF or the approach to Viability in plan-making being suggested by the consultants. NPPF and PPG are clear that if whole plan viability testing shows a contribution for affordable housing is not viable, then Local Plan policy should not seek to impose one. The policies need amending to ensure they reflect the viability realities of delivering development in Sandwell. To meet the tests of soundness the plan must be viable and deliverable. It is simply not possible to ignore evidence which shows the policies in the Plan would make development unviable.

80. HBF have further concerns about some of the other detail in the Viability Assessment as it has not considered a number of key costs and requirements. For example, HBF information suggests that complying with the current new part L is costing £3500 per plot. The Future Homes Standard Part L in 2025 is anticipated to cost up to £7500+ per plot. There will also be the addition of the Building Safety Levy that is coming in pay for cladding. This will be a per plot basis around the UK, and initial values are around £1500- £2500 per plot. These costs appear to have not been considered in the viability appraisal.

81. Other factors that need to be taken into account include increasing the costs of materials and labour due to inflation and the costs of mandatory BNG, which are still emerging as the off-site market is yet to be established. Although the initial price of statutory credits is now known this national fallback option has been deliberately highly priced to discourage their use. Whilst this intention is understandable, at present the lack of functioning local markets for off-site credits causes viability problems because HBF members experience to date suggests that any scheme that needs to rely on statutory credits becomes unviable. HBF have numerous concerns about the whole plan viability study, including the omission of some key policy costs. For example, a realistic and evidenced allowance for mandatory BNG needs to be includes within the viability assessment of the Local Plan.

82. The costs of BNG should have been considered as part of the planning obligations and should be specified as a single specific item, no rolled into any total policy costs. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity net gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment, some of which are unknown at this time. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery. As this is an emerging policy area and the market for off-site provision, and statutory credits are not yet known, any figure used for BNG costs will need to be kept under review as BNG implementation progresses and a greater understanding of actual costs become available. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment should clearly set out how it considered the implications of mandatory BNG and how it arrived at the most up to date BNG costs information available to use.

83. At a very basic level viability can be improved by reducing costs or increasing values. Sometimes, therefore changing the type of affordable housing provided can help to improve viability of a specific site, and the plan should recognise this. In this situation there could be a change of the percentages of different types of affordable housing provided, but the headline figure of how much affordable housing is provided would remain the same. Flexibility in the policy is important to allow for these kind of considerations.


84. The geographical distribution of development may impact on the Plan’s ability to deliver affordable housing where it is most needed. HBF notes that the level of open-market housing provided may also impact on the amount of affordable housing that can be developed.

85. It will be also be important to understand if there any geographically specific viability considerations, such as whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in particular areas in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing in that location in a way that remains viable. Similarly, brownfield city centre sites tend to be most suited for apartments or retirement living. There will therefore be a need to include green fields allocations which are more likely to deliver family housing and a higher percentage of affordable housing, in order to provide flexibility in the housing land supply and ensure a range of housing types and tenures is provided. This adds further weigh to the need to consider Green Belt release(s).

86. The HBF does not comment on individual sites, other than to say the Plan should provide for a wide range of deliverable and developable sites across the area in order to provide competition and choice and a buffer to ensure that housing needs are met in full. The soundness of strategic and non- strategic site allocations, whether brownfield or greenfield, will be tested in due course at the Local Plan Examination.

87. Policy SHO4- Delivering Wheelchair Accessible and Self/custom build Housing

88. This policy seeks to require all new residential developments to meet M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of Building Regulations and development of 10 or more units to provide 15% which meet M4(3) (Wheelchair user dwellings) on schemes of more than 20 homes.

89. The requirements to meet Part M4(2) will be superseded by changes to residential Building Regulations. The Government response to ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’ states that the Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through the Building Regulations. The requirement to address this issue is planning policy is therefore unnecessary.

90. HBF are of the view that this matter should be left to Building Regulations, however if a policy were to be needed, the wording needs to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards. M43a sets out standards for wheelchair adaptable housing, where M43b relates to wheelchair accessible housing which can only be required on affordable housing where the Council has nomination rights. Any such requirements would also need to be fully considered from a viability perspective.

91. The PPG states:



“What accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?

Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual’s needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement – see paragraph 011 below.

Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied.”

Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
Revision date: 19 05 2016

92. The PPG sets out some of the circumstances where it would be unreasonable to require M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings. Such factors include flooding, typography and other circumstances. HBF suggest that flexibility is needed in the application of these standards to reflect site specific characteristics, and the policy wording should reflect this. HBF do not believe this policy is sound without this flexibility, as it fails to comply with national policy and is not effective or justified.

93. HBF also note that the Aspinall Verdi Viability Study 2023 says “We also propose a nuanced adjustment in SMBC's M4(3) accessibility policy, emphasising a tailored approach that considers the unique characteristics of different value zones, thereby addressing cost mitigation. Specifically, we recommend that 15% of units situated in medium and higher value zones adhere to M4(3) accessibility standards, while no such obligation is imposed on units located in the lower value zones. This approach not only ensures the equitable allocation of resources but also aligns with the distinct requirements and priorities within each value zone.”

94. However, this recommendation appears not to have been actioned and incorporated into the policy. There should be no need for developers to have to go through the process and cost of a site-specific viability appraisal when the evidence at the plan-making stage has already shown it to be unviable.


95. In relation to Self-Build and Custom Build Plots, the policy requires sites of 100 or more dwellings, to provide at least 5% as serviced plots for self and custom build if there is evidence of demand. If after six months of a thorough a proportionate marketing exercise the plot remains unsold, the requirements falls away.

96. HBF does not consider that requiring major developments to provide for self- builders is appropriate. Instead, the HBF advocates for self and custom-build policies that encourage self and custom-build development by setting out where it will be supported in principle. The HBF considers that Councils can play a key role in facilitating the provision of land as set in the PPG. This could be done, for example, by using the Councils’ own land for such purposes and/or allocating sites specifically for self and custom-build home builders- although this would need to be done through discussion and negotiation with landowners.

97. It is considered unlikely that the provision of self and custom build plots on new housing developments can be co-ordinated with the development of the wider site. At any one time, there are often multiple contractors and large machinery operating on-site from both a practical and health and safety perspective, it is difficult to envisage the development of single plots by individuals operating alongside this construction activity.

98. HBF agree that if demand for plots is not realised, it is important that plots should not be left empty to the detriment of neighbouring properties or the whole development. The timescale for reversion of these plots to the original housebuilder should be as short as possible from the commencement of development because the consequential delay in developing those plots presents further practical difficulties in terms of co-ordinating their development with construction activity on the wider site. There are even greater logistical problems created if the original housebuilder has completed the development and is forced to return to site to build out plots which have not been sold to self & custom builders. Therefore, if the current policy requirements are retained HBF would support the suggestion that any unsold plots remaining after the 6-month marketing period revert to the original developer.

Policy SHO6- Financial viability Assessments for Housing

99. As the whole plan viability methodology uses typologies, this means there may be individual sites that are not viable, for example if the costs or vales of a specific site fall outside the parameters used of a typology that was tested. Some site will be on the very margins of viability and other sites may already be unviable even without a change of circumstances. HBF therefore support the recognition of the potential ned for flexibility in relation to site specific viability issues.

Policy SID1 - Promotion of Fibre to the Premises and 5G Networks


100. There is no need for the first section of this policy on Fibre to the Premises broadband because this matter has been addressed through the Part R update to building Regulations that came in last year on 26 December 2022, which ensures development provides gigabit ready physical infrastructure.

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

101. HBF are supportive of the use of ‘Building for a Healthy Life’ as best practice guidance but suggest its use should remain voluntary rather than becoming a mandatory policy requirement. Building for a Healthy Life is not really a ‘standard’ to be achieved, but rather a toolkit for considering design and thinking about the qualities of successful places.

Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

Nationally Described Space Standard

102. HBF does not support the introduction of the optional Nationally Described Space Standards though policies in individual Local Plans. If the Council wanted to do this, they will need robust justifiable evidence to introduce the NDSS, as any policy which seeks to apply the optional nationally described space standards (NDSS) to all dwellings should only be done in accordance with the NPPF1, which states that “policies may also make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”.

103. The NPPF2 requires that all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence, which should be adequate, proportionate and focussed tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned. The PPG identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy. It states that ‘where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:

• Need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
• Viability – the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.

1 para 130f & Footnote 49
2 Para 31


• Timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions’.

104. HBF also remind the Council that there is a direct relationship between unit size, cost per square metre (sqm), selling price per sqm and
affordability. The Council’s policy approach should recognise that customers have different budgets and aspirations. An inflexible policy approach to NDSS for all new dwellings will impact on affordability and effect customer choice.
Well-designed dwellings below NDSS can provided a good, functional home. Smaller dwellings play a valuable role in meeting specific needs for both open market and affordable home ownership housing.

105. An inflexible policy approach imposing NDSS on all housing removes the most affordable homes and denies lower income households from being able to afford homeownership. The introduction of the NDSS for all dwellings may mean customers purchasing larger homes in floorspace but with bedrooms less suited to their housing needs with the unintended consequences of potentially increasing overcrowding and reducing the quality of their living environment. The Council should focus on good design and usable space to ensure that dwellings are fit for purpose rather than focusing on NDSS.

106. HBF considers that if the Government had expected all properties to be built to NDSS that they would have made these standards mandatory not optional.

107. If the proposed requirement for NDSS is carried forward, then the Council should put forward proposals for transitional arrangements. The land deals underpinning residential sites may have been secured prior to any proposed introduction of the NDSS. These sites should be allowed to move through the planning system before any proposed policy requirements are enforced. The NDSS should not be applied to any reserved matters applications or any outline or detailed approval prior to a specified date.

108. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

109. This policy also seeks to introduce a water efficiency standard of 110 litres/person/day. HBF note that Part G Building regulations already stipulates 125lpppd normal conditions and 110lpppd in water stressed areas. Therefore, HBF question whether there is a need for this to be referred to within the Local Plan as it is already required by other regulatory frameworks.

110. The policy should be deleted.


Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

111. HBF notes that we are in the midst of a Housing Crisis. Housing delivery is therefore a key challenge facing Sandwell Borough. To address the housing crisis the Council needs to allocate enough sites to meet the housing requirement and provide choice and flexibility in supply. This will require the allocation of a mix and range of sites in a variety of locations. The policies in the Plan with then near careful monitoring to ensure they are delivering the housing. The Sandwell Local Plan must ensure the delivery of new housing to meet both open market and affordable housing needs.

112. HBF note that the Issue and Options consultation document suggested that that Council was of the view that Sandwell was so constrained it may only be able to provide 9,492 against an identified need of 30,300 new dwellings between 2021 and 2041, less than a third of what is needed. The Reg 18 consultation version is now seeking providing 11,167 homes against a requirement of 29,773 homes by 2041. HBF is unclear of the reasoning and justification for this change.

113. The issue of housing is critically important and needs urgently addressing through the plan-making process. HBF believes that the Council needs to explore any and all options to meet the housing need and requirement of Sandwell. This must include full consideration of the current Housing Crisis and if it results in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would require the need for a Green Belt review. A plan that seeks to meet only third of the need does not deliver is simply not good enough and does represent an effective use of the plan-led system.

114. HBF suggest more flexibility is needed within the plan, so that it is able to respond to any changing circumstances. HBF do not support the inclusion of policies within a Local Plan that merely triggers a review of the Local Plan if monitoring shows housing delivery is not occurring as expected. Such a policy does nothing to address the housing crisis or undersupply of homes. There are other more effective and immediate measures that could be introduced into policy that would enable the Council to address housing under deliver, much more quickly than would be possible through the production of another plan, or plan review.

115. It is important that houses are brought forward, and the matter addressed as soon as possible, if under delivery is observed. HBF would suggest, as a minimum, explicit reference should be made within the Plan’s policy to the potential to bring forward supply earlier. However, as the housing need and requirement figures for the Plan are minimum (not maximum) figures the Council could also specifically identify reserve sites, particular sites that could/would be brought forward sooner to address any under delivery whatever the reason for that under performance. This could be a shortfall in market housing permissions granted and/or completions, affordable housing permissions granted and/or completions and any failure against the Housing Delivery Test or local plan monitoring. More is needed on how and when monitoring will be undertaken and more is needed on what action(S) will be taken when if monitoring shows under delivery of housing.

116. There remains a need to address issues that are wider-than-local matters in a joined-up manner under the Duty to Cooperate. The HBF notes that Sandwell was closely involved in the production of the Black Country Plan (BCP), alongside the other three Black Country councils, but that work on the joint BCP officially ceased in October 2022. The HBF notes that the BCP website says “it is with regret that we are unable to reach agreement on the approach to planning for future development needs within the framework of the Black Country Plan”. The statement on the website continues that “Local Plans for the four Black Country Councils will now provide the framework for the long- term planning of the Black Country. The Black Country Plan 2039 work programme will end, and we will now transition to a process focused on Local Plans. The issues of housing and employment land need will now be addressed through individual Local Plans for each of the authorities. The Councils will co- operate with each other and with other key bodies as they prepare their Local Plans." This suggests compliance with the Duty to Cooperate may be a key challenge for meeting the legal requirements of plan-making in Sandwell.

117. HBF suggest that there is a need for housing monitoring to be undertaken across the wider region. If other areas are providing housing to meet Sandwell’s need, Sandwell will need to be monitoring this delivery to ensure its needs are being met. However, HBF firmly believe Sandwell should be doing more to address its own needs, including Green Belt release.

118. The HBF would encourage the Council to fully consider the housing needs of the Borough and robustly consider the need for additional housing in the housing requirement before then considering how much of the housing requirement can be met within the Borough, and how much may be unmet. It is important for the housing requirement to reflect the housing needs and growth aspirations of the Borough and not be restricted by capacity considerations, which should be considered after the housing requirement has been set.

119. HBF suggest that the monitoring framework at the end of the Plan needs to be expanded. The Council will need to monitor the delivery of housing and publish progress against a published Housing Trajectory Housing monitoring should be undertaken on a site-by-site basis. Therefore, the detailed housing trajectory including for specific sites should be inserted included within the Plan.

120. HBF note that as we are in the midst of a housing crisis, it is very important that the Council ensures that the Local Plan delivers all the housing that is being planned for. Sandwell should also monitor the delivery of any unmet need by neighbouring authorities and actively participate in local plan consultations and examinations to ensure the need for other authorities to meet their need is robustly supported in neighbouring Local Plans.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

After consultation with Peter Simpson we understand the opportunity to submit land for consideration for potential residential development is now open. On behalf of our client Syed Ahmed we would like to submit the attached two portions of land on
Portway Hill.
Attached are two plans provided by client and a location plan showing the land shaded red.

5215: LAND AT GRANVILLE WORKS, STATION ROAD, CRADLEY HEATH, WEST
MIDLANDS, B64 6PW.

We are writing to provide you with our comments on the current consultation document on behalf of our client Palmer Timber Limited and the above site in their ownership.

We have reviewed the Draft regulation 18 consultation document and we welcome the opportunity to submit comments to the above consultation.

The above site is located off Station Road, Cradley Heath and is a large employment/ industrial site of approximately 2.96 hectares. The site has been in employment related uses for well over one hundred years, during which time the company has been expanding into the land which was purchased, with a significant amount still available for further development.

In the current adopted Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery DPD (SAD) the site has a designation as a residential site (H13.7). the land surrounding the site has a designation of a SLINC 92.
[see attachment for extract from SAD - inserted figure]

Residential Siles Sandwe/1 Site Allocations and Delivery DPD (SAD) Policies map

The SAD states,
[see attachment for extract from SAD - Area 13.7 - Haden Hill]

We consider the current designation remains wholly appropriate for the site and the surrounding land.

However, we note in the current consultation document the above site has a proposed designation of Local Employment Area and as a wildlife corridor.

[see attachment for extract from Sandwell Local Plan interactive policies map and Policy SEC3 and Policy SNE1] ]

Policy SEC3 - Local Employment Area

Proposed Local Employment Area designation - Current Housing site allocation

We are disappointed to see the housing designation has been removed from the site as we consider the site has ongoing potential to accommodate residential development. The site is surrounded by existing residential development to the east, west and south and therefore is in a location which is suitable to support additional residential development.

We do not consider there is the requirement for the site to be removed from the Local Plan as having potential to accommodate residential development during the emerging plan period.

The circumstance of the site that warranted its allocation for residential housing in the current adopted plan remain unchanged and therefore the site should retain its designation as a potential residential site.

The site is a brownfield site in a sustainable location which offers excellent potential as a future residential site.

My client, in correspondence with the Council, highlighted that the site is in employment use currently, however, the business is under constant review and the current view on the site may be subject to change over the medium-long term.

This indicated that there could be potential for redevelopment of the site to housing in the medium -long term, during the emerging plan period. Therefore, removing the residential development allocation on the site will hinder the forward planning potential of the site and risk a site become vacant and derelict should employment uses on site no longer be viable.

One of the main objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to significantly boost the supply of houses, (paragraph 60, NPPF, 2023), the policy states "it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward'.

We therefore consider removing allocated housing sites from the emerging Local Plan is not in accordance with National policy.

This is ever more evident when considered against the housing land supply for Sandwell. The Sandwell Authority Monitoring Report 2021-2022, which is the most up to date report on the Council's website this documents states, "The Local Housing Need figure is calculated within the SHLAA. The annual requirement is 1515 homes per annum which equates to 7,575 units for the 5-year period 2022-2027. Including a 20% buffer, as required by the Housing Delivery Test, the five-year supply of deliverable sites required to meet local housing need would therefore be 9,090 net homes. The SHLAA explains that 2,850 homes (without discounts) are deliverable. This means that Sandwe/1 cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land." (Sandwe/1 Authority Monitoring Report 2021-2022, 5.2 - Housing Land Supply, Five-year supply position at April 2022)

Retaining the site as a residential site allows the Local Plan, and the site itself, flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances (such as economic/ political change), providing the ability to accommodate much needed housing. This would therefore assist with the plan being consider positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy, thus the plan being found sound.

It is important to note that there remains a housing supply shortfall within the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) as confirm by the Position Statement Addendum, April 2023, therefore the inclusion of the site as an additional housing

site will not also assist with identifying sufficient land to meet the housing requirements for the wider housing market area but also assists with the Council fulfilling their duty to cooperate.

We therefore object to the proposed removal of the housing allocation on the above site, and request for that allocation to be reinstated in the emerging Local Plan.

SNE1 - Nature Conservation Wildlife Corridor/SLINC
In the emerging Local Plan, the site has been given a designation as wildlife corridor. This designation encompasses not only the areas of surrounding trees and shrubbery which forms a boundary to the site, but the employment/ industrial land also.

We object to this proposed policy and consider this designation to be inappropriate and unnecessary.

We also consider the proposed Nature Conservation policy SNE1, conflicts with policy SEC3
- Local Employment Areas. 2qwas

The Palmers Timber Site, Station Road, as previously stated, has been in employment use for a significant period of time and is currently in active use.

We consider the site should retain its current designation as a residential site as discussed above, however, against the proposed policy SEC3, policy SNE1 is overly prescriptive and would hinder employment related development/ redevelopment on the site with the requirements for policy SNE1 4, 5 and 6.

We consider this to be contrary NPPF paragraph 81 which states, "Planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development."

The requirements of policy SNE1 and the impacts they could potentially have on the site could result in negative outcomes to Palmers Timber Limited and their continued future use of the site. Should my clients wish to expand their business and increase development on site, the proposed policy may hinder their ability to further the business, therefore potentially requiring an alternative site being sourced. Thus, resulting in the loss of an important business/ employer in the area and resulting in a vacant site at risk of becoming derelict.

The site is heavily developed with significant areas of concrete/ tarmac which is use as parking areas and storage. There are a number of very large industrial/ employment buildings which are all in active use. There are several large vehicle movements throughout the site regularly.

There is no part of the built development which acts as a wildlife corridor/ SLINC that would require a formal designation over the whole site.

[see attachment for Aerial view of the Palmer Timber site]

The above ariel photography highlights the stark contrast between the surrounding flora and the built development of the site.

We also question and object to the designation of the SLING/wildlife corridor surrounding the developed part of the site, as we do not consider there is significant justification for the land to be designated as a SLING.

We fail to see any justification for the current designation of the land as a Wildlife corridor/ SLING. We understand that the current and proposed designations are carried forward from the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2004 and the SAD 2012 and this is the reason for its continued designation, not because the site has any continued local importance for nature conservation.

We do not consider the land warrants the designation of a wildlife corridor/SLING and object to the proposed designation.

We therefore object to this policy and consider the wildlife corridor designation should be removed from the site.

We consider sufficient information has been provided to enable the Council to determine the above request and therefore look forward to receiving your feedback.

In the meantime, we trust the above is clear, however, if anything further is required, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Vision and Spatial Strategy for Sandwell
3.2 Turning to the proposed vision for Sandwell, the second to last paragraph on page 35 of the consultation document, seeks to ensure that by 2041:
“There is a wide range of housing available to Sandwell residents, aiming to help meet housing needs, designed to support green living and suitable for adaptation to benefit all sections of the community. Affordable, social, and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them. New developments are located within attractively landscaped areas, with access to district and low-cost energy and heating projects, sustainable drainage designed to improve the local environment as well as provide reliable protection against flooding and run-off and all necessary services and facilities within walking and cycling distance or a short bus ride away.”
3.3 Wain Estates support the broad intentions of this part of the vision, with regards to helping to meet the wide range of housing needs within Sandwell, supporting green living and being located in close proximity to local services and facilities via sustainable transport modes. However, within the associated Priorities, Strategic Objectives and Policies set out within Table 3 to support this vision, there is no recognition of the chronic shortage in housing provision to date and how a marked change in strategy will be required to try and address both the historic shortfalls and future demands. Instead, Objective 6 – Housing to Meet all Needs is relatively generic and indicates there is no proposed change in approach or strategy for new development, particularly the provision of housing.
3.4 Reference is then made to the relevant emerging policies which support the capability to meet this objective and help deliver the vision for Sandwell. Wain Estates are of the view that if these policies are progressed as proposed, they do not provide the capability to meet objective 6 and the provision of housing to meet all needs, including the borough’s chronic shortfall in both affordable and market housing, which is a fundamental part of the proposed vision for Sandwell.
3.5 The principle emerging policy which demonstrates this inability to meet the basic housing needs of Sandwell, as established via their own objectively assessed needs (OAN) is Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy. This emerging policy proposes to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the 2022 -2041 plan period. However, this 11,167 figure is minimal when compared to the identified housing need of 29,773 new homes throughout the same time period, identifying a shortfall of 18,606 homes.
3.6 As a percentage, the proposed supply in the draft plan represents just 38% (rounded) of the borough’s total housing needs. This is unacceptable, in both the immediate context and historic undersupply, but also when looking at the wider national level and Government objectives enshrined within the NPPF, particularly at paragraph 60 which requires the supply of homes to be “significantly boosted” and importantly that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to ensure the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed. Due to this, difficult decisions need to be made with regards to the proposed spatial strategy, including consideration of Green Belt land release, without which is artificially restricting the development potential within Sandwell.
3.7 The starting point of a new Local Plan cannot be the continued chronic under-provision of housing, such that the exist delivery issues will be further exacerbated. As evidenced by the latest Housing Delivery Test Result (2021 measurement, the updated version due for January 2023) – being at just 52%, one of the lowest in the county and automatically evoking the “presumption in favour” and “titled planning balance” when it comes to determining applications. This coupled with the latest Five-Year Housing Land Supply Figures released in October 2023, which have only worsened since the previous year, dropping from 3,092 homes (1.6 years) to 2,850 homes (1.57 years) provides clear evidence that the current spatial strategy is not fit for purpose. This historic underperformance in meeting housing needs, also needs to be viewed within the context of the NPPF’s emphasis on needing to boost the supply of housing, and the clear upward direction of travel of national policy in this respect.
3.8 To help address this shortfall, emerging Policy SH03 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility seeks to provide substantial uplifts to minimum density requirements to maximise on the most efficient use of land. This has resulted in a range from 40dph, to 45dph to 100dph in West Brom, this are much higher than the typical 25-30dph figures. The policy notes that further detailed design requirements will come forward in relation to these densities as part of future Sandwell Design Codes. However, with the growing pressures on development to provide more than just housing, such as the 10% BNG (with onsite provision as a preference), accessibility requirements such as the minimum of 15% provision of part M4(3) dwellings for developments of 10 or more dwellings (emerging Policy SH05), the need for sites of 2ha or larger to provide new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population on site (emerging Policy SH4W) all place additional demand for space on site, which may mean that the high minimum density standards cannot be met, resulting in an even lower number of housing units being capable of being provided within Sandwell.
3.9 To further help to address the shortfall, Sandwell are proposing to utilise the Duty-to- Cooperate with neighbouring authorities within the same Housing Market Area, or with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. The details of which are to be provided in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation – which is to be elaborated upon further at the Publication Stage of the plan. This is despite the fact that Birmingham City Council has already said that it does not have enough space to meet its own housing need and might not have enough space to meet its own employment land needs.
3.10 Sandwell note that this approach may only address a small proportion of the identified housing shortfall and therefore if this position remains then further work will be undertaken as appropriate to identify how this shortfall can be addressed. This position is reflected in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which concludes that,
“On balance, Option E is identified as the best performing option, assuming that a large proportion of growth under this option would be on previously developed land and within the existing centres, with the benefits in terms of regeneration meaning this option slightly out-performs Option D, although both would not deliver sufficient housing to satisfy the identified need.”
3.11 As part of a wider consortium, Wain Estates has instructed the “Falling Even Shorter: an updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area” report (copy enclosed at Appendix 4). This report finds that the wider HMA has a shortfall of between 34,742 and 40,676 homes up to 2031, 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040 based on each Council’s most up-to- date supply evidence. This shortfall will only be exacerbated by Sandwell’s approach, with other HMA authorities likely to be able to make a very limited contribution to Sandwell’s shortfall.
3.12 It therefore is clear that the additional work identified in the SA will be required to meet the housing shortfall, the historic approach to the spatial strategy is being undertaken as part of the emerging local plan, a strategy which was in place for the currently adopted Local Plan, which has resulted in the chronic under delivery of both market and affordable housing.
3.13 Wain Estates are of the view that the scale of Sandwell’s own shortfall alone, beyond considering the unmet needs of the wider HMA, amount to exceptional circumstances for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. This additional work should therefore begin now and a fresh approach to assessing the capacity for housing within the borough should be undertaken, which includes an assessment of Green Belt sites for potential release.
3.14 The site on land north of Wilderness Lane is a clear example of the availability of such sites, which are not technically constrained, are in an accessible location, provide the ability to offer enhanced access to the open countryside for recreation purposes and also provide housing in the least sensitive areas of the Green Belt (whilst retaining the majority of it), adjacent to existing built form – in this case situated along Wilderness Lane.
3.15 At present, it is concluded that the overall vision and spatial strategy proposed by the emerging SLP would not be effective in meeting the tests for soundness, as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF. In particular, criterion (a) which requires plans to be:
“Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
3.16 The council by their own admission have submitted a strategy which falls substantially short of providing a strategy which meets their OAN, which should be seen as a minimum requirement within the extract above. Even in meeting the substantially short figures there is a reliance on maximising out housing densities, in an era where development pressures to deliver supporting features beyond just housing – BNG, sustainability measures etc often restrict this capability. The duty-to-cooperate is also proposed to be utilised to account for this unmet need, but there is no clear strategy or commitment from neighbouring authorities that this would be achievable in part or as a whole. This is therefore not a sustainable approach to development and will inevitably result in the very purpose of the SLP – being to promote growth in planned manner, falling away, likely resulting in mass speculative development, in order for housing needs to be met.
3.17 Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances for reviewing Sandwell’s Green Belt boundaries. A further review of the Green Belt is therefore necessary in order to assess how the boundaries should be amended to maximise the potential for the most sustainable sites.
3.18 An example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, 40% affordable housing, a countryside park and associated infrastructure. This application is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.19 Turning more specifically to emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and the elements which make up the proposed housing supply of 11,167 new homes, Wain Estates also have significant concerns regarding the sources which make up this already insufficient number of homes.
3.20 Within Table 5 of the above emerging policy, the first source of the housing land supply is made up of sites currently under construction (1,060 homes), with planning permission or prior approval (998 homes) and sites with other commitments (61 homes)1. Therefore, 2,119 homes included within the figures, are made up of the current supply.
3.21 The second source is made up of housing allocations, comprising occupied employment land (2,234 homes), other (3,094 homes), sites with planning permission (1,545 homes) and sites under construction (78 homes). Therefore, 1,623 homes included within the housing allocations are made up of current / existing supply (calculated by adding together sites with existing planning permission and sites under construction). Of the remaining allocations, despite the occupied employment land (2,234 homes) having a 15% discount figure applied, in recognition of the fact that there can be multiple delivery constraints, this in itself does not mean that there is capability of the full 2,234 homes to be delivered given that these sites are in active use for employment.
3.22 It has also been demonstrated through the previous Black Country Plan that such approaches are not effective for delivering housing. As part of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) a total of 16,182 homes were allocated on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

1 10 units are also included for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, but this element of the supply is not discussed as part of these representations

3.23 Furthermore, as recognised in our previous representations, not only is the delivery of housing on such sites questionable, but it also reduces the ability for the Council to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, of which the Council recognise there are also not enough being provided for as part of the emerging SLP. Paragraph 8.11 of the emerging SLP notes that, 143ha of the employment land need arising in Sandwell cannot be met solely within the Borough, and that the unmet need is to be exported to neighbouring authorities, as part of ongoing duty-to-cooperate work, which is yet to be secured.
3.24 It is good practice to ensure that any elements of housing supply included in a council’s figures, are suitable, available, and achievable of being viably developed. Wain Estates are of the view that there has not been enough evidence provided for the proposed allocations on occupied employment land, as a robust element of the housing supply.
3.25 Taking the above into account, only 3,094 homes (see Table 5 Housing Land Supply Sources within emerging Policy SH01) are allocated which are not made up of existing commitments or situated on occupied employment land, this is a very minor figure when compared to both the proposed delivery of 11,167 net new homes over the plan period and even more so when compared to the actual housing need of 29,773 new homes.
3.26 Looking into more detail at some of the proposed allocations, as recognised by the Council when looking at Appendix B of the SLP, they are also not without their constraints and limitations, further demonstrating that the indicative capacity could be further reduced, resulting in an even lower number of housing allocations. For example:
• SH2 (SA 12) Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury is proposed for 62 homes, but it has access issues which need to be overcome in order to be deliverable, questioning the suitability of this allocation.
• SH26 (66) Lower City Road, Oldbury is proposed for 73 homes but has constraints including land remediation and site assembly issues, there also only appears to be interest from some land owners looking to bring the site forward, so also potential ownership issues to overcome, questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SH25 (SA 65) Bradleys Lane / High Street, Tipton proposed for 189 homes however, this site also has site assembly and land contamination issues to be overcome, it also requires the current owners to find a place to relocate their business before development can come forwards, again questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SM2 SA199 Lion Farm Oldbury, is proposed for a mix of uses, including the provision of 200 homes. However, it relies on relocation of 6 sports pitches to the south of borough, which is arguably not a minor feat. This brings into question the availability and achievability of the land to support an allocation.
• SM1 SA 91 Chances Glass Works, is proposed for a mix of uses including 276 homes, this is a heritage led regeneration project given its recognised constraints which are a Grade II listed building, Scheduled Ancient Monument and Galton Valley Conservation Area, the complexity of such a project brings into question the timescales and the potential delivery of the proposed housing numbers, given the statutory protections given to these heritage constraints, again questioning the suitability and achievability of this site to support an allocation.
3.27 The third part of the housing supply is made up of windfall units, a total of 1,868 are being proposed. However, the delivery of this level of homes is questioned when the restrictive nature of windfall provision within the SLP is assessed. Often and as recognised within the NPPF, the provision of windfall units can help contribute to meeting anticipated housing supply needs, where this aligns with compelling evidence, they can provide a reliable source of supply (paragraph 71). Emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth, does indeed include for an element of windfall provision – some 1,868 homes over the plan period. However, the delivery of such windfall units will be highly restricted given the limitations placed within emerging Policy SH02 – Windfall developments. The policy allows for windfall development on previously developed land without exception, but for greenfield sites, windfall development is only allowed subject to certain conditions. These conditions are:
• That the site is not protected as community open space or
• The site is council owned land surplus to requirements or
• The development of the site will bring an under-used piece of land back into beneficial use and will not harm the environmental, ecological, or historic value of the site and the wider area, in accordance with other relevant policies in the SLP
3.28 The justification text to the policy notes that windfall sites are likely to include surplus public land, small non-conforming employment uses and some residential intensification sites where appropriate. However, greenfield sites are only permitted where they conform with the bulleted list above. Such restrictions are overly onerous and severely limit the capability for windfall sites on greenfield land to come forwards. This is also not in conformity with the definition of windfall development contained within the NPPF (Appendix M – Glossary), which simply states that windfall sites are sites not specifically identified in the development plan. Again, placing unnecessary restrictions on the delivery of housing, for a number that is already significantly below the required capacity.
3.29 The fourth part of the housing supply is made up of additional floorspace in centres (219 homes). This element makes up a very small part of the overall proposed supply figures. It demonstrates the limitations that emerge from seeking to maximise land on brownfield sites, and the misconception that such spaces are often not being utilised to the best of their ability.
3.30 Overall, the elements which make up the already under-delivering housing land supply as part of the emerging SLP are seen to be questionable.
• Firstly, there is a large reliance on existing commitments, as sites with planning permission or already under construction to make up the housing numbers.
• Secondly, the level of allocations which are included on occupied employment sites is high and such sites are known to be slow at delivering and riddled with issues which slow down or prevent the development for more vulnerable residential uses, in addition to the fact they will result in a loss of employment floorspace, for which there is a recognised need within the borough.
• Thirdly, the proposed allocations themselves are not without issues to overcome – such as access, site assembly, land ownership and remediation – which are not insubstantial.
• Finally, the overly restrictive nature of the windfall housing policy means there is a severe limit as to where such sites can come forward and on what type of land, despite the NPPF not stipulating such limitations exist.
3.31 In light of the above, Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances exist in terms of both the scale of unmet need and the likely under delivery of the proposed supply. It is therefore essential that Sandwell reviews its Green Belt boundaries, to ensure it meets its housing needs in the least sensitive locations.
3.32 It is well evidenced that greenfield land will deliver much quicker than brownfield land, where issues of land assembly and remediation severely delay the delivery of housing. It should also be acknowledged that removing land from the Green Belt can also be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and the accessibility of remaining Green Belt land as well as providing improvements to Green Infrastructure (GI) provision. Overall, the Council must “turn on all taps of supply” if it is to meet its housing needs.
3.33 As emphasised throughout this representation, an example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, a countryside park and enhancements to existing biodiversity and Green Infrastructure within the area. This site is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Affordable Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.34 Turning to affordable housing, which is a key issue in terms of the housing supply within the borough, whereby a chronic shortfall has been identified and has historically only worsened. The 25% requirement figure contained within emerging Policy SH04 represents a 5% increase on the existing requirement, which has not been delivering to the levels expected. This demonstrates that the Council must increase its overall supply, in order to increase the supply of affordable housing.
3.35 Indeed the proposals for land north of Wilderness Lane site include the provision 40% affordable housing, this can viably be done given the site’s greenfield nature. On brownfield sites where additional remediation costs are to be factored into viability considerations, meeting increased and even the basic affordable housing requirements is challenging, demonstrating why Green Belt release of greenfield sites would further assist in meeting the chronic shortfall in both market and specifically affordable housing needs within Sandwell.
3.36 Reference within the policy also notes the aspiration of providing affordable housing through a range of schemes delivering up to 100% funding through grant and other financial sources. However, as reflected in the wording of the policy, this is just that – aspirational. It is likely to be particularly difficult given the already stretched nature of government funding and the lengthy process of applying for such funding.
3.37 Wain Estates suggest that further evidence of the delivery of such schemes coming forward or having funding secured needs to be included within the evidence base to support this policy, in order to make it more robust and increase the chances of such developments coming forward.
3.38 Appendix 1 of the previous representations submitted (see Appendix 1 of this document) contains an Affordable Housing Statement which assesses this issue in further detail.
Exceptional Circumstances for Green Belt Release
3.39 The purpose of plan-making is to be positively prepared and set out a long term vision for the area, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable (paragraph 16 of the NPPF). A plan that only provides for around a third of its housing requirement, using the standard method baseline, cannot possibly meet these purposes or deliver the minimum requirement for housing. This is simply not acceptable and does not represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
3.40 Wain Estates consider that the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing crisis, is an important factor that constitutes the exceptional circumstances that justify Green Belt release. As this is a housing focused representation, employment needs are not explored in detail, however it is clear from reviewing the proposed plan that it proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This will only be exacerbated by the anticipated loss of current employment sites for housing, as identified within emerging policy SH01 and the 2,234 homes proposed to come forward as allocations on occupied employment land. The adverse consequences of not meeting the basic housing or employment needs, demonstrate the exceptional circumstances which are required to justify Green Belt release.
3.41 The approach to Green Belt boundary reviews is set out in the NPPF at paragraphs 141 and 142. Paragraph 141 states that the policy making authority need to “examine fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” before concluding if exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. It then goes on to state account needs to be taken for whether the strategy:
“(a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
(b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
(c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”
3.42 As discussed previously, all three of these elements have been included within the proposed spatial strategy, however, are not without their own constraints and when combined, still fall woefully short of meeting the minimum requirements of the identified OAN for Sandwell. This alone demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist for Sandwell to review its Green Belt boundaries. The release of land within the Green Belt needs to be further explored, to allow for plan-led development in the future, particularly when also coupled with the inability to also meet required employment land needs. For this reason, Wain Estates suggest a further review of the Green Belt is undertaken, to identify the most sustainably located sites, in line with paragraph 142 of the NPPF.
3.43 A clear example of such a site is land North of Wilderness Lane, which is currently pending determination for up to 150 new homes, a countryside park, 40% affordable housing provision and associated infrastructure. The accompanying Green Belt Assessment contained within the LVA supporting the application, concludes that the harm to the Green Belt arising from development on the site would be low. Development of the site would maintain the physical and visual separation of the different parts of the wider suburban area and would have a very limited effect on encroachment on the countryside. Spatial and visual openness would be minimally affected. The significant new Wilderness countryside park will provide new public access to local people, and the habitat value of the site will be enhanced. The compensatory improvements to the land remaining in the Green Belt would be significant. Whilst we recognise that the LVA has been produced for the purposes of a planning application, it demonstrates that the contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt is limited, and it is suitable for release and allocation for residential development.
Proposed Amendments to the Green Belt Policy
3.44 Emerging Policy SDS6 provides guidance for the approach to Sandwell’s Green Belt, which will be applied to any development proposed in the Green Belt once the plan is adopted.
3.45 Criterion 2 of the policy notes that: “Sandwell green belt’s nature conservation, landscape, heritage and agricultural value will be protected and enhanced.” Wain Estates draw issue with this wording, as it implies that the Green Belt is a designation of both environmental and heritage value, this is not the case, it is a spatial designation for which there can also be both environmental and heritage features and designations within it. This type of wording adds confusion to the purposes of the Green Belt and the value placed upon its protection. This is recognised in the supporting text to the policy at paragraph 3.84 which states that:
“While green belt is not itself a reflection of landscape quality or value, large parts of the local green belt are also identified as being of significant historic, environmental and landscape importance.”
3.46 Wain Estates suggest that the policy wording is amended to make clearer the difference between the spatial designation and the purposes of the Green Belt and the distinction between this and environmental and heritage designations, whilst recognising their potential concurrent nature.
3.47 Criterion 3 of the policy states that:
“Opportunities will be taken to improve the value and recreational role of the green belt in Sandwell Valley:
a. through improving safe accessibility for all users;
b. by providing facilities for active and passive recreation (if this preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”
3.48 It must be recognised that in order to improve the value and recreational role of the Green Belt in Sandwell, development will likely need to occur. Land within private ownership is not accessible to the public for these purposes, enhancing access will only come as a compensatory improvement as part of future development proposals through planning applications.
3.49 Providing such improvements would form part of a two-way process of negotiation as part of future planning applications, with the provision of housing potentially acting as an enabler, to allow the council to meet the enhanced recreational role of the Green Belt. This also supports Sandwell’s wider vision, which seeks to increase accessible open spaces, such spaces need to come from somewhere, the Green Belt is a key facilitator for this, however it will not come forward of its own accord.

Vision and Spatial Strategy for Sandwell
3.2 Turning to the proposed vision for Sandwell, the second to last paragraph on page 35 of the consultation document, seeks to ensure that by 2041:
“There is a wide range of housing available to Sandwell residents, aiming to help meet housing needs, designed to support green living and suitable for adaptation to benefit all sections of the community. Affordable, social, and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them. New developments are located within attractively landscaped areas, with access to district and low-cost energy and heating projects, sustainable drainage designed to improve the local environment as well as provide reliable protection against flooding and run-off and all necessary services and facilities within walking and cycling distance or a short bus ride away.”
3.3 Wain Estates support the broad intentions of this part of the vision, with regards to helping to meet the wide range of housing needs within Sandwell, supporting green living and being located in close proximity to local services and facilities via sustainable transport modes. However, within the associated Priorities, Strategic Objectives and Policies set out within Table 3 to support this vision, there is no recognition of the chronic shortage in housing provision to date and how a marked change in strategy will be required to try and address both the historic shortfalls and future demands. Instead, Objective 6 – Housing to Meet all Needs is relatively generic and indicates there is no proposed change in approach or strategy for new development, particularly the provision of housing.
3.4 Reference is then made to the relevant emerging policies which support the capability to meet this objective and help deliver the vision for Sandwell. Wain Estates are of the view that if these policies are progressed as proposed, they do not provide the capability to meet objective 6 and the provision of housing to meet all needs, including the borough’s chronic shortfall in both affordable and market housing, which is a fundamental part of the proposed vision for Sandwell.
3.5 The principle emerging policy which demonstrates this inability to meet the basic housing needs of Sandwell, as established via their own objectively assessed needs (OAN) is Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy. This emerging policy proposes to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the 2022 -2041 plan period. However, this 11,167 figure is minimal when compared to the identified housing need of 29,773 new homes throughout the same time period, identifying a shortfall of 18,606 homes.
3.6 As a percentage, the proposed supply in the draft plan represents just 38% (rounded) of the borough’s total housing needs. This is unacceptable, in both the immediate context and historic undersupply, but also when looking at the wider national level and Government objectives enshrined within the NPPF, particularly at paragraph 60 which requires the supply of homes to be “significantly boosted” and importantly that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to ensure the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed. Due to this, difficult decisions need to be made with regards to the proposed spatial strategy, including consideration of Green Belt land release, without which is artificially restricting the development potential within Sandwell.
3.7 The starting point of a new Local Plan cannot be the continued chronic under-provision of housing, such that the exist delivery issues will be further exacerbated. As evidenced by the latest Housing Delivery Test Result (2021 measurement, the updated version due for January 2023) – being at just 52%, one of the lowest in the county and automatically evoking the “presumption in favour” and “titled planning balance” when it comes to determining applications. This coupled with the latest Five-Year Housing Land Supply Figures released in October 2023, which have only worsened since the previous year, dropping from 3,092 homes (1.6 years) to 2,850 homes (1.57 years) provides clear evidence that the current spatial strategy is not fit for purpose. This historic underperformance in meeting housing needs, also needs to be viewed within the context of the NPPF’s emphasis on needing to boost the supply of housing, and the clear upward direction of travel of national policy in this respect.
3.8 To help address this shortfall, emerging Policy SH03 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility seeks to provide substantial uplifts to minimum density requirements to maximise on the most efficient use of land. This has resulted in a range from 40dph, to 45dph to 100dph in West Brom, this are much higher than the typical 25-30dph figures. The policy notes that further detailed design requirements will come forward in relation to these densities as part of future Sandwell Design Codes. However, with the growing pressures on development to provide more than just housing, such as the 10% BNG (with onsite provision as a preference), accessibility requirements such as the minimum of 15% provision of part M4(3) dwellings for developments of 10 or more dwellings (emerging Policy SH05), the need for sites of 2ha or larger to provide new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population on site (emerging Policy SH4W) all place additional demand for space on site, which may mean that the high minimum density standards cannot be met, resulting in an even lower number of housing units being capable of being provided within Sandwell.
3.9 To further help to address the shortfall, Sandwell are proposing to utilise the Duty-to- Cooperate with neighbouring authorities within the same Housing Market Area, or with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. The details of which are to be provided in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation – which is to be elaborated upon further at the Publication Stage of the plan. This is despite the fact that Birmingham City Council has already said that it does not have enough space to meet its own housing need and might not have enough space to meet its own employment land needs.
3.10 Sandwell note that this approach may only address a small proportion of the identified housing shortfall and therefore if this position remains then further work will be undertaken as appropriate to identify how this shortfall can be addressed. This position is reflected in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which concludes that,
“On balance, Option E is identified as the best performing option, assuming that a large proportion of growth under this option would be on previously developed land and within the existing centres, with the benefits in terms of regeneration meaning this option slightly out-performs Option D, although both would not deliver sufficient housing to satisfy the identified need.”
3.11 As part of a wider consortium, Wain Estates has instructed the “Falling Even Shorter: an updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area” report (copy enclosed at Appendix 4). This report finds that the wider HMA has a shortfall of between 34,742 and 40,676 homes up to 2031, 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040 based on each Council’s most up-to- date supply evidence. This shortfall will only be exacerbated by Sandwell’s approach, with other HMA authorities likely to be able to make a very limited contribution to Sandwell’s shortfall.
3.12 It therefore is clear that the additional work identified in the SA will be required to meet the housing shortfall, the historic approach to the spatial strategy is being undertaken as part of the emerging local plan, a strategy which was in place for the currently adopted Local Plan, which has resulted in the chronic under delivery of both market and affordable housing.
3.13 Wain Estates are of the view that the scale of Sandwell’s own shortfall alone, beyond considering the unmet needs of the wider HMA, amount to exceptional circumstances for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. This additional work should therefore begin now and a fresh approach to assessing the capacity for housing within the borough should be undertaken, which includes an assessment of Green Belt sites for potential release.
3.14 The site on land north of Wilderness Lane is a clear example of the availability of such sites, which are not technically constrained, are in an accessible location, provide the ability to offer enhanced access to the open countryside for recreation purposes and also provide housing in the least sensitive areas of the Green Belt (whilst retaining the majority of it), adjacent to existing built form – in this case situated along Wilderness Lane.
3.15 At present, it is concluded that the overall vision and spatial strategy proposed by the emerging SLP would not be effective in meeting the tests for soundness, as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF. In particular, criterion (a) which requires plans to be:
“Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
3.16 The council by their own admission have submitted a strategy which falls substantially short of providing a strategy which meets their OAN, which should be seen as a minimum requirement within the extract above. Even in meeting the substantially short figures there is a reliance on maximising out housing densities, in an era where development pressures to deliver supporting features beyond just housing – BNG, sustainability measures etc often restrict this capability. The duty-to-cooperate is also proposed to be utilised to account for this unmet need, but there is no clear strategy or commitment from neighbouring authorities that this would be achievable in part or as a whole. This is therefore not a sustainable approach to development and will inevitably result in the very purpose of the SLP – being to promote growth in planned manner, falling away, likely resulting in mass speculative development, in order for housing needs to be met.
3.17 Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances for reviewing Sandwell’s Green Belt boundaries. A further review of the Green Belt is therefore necessary in order to assess how the boundaries should be amended to maximise the potential for the most sustainable sites.
3.18 An example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, 40% affordable housing, a countryside park and associated infrastructure. This application is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.19 Turning more specifically to emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and the elements which make up the proposed housing supply of 11,167 new homes, Wain Estates also have significant concerns regarding the sources which make up this already insufficient number of homes.
3.20 Within Table 5 of the above emerging policy, the first source of the housing land supply is made up of sites currently under construction (1,060 homes), with planning permission or prior approval (998 homes) and sites with other commitments (61 homes)1. Therefore, 2,119 homes included within the figures, are made up of the current supply.
3.21 The second source is made up of housing allocations, comprising occupied employment land (2,234 homes), other (3,094 homes), sites with planning permission (1,545 homes) and sites under construction (78 homes). Therefore, 1,623 homes included within the housing allocations are made up of current / existing supply (calculated by adding together sites with existing planning permission and sites under construction). Of the remaining allocations, despite the occupied employment land (2,234 homes) having a 15% discount figure applied, in recognition of the fact that there can be multiple delivery constraints, this in itself does not mean that there is capability of the full 2,234 homes to be delivered given that these sites are in active use for employment.
3.22 It has also been demonstrated through the previous Black Country Plan that such approaches are not effective for delivering housing. As part of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) a total of 16,182 homes were allocated on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

1 10 units are also included for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, but this element of the supply is not discussed as part of these representations

3.23 Furthermore, as recognised in our previous representations, not only is the delivery of housing on such sites questionable, but it also reduces the ability for the Council to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, of which the Council recognise there are also not enough being provided for as part of the emerging SLP. Paragraph 8.11 of the emerging SLP notes that, 143ha of the employment land need arising in Sandwell cannot be met solely within the Borough, and that the unmet need is to be exported to neighbouring authorities, as part of ongoing duty-to-cooperate work, which is yet to be secured.
3.24 It is good practice to ensure that any elements of housing supply included in a council’s figures, are suitable, available, and achievable of being viably developed. Wain Estates are of the view that there has not been enough evidence provided for the proposed allocations on occupied employment land, as a robust element of the housing supply.
3.25 Taking the above into account, only 3,094 homes (see Table 5 Housing Land Supply Sources within emerging Policy SH01) are allocated which are not made up of existing commitments or situated on occupied employment land, this is a very minor figure when compared to both the proposed delivery of 11,167 net new homes over the plan period and even more so when compared to the actual housing need of 29,773 new homes.
3.26 Looking into more detail at some of the proposed allocations, as recognised by the Council when looking at Appendix B of the SLP, they are also not without their constraints and limitations, further demonstrating that the indicative capacity could be further reduced, resulting in an even lower number of housing allocations. For example:
• SH2 (SA 12) Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury is proposed for 62 homes, but it has access issues which need to be overcome in order to be deliverable, questioning the suitability of this allocation.
• SH26 (66) Lower City Road, Oldbury is proposed for 73 homes but has constraints including land remediation and site assembly issues, there also only appears to be interest from some land owners looking to bring the site forward, so also potential ownership issues to overcome, questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SH25 (SA 65) Bradleys Lane / High Street, Tipton proposed for 189 homes however, this site also has site assembly and land contamination issues to be overcome, it also requires the current owners to find a place to relocate their business before development can come forwards, again questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SM2 SA199 Lion Farm Oldbury, is proposed for a mix of uses, including the provision of 200 homes. However, it relies on relocation of 6 sports pitches to the south of borough, which is arguably not a minor feat. This brings into question the availability and achievability of the land to support an allocation.
• SM1 SA 91 Chances Glass Works, is proposed for a mix of uses including 276 homes, this is a heritage led regeneration project given its recognised constraints which are a Grade II listed building, Scheduled Ancient Monument and Galton Valley Conservation Area, the complexity of such a project brings into question the timescales and the potential delivery of the proposed housing numbers, given the statutory protections given to these heritage constraints, again questioning the suitability and achievability of this site to support an allocation.
3.27 The third part of the housing supply is made up of windfall units, a total of 1,868 are being proposed. However, the delivery of this level of homes is questioned when the restrictive nature of windfall provision within the SLP is assessed. Often and as recognised within the NPPF, the provision of windfall units can help contribute to meeting anticipated housing supply needs, where this aligns with compelling evidence, they can provide a reliable source of supply (paragraph 71). Emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth, does indeed include for an element of windfall provision – some 1,868 homes over the plan period. However, the delivery of such windfall units will be highly restricted given the limitations placed within emerging Policy SH02 – Windfall developments. The policy allows for windfall development on previously developed land without exception, but for greenfield sites, windfall development is only allowed subject to certain conditions. These conditions are:
• That the site is not protected as community open space or
• The site is council owned land surplus to requirements or
• The development of the site will bring an under-used piece of land back into beneficial use and will not harm the environmental, ecological, or historic value of the site and the wider area, in accordance with other relevant policies in the SLP
3.28 The justification text to the policy notes that windfall sites are likely to include surplus public land, small non-conforming employment uses and some residential intensification sites where appropriate. However, greenfield sites are only permitted where they conform with the bulleted list above. Such restrictions are overly onerous and severely limit the capability for windfall sites on greenfield land to come forwards. This is also not in conformity with the definition of windfall development contained within the NPPF (Appendix M – Glossary), which simply states that windfall sites are sites not specifically identified in the development plan. Again, placing unnecessary restrictions on the delivery of housing, for a number that is already significantly below the required capacity.
3.29 The fourth part of the housing supply is made up of additional floorspace in centres (219 homes). This element makes up a very small part of the overall proposed supply figures. It demonstrates the limitations that emerge from seeking to maximise land on brownfield sites, and the misconception that such spaces are often not being utilised to the best of their ability.
3.30 Overall, the elements which make up the already under-delivering housing land supply as part of the emerging SLP are seen to be questionable.
• Firstly, there is a large reliance on existing commitments, as sites with planning permission or already under construction to make up the housing numbers.
• Secondly, the level of allocations which are included on occupied employment sites is high and such sites are known to be slow at delivering and riddled with issues which slow down or prevent the development for more vulnerable residential uses, in addition to the fact they will result in a loss of employment floorspace, for which there is a recognised need within the borough.
• Thirdly, the proposed allocations themselves are not without issues to overcome – such as access, site assembly, land ownership and remediation – which are not insubstantial.
• Finally, the overly restrictive nature of the windfall housing policy means there is a severe limit as to where such sites can come forward and on what type of land, despite the NPPF not stipulating such limitations exist.
3.31 In light of the above, Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances exist in terms of both the scale of unmet need and the likely under delivery of the proposed supply. It is therefore essential that Sandwell reviews its Green Belt boundaries, to ensure it meets its housing needs in the least sensitive locations.
3.32 It is well evidenced that greenfield land will deliver much quicker than brownfield land, where issues of land assembly and remediation severely delay the delivery of housing. It should also be acknowledged that removing land from the Green Belt can also be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and the accessibility of remaining Green Belt land as well as providing improvements to Green Infrastructure (GI) provision. Overall, the Council must “turn on all taps of supply” if it is to meet its housing needs.
3.33 As emphasised throughout this representation, an example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, a countryside park and enhancements to existing biodiversity and Green Infrastructure within the area. This site is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Affordable Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.34 Turning to affordable housing, which is a key issue in terms of the housing supply within the borough, whereby a chronic shortfall has been identified and has historically only worsened. The 25% requirement figure contained within emerging Policy SH04 represents a 5% increase on the existing requirement, which has not been delivering to the levels expected. This demonstrates that the Council must increase its overall supply, in order to increase the supply of affordable housing.
3.35 Indeed the proposals for land north of Wilderness Lane site include the provision 40% affordable housing, this can viably be done given the site’s greenfield nature. On brownfield sites where additional remediation costs are to be factored into viability considerations, meeting increased and even the basic affordable housing requirements is challenging, demonstrating why Green Belt release of greenfield sites would further assist in meeting the chronic shortfall in both market and specifically affordable housing needs within Sandwell.
3.36 Reference within the policy also notes the aspiration of providing affordable housing through a range of schemes delivering up to 100% funding through grant and other financial sources. However, as reflected in the wording of the policy, this is just that – aspirational. It is likely to be particularly difficult given the already stretched nature of government funding and the lengthy process of applying for such funding.
3.37 Wain Estates suggest that further evidence of the delivery of such schemes coming forward or having funding secured needs to be included within the evidence base to support this policy, in order to make it more robust and increase the chances of such developments coming forward.
3.38 Appendix 1 of the previous representations submitted (see Appendix 1 of this document) contains an Affordable Housing Statement which assesses this issue in further detail.
Exceptional Circumstances for Green Belt Release
3.39 The purpose of plan-making is to be positively prepared and set out a long term vision for the area, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable (paragraph 16 of the NPPF). A plan that only provides for around a third of its housing requirement, using the standard method baseline, cannot possibly meet these purposes or deliver the minimum requirement for housing. This is simply not acceptable and does not represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
3.40 Wain Estates consider that the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing crisis, is an important factor that constitutes the exceptional circumstances that justify Green Belt release. As this is a housing focused representation, employment needs are not explored in detail, however it is clear from reviewing the proposed plan that it proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This will only be exacerbated by the anticipated loss of current employment sites for housing, as identified within emerging policy SH01 and the 2,234 homes proposed to come forward as allocations on occupied employment land. The adverse consequences of not meeting the basic housing or employment needs, demonstrate the exceptional circumstances which are required to justify Green Belt release.
3.41 The approach to Green Belt boundary reviews is set out in the NPPF at paragraphs 141 and 142. Paragraph 141 states that the policy making authority need to “examine fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” before concluding if exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. It then goes on to state account needs to be taken for whether the strategy:
“(a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
(b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
(c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”
3.42 As discussed previously, all three of these elements have been included within the proposed spatial strategy, however, are not without their own constraints and when combined, still fall woefully short of meeting the minimum requirements of the identified OAN for Sandwell. This alone demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist for Sandwell to review its Green Belt boundaries. The release of land within the Green Belt needs to be further explored, to allow for plan-led development in the future, particularly when also coupled with the inability to also meet required employment land needs. For this reason, Wain Estates suggest a further review of the Green Belt is undertaken, to identify the most sustainably located sites, in line with paragraph 142 of the NPPF.
3.43 A clear example of such a site is land North of Wilderness Lane, which is currently pending determination for up to 150 new homes, a countryside park, 40% affordable housing provision and associated infrastructure. The accompanying Green Belt Assessment contained within the LVA supporting the application, concludes that the harm to the Green Belt arising from development on the site would be low. Development of the site would maintain the physical and visual separation of the different parts of the wider suburban area and would have a very limited effect on encroachment on the countryside. Spatial and visual openness would be minimally affected. The significant new Wilderness countryside park will provide new public access to local people, and the habitat value of the site will be enhanced. The compensatory improvements to the land remaining in the Green Belt would be significant. Whilst we recognise that the LVA has been produced for the purposes of a planning application, it demonstrates that the contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt is limited, and it is suitable for release and allocation for residential development.
Proposed Amendments to the Green Belt Policy
3.44 Emerging Policy SDS6 provides guidance for the approach to Sandwell’s Green Belt, which will be applied to any development proposed in the Green Belt once the plan is adopted.
3.45 Criterion 2 of the policy notes that: “Sandwell green belt’s nature conservation, landscape, heritage and agricultural value will be protected and enhanced.” Wain Estates draw issue with this wording, as it implies that the Green Belt is a designation of both environmental and heritage value, this is not the case, it is a spatial designation for which there can also be both environmental and heritage features and designations within it. This type of wording adds confusion to the purposes of the Green Belt and the value placed upon its protection. This is recognised in the supporting text to the policy at paragraph 3.84 which states that:
“While green belt is not itself a reflection of landscape quality or value, large parts of the local green belt are also identified as being of significant historic, environmental and landscape importance.”
3.46 Wain Estates suggest that the policy wording is amended to make clearer the difference between the spatial designation and the purposes of the Green Belt and the distinction between this and environmental and heritage designations, whilst recognising their potential concurrent nature.
3.47 Criterion 3 of the policy states that:
“Opportunities will be taken to improve the value and recreational role of the green belt in Sandwell Valley:
a. through improving safe accessibility for all users;
b. by providing facilities for active and passive recreation (if this preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”
3.48 It must be recognised that in order to improve the value and recreational role of the Green Belt in Sandwell, development will likely need to occur. Land within private ownership is not accessible to the public for these purposes, enhancing access will only come as a compensatory improvement as part of future development proposals through planning applications.
3.49 Providing such improvements would form part of a two-way process of negotiation as part of future planning applications, with the provision of housing potentially acting as an enabler, to allow the council to meet the enhanced recreational role of the Green Belt. This also supports Sandwell’s wider vision, which seeks to increase accessible open spaces, such spaces need to come from somewhere, the Green Belt is a key facilitator for this, however it will not come forward of its own accord.

Vision and Spatial Strategy for Sandwell
3.2 Turning to the proposed vision for Sandwell, the second to last paragraph on page 35 of the consultation document, seeks to ensure that by 2041:
“There is a wide range of housing available to Sandwell residents, aiming to help meet housing needs, designed to support green living and suitable for adaptation to benefit all sections of the community. Affordable, social, and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them. New developments are located within attractively landscaped areas, with access to district and low-cost energy and heating projects, sustainable drainage designed to improve the local environment as well as provide reliable protection against flooding and run-off and all necessary services and facilities within walking and cycling distance or a short bus ride away.”
3.3 Wain Estates support the broad intentions of this part of the vision, with regards to helping to meet the wide range of housing needs within Sandwell, supporting green living and being located in close proximity to local services and facilities via sustainable transport modes. However, within the associated Priorities, Strategic Objectives and Policies set out within Table 3 to support this vision, there is no recognition of the chronic shortage in housing provision to date and how a marked change in strategy will be required to try and address both the historic shortfalls and future demands. Instead, Objective 6 – Housing to Meet all Needs is relatively generic and indicates there is no proposed change in approach or strategy for new development, particularly the provision of housing.
3.4 Reference is then made to the relevant emerging policies which support the capability to meet this objective and help deliver the vision for Sandwell. Wain Estates are of the view that if these policies are progressed as proposed, they do not provide the capability to meet objective 6 and the provision of housing to meet all needs, including the borough’s chronic shortfall in both affordable and market housing, which is a fundamental part of the proposed vision for Sandwell.
3.5 The principle emerging policy which demonstrates this inability to meet the basic housing needs of Sandwell, as established via their own objectively assessed needs (OAN) is Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy. This emerging policy proposes to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the 2022 -2041 plan period. However, this 11,167 figure is minimal when compared to the identified housing need of 29,773 new homes throughout the same time period, identifying a shortfall of 18,606 homes.
3.6 As a percentage, the proposed supply in the draft plan represents just 38% (rounded) of the borough’s total housing needs. This is unacceptable, in both the immediate context and historic undersupply, but also when looking at the wider national level and Government objectives enshrined within the NPPF, particularly at paragraph 60 which requires the supply of homes to be “significantly boosted” and importantly that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to ensure the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed. Due to this, difficult decisions need to be made with regards to the proposed spatial strategy, including consideration of Green Belt land release, without which is artificially restricting the development potential within Sandwell.
3.7 The starting point of a new Local Plan cannot be the continued chronic under-provision of housing, such that the exist delivery issues will be further exacerbated. As evidenced by the latest Housing Delivery Test Result (2021 measurement, the updated version due for January 2023) – being at just 52%, one of the lowest in the county and automatically evoking the “presumption in favour” and “titled planning balance” when it comes to determining applications. This coupled with the latest Five-Year Housing Land Supply Figures released in October 2023, which have only worsened since the previous year, dropping from 3,092 homes (1.6 years) to 2,850 homes (1.57 years) provides clear evidence that the current spatial strategy is not fit for purpose. This historic underperformance in meeting housing needs, also needs to be viewed within the context of the NPPF’s emphasis on needing to boost the supply of housing, and the clear upward direction of travel of national policy in this respect.
3.8 To help address this shortfall, emerging Policy SH03 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility seeks to provide substantial uplifts to minimum density requirements to maximise on the most efficient use of land. This has resulted in a range from 40dph, to 45dph to 100dph in West Brom, this are much higher than the typical 25-30dph figures. The policy notes that further detailed design requirements will come forward in relation to these densities as part of future Sandwell Design Codes. However, with the growing pressures on development to provide more than just housing, such as the 10% BNG (with onsite provision as a preference), accessibility requirements such as the minimum of 15% provision of part M4(3) dwellings for developments of 10 or more dwellings (emerging Policy SH05), the need for sites of 2ha or larger to provide new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population on site (emerging Policy SH4W) all place additional demand for space on site, which may mean that the high minimum density standards cannot be met, resulting in an even lower number of housing units being capable of being provided within Sandwell.
3.9 To further help to address the shortfall, Sandwell are proposing to utilise the Duty-to- Cooperate with neighbouring authorities within the same Housing Market Area, or with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. The details of which are to be provided in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation – which is to be elaborated upon further at the Publication Stage of the plan. This is despite the fact that Birmingham City Council has already said that it does not have enough space to meet its own housing need and might not have enough space to meet its own employment land needs.
3.10 Sandwell note that this approach may only address a small proportion of the identified housing shortfall and therefore if this position remains then further work will be undertaken as appropriate to identify how this shortfall can be addressed. This position is reflected in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which concludes that,
“On balance, Option E is identified as the best performing option, assuming that a large proportion of growth under this option would be on previously developed land and within the existing centres, with the benefits in terms of regeneration meaning this option slightly out-performs Option D, although both would not deliver sufficient housing to satisfy the identified need.”
3.11 As part of a wider consortium, Wain Estates has instructed the “Falling Even Shorter: an updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area” report (copy enclosed at Appendix 4). This report finds that the wider HMA has a shortfall of between 34,742 and 40,676 homes up to 2031, 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040 based on each Council’s most up-to- date supply evidence. This shortfall will only be exacerbated by Sandwell’s approach, with other HMA authorities likely to be able to make a very limited contribution to Sandwell’s shortfall.
3.12 It therefore is clear that the additional work identified in the SA will be required to meet the housing shortfall, the historic approach to the spatial strategy is being undertaken as part of the emerging local plan, a strategy which was in place for the currently adopted Local Plan, which has resulted in the chronic under delivery of both market and affordable housing.
3.13 Wain Estates are of the view that the scale of Sandwell’s own shortfall alone, beyond considering the unmet needs of the wider HMA, amount to exceptional circumstances for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. This additional work should therefore begin now and a fresh approach to assessing the capacity for housing within the borough should be undertaken, which includes an assessment of Green Belt sites for potential release.
3.14 The site on land north of Wilderness Lane is a clear example of the availability of such sites, which are not technically constrained, are in an accessible location, provide the ability to offer enhanced access to the open countryside for recreation purposes and also provide housing in the least sensitive areas of the Green Belt (whilst retaining the majority of it), adjacent to existing built form – in this case situated along Wilderness Lane.
3.15 At present, it is concluded that the overall vision and spatial strategy proposed by the emerging SLP would not be effective in meeting the tests for soundness, as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF. In particular, criterion (a) which requires plans to be:
“Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
3.16 The council by their own admission have submitted a strategy which falls substantially short of providing a strategy which meets their OAN, which should be seen as a minimum requirement within the extract above. Even in meeting the substantially short figures there is a reliance on maximising out housing densities, in an era where development pressures to deliver supporting features beyond just housing – BNG, sustainability measures etc often restrict this capability. The duty-to-cooperate is also proposed to be utilised to account for this unmet need, but there is no clear strategy or commitment from neighbouring authorities that this would be achievable in part or as a whole. This is therefore not a sustainable approach to development and will inevitably result in the very purpose of the SLP – being to promote growth in planned manner, falling away, likely resulting in mass speculative development, in order for housing needs to be met.
3.17 Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances for reviewing Sandwell’s Green Belt boundaries. A further review of the Green Belt is therefore necessary in order to assess how the boundaries should be amended to maximise the potential for the most sustainable sites.
3.18 An example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, 40% affordable housing, a countryside park and associated infrastructure. This application is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.19 Turning more specifically to emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and the elements which make up the proposed housing supply of 11,167 new homes, Wain Estates also have significant concerns regarding the sources which make up this already insufficient number of homes.
3.20 Within Table 5 of the above emerging policy, the first source of the housing land supply is made up of sites currently under construction (1,060 homes), with planning permission or prior approval (998 homes) and sites with other commitments (61 homes)1. Therefore, 2,119 homes included within the figures, are made up of the current supply.
3.21 The second source is made up of housing allocations, comprising occupied employment land (2,234 homes), other (3,094 homes), sites with planning permission (1,545 homes) and sites under construction (78 homes). Therefore, 1,623 homes included within the housing allocations are made up of current / existing supply (calculated by adding together sites with existing planning permission and sites under construction). Of the remaining allocations, despite the occupied employment land (2,234 homes) having a 15% discount figure applied, in recognition of the fact that there can be multiple delivery constraints, this in itself does not mean that there is capability of the full 2,234 homes to be delivered given that these sites are in active use for employment.
3.22 It has also been demonstrated through the previous Black Country Plan that such approaches are not effective for delivering housing. As part of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) a total of 16,182 homes were allocated on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

1 10 units are also included for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, but this element of the supply is not discussed as part of these representations

3.23 Furthermore, as recognised in our previous representations, not only is the delivery of housing on such sites questionable, but it also reduces the ability for the Council to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, of which the Council recognise there are also not enough being provided for as part of the emerging SLP. Paragraph 8.11 of the emerging SLP notes that, 143ha of the employment land need arising in Sandwell cannot be met solely within the Borough, and that the unmet need is to be exported to neighbouring authorities, as part of ongoing duty-to-cooperate work, which is yet to be secured.
3.24 It is good practice to ensure that any elements of housing supply included in a council’s figures, are suitable, available, and achievable of being viably developed. Wain Estates are of the view that there has not been enough evidence provided for the proposed allocations on occupied employment land, as a robust element of the housing supply.
3.25 Taking the above into account, only 3,094 homes (see Table 5 Housing Land Supply Sources within emerging Policy SH01) are allocated which are not made up of existing commitments or situated on occupied employment land, this is a very minor figure when compared to both the proposed delivery of 11,167 net new homes over the plan period and even more so when compared to the actual housing need of 29,773 new homes.
3.26 Looking into more detail at some of the proposed allocations, as recognised by the Council when looking at Appendix B of the SLP, they are also not without their constraints and limitations, further demonstrating that the indicative capacity could be further reduced, resulting in an even lower number of housing allocations. For example:
• SH2 (SA 12) Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury is proposed for 62 homes, but it has access issues which need to be overcome in order to be deliverable, questioning the suitability of this allocation.
• SH26 (66) Lower City Road, Oldbury is proposed for 73 homes but has constraints including land remediation and site assembly issues, there also only appears to be interest from some land owners looking to bring the site forward, so also potential ownership issues to overcome, questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SH25 (SA 65) Bradleys Lane / High Street, Tipton proposed for 189 homes however, this site also has site assembly and land contamination issues to be overcome, it also requires the current owners to find a place to relocate their business before development can come forwards, again questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SM2 SA199 Lion Farm Oldbury, is proposed for a mix of uses, including the provision of 200 homes. However, it relies on relocation of 6 sports pitches to the south of borough, which is arguably not a minor feat. This brings into question the availability and achievability of the land to support an allocation.
• SM1 SA 91 Chances Glass Works, is proposed for a mix of uses including 276 homes, this is a heritage led regeneration project given its recognised constraints which are a Grade II listed building, Scheduled Ancient Monument and Galton Valley Conservation Area, the complexity of such a project brings into question the timescales and the potential delivery of the proposed housing numbers, given the statutory protections given to these heritage constraints, again questioning the suitability and achievability of this site to support an allocation.
3.27 The third part of the housing supply is made up of windfall units, a total of 1,868 are being proposed. However, the delivery of this level of homes is questioned when the restrictive nature of windfall provision within the SLP is assessed. Often and as recognised within the NPPF, the provision of windfall units can help contribute to meeting anticipated housing supply needs, where this aligns with compelling evidence, they can provide a reliable source of supply (paragraph 71). Emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth, does indeed include for an element of windfall provision – some 1,868 homes over the plan period. However, the delivery of such windfall units will be highly restricted given the limitations placed within emerging Policy SH02 – Windfall developments. The policy allows for windfall development on previously developed land without exception, but for greenfield sites, windfall development is only allowed subject to certain conditions. These conditions are:
• That the site is not protected as community open space or
• The site is council owned land surplus to requirements or
• The development of the site will bring an under-used piece of land back into beneficial use and will not harm the environmental, ecological, or historic value of the site and the wider area, in accordance with other relevant policies in the SLP
3.28 The justification text to the policy notes that windfall sites are likely to include surplus public land, small non-conforming employment uses and some residential intensification sites where appropriate. However, greenfield sites are only permitted where they conform with the bulleted list above. Such restrictions are overly onerous and severely limit the capability for windfall sites on greenfield land to come forwards. This is also not in conformity with the definition of windfall development contained within the NPPF (Appendix M – Glossary), which simply states that windfall sites are sites not specifically identified in the development plan. Again, placing unnecessary restrictions on the delivery of housing, for a number that is already significantly below the required capacity.
3.29 The fourth part of the housing supply is made up of additional floorspace in centres (219 homes). This element makes up a very small part of the overall proposed supply figures. It demonstrates the limitations that emerge from seeking to maximise land on brownfield sites, and the misconception that such spaces are often not being utilised to the best of their ability.
3.30 Overall, the elements which make up the already under-delivering housing land supply as part of the emerging SLP are seen to be questionable.
• Firstly, there is a large reliance on existing commitments, as sites with planning permission or already under construction to make up the housing numbers.
• Secondly, the level of allocations which are included on occupied employment sites is high and such sites are known to be slow at delivering and riddled with issues which slow down or prevent the development for more vulnerable residential uses, in addition to the fact they will result in a loss of employment floorspace, for which there is a recognised need within the borough.
• Thirdly, the proposed allocations themselves are not without issues to overcome – such as access, site assembly, land ownership and remediation – which are not insubstantial.
• Finally, the overly restrictive nature of the windfall housing policy means there is a severe limit as to where such sites can come forward and on what type of land, despite the NPPF not stipulating such limitations exist.
3.31 In light of the above, Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances exist in terms of both the scale of unmet need and the likely under delivery of the proposed supply. It is therefore essential that Sandwell reviews its Green Belt boundaries, to ensure it meets its housing needs in the least sensitive locations.
3.32 It is well evidenced that greenfield land will deliver much quicker than brownfield land, where issues of land assembly and remediation severely delay the delivery of housing. It should also be acknowledged that removing land from the Green Belt can also be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and the accessibility of remaining Green Belt land as well as providing improvements to Green Infrastructure (GI) provision. Overall, the Council must “turn on all taps of supply” if it is to meet its housing needs.
3.33 As emphasised throughout this representation, an example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, a countryside park and enhancements to existing biodiversity and Green Infrastructure within the area. This site is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Affordable Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.34 Turning to affordable housing, which is a key issue in terms of the housing supply within the borough, whereby a chronic shortfall has been identified and has historically only worsened. The 25% requirement figure contained within emerging Policy SH04 represents a 5% increase on the existing requirement, which has not been delivering to the levels expected. This demonstrates that the Council must increase its overall supply, in order to increase the supply of affordable housing.
3.35 Indeed the proposals for land north of Wilderness Lane site include the provision 40% affordable housing, this can viably be done given the site’s greenfield nature. On brownfield sites where additional remediation costs are to be factored into viability considerations, meeting increased and even the basic affordable housing requirements is challenging, demonstrating why Green Belt release of greenfield sites would further assist in meeting the chronic shortfall in both market and specifically affordable housing needs within Sandwell.
3.36 Reference within the policy also notes the aspiration of providing affordable housing through a range of schemes delivering up to 100% funding through grant and other financial sources. However, as reflected in the wording of the policy, this is just that – aspirational. It is likely to be particularly difficult given the already stretched nature of government funding and the lengthy process of applying for such funding.
3.37 Wain Estates suggest that further evidence of the delivery of such schemes coming forward or having funding secured needs to be included within the evidence base to support this policy, in order to make it more robust and increase the chances of such developments coming forward.
3.38 Appendix 1 of the previous representations submitted (see Appendix 1 of this document) contains an Affordable Housing Statement which assesses this issue in further detail.
Exceptional Circumstances for Green Belt Release
3.39 The purpose of plan-making is to be positively prepared and set out a long term vision for the area, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable (paragraph 16 of the NPPF). A plan that only provides for around a third of its housing requirement, using the standard method baseline, cannot possibly meet these purposes or deliver the minimum requirement for housing. This is simply not acceptable and does not represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
3.40 Wain Estates consider that the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing crisis, is an important factor that constitutes the exceptional circumstances that justify Green Belt release. As this is a housing focused representation, employment needs are not explored in detail, however it is clear from reviewing the proposed plan that it proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This will only be exacerbated by the anticipated loss of current employment sites for housing, as identified within emerging policy SH01 and the 2,234 homes proposed to come forward as allocations on occupied employment land. The adverse consequences of not meeting the basic housing or employment needs, demonstrate the exceptional circumstances which are required to justify Green Belt release.
3.41 The approach to Green Belt boundary reviews is set out in the NPPF at paragraphs 141 and 142. Paragraph 141 states that the policy making authority need to “examine fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” before concluding if exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. It then goes on to state account needs to be taken for whether the strategy:
“(a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
(b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
(c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”
3.42 As discussed previously, all three of these elements have been included within the proposed spatial strategy, however, are not without their own constraints and when combined, still fall woefully short of meeting the minimum requirements of the identified OAN for Sandwell. This alone demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist for Sandwell to review its Green Belt boundaries. The release of land within the Green Belt needs to be further explored, to allow for plan-led development in the future, particularly when also coupled with the inability to also meet required employment land needs. For this reason, Wain Estates suggest a further review of the Green Belt is undertaken, to identify the most sustainably located sites, in line with paragraph 142 of the NPPF.
3.43 A clear example of such a site is land North of Wilderness Lane, which is currently pending determination for up to 150 new homes, a countryside park, 40% affordable housing provision and associated infrastructure. The accompanying Green Belt Assessment contained within the LVA supporting the application, concludes that the harm to the Green Belt arising from development on the site would be low. Development of the site would maintain the physical and visual separation of the different parts of the wider suburban area and would have a very limited effect on encroachment on the countryside. Spatial and visual openness would be minimally affected. The significant new Wilderness countryside park will provide new public access to local people, and the habitat value of the site will be enhanced. The compensatory improvements to the land remaining in the Green Belt would be significant. Whilst we recognise that the LVA has been produced for the purposes of a planning application, it demonstrates that the contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt is limited, and it is suitable for release and allocation for residential development.
Proposed Amendments to the Green Belt Policy
3.44 Emerging Policy SDS6 provides guidance for the approach to Sandwell’s Green Belt, which will be applied to any development proposed in the Green Belt once the plan is adopted.
3.45 Criterion 2 of the policy notes that: “Sandwell green belt’s nature conservation, landscape, heritage and agricultural value will be protected and enhanced.” Wain Estates draw issue with this wording, as it implies that the Green Belt is a designation of both environmental and heritage value, this is not the case, it is a spatial designation for which there can also be both environmental and heritage features and designations within it. This type of wording adds confusion to the purposes of the Green Belt and the value placed upon its protection. This is recognised in the supporting text to the policy at paragraph 3.84 which states that:
“While green belt is not itself a reflection of landscape quality or value, large parts of the local green belt are also identified as being of significant historic, environmental and landscape importance.”
3.46 Wain Estates suggest that the policy wording is amended to make clearer the difference between the spatial designation and the purposes of the Green Belt and the distinction between this and environmental and heritage designations, whilst recognising their potential concurrent nature.
3.47 Criterion 3 of the policy states that:
“Opportunities will be taken to improve the value and recreational role of the green belt in Sandwell Valley:
a. through improving safe accessibility for all users;
b. by providing facilities for active and passive recreation (if this preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”
3.48 It must be recognised that in order to improve the value and recreational role of the Green Belt in Sandwell, development will likely need to occur. Land within private ownership is not accessible to the public for these purposes, enhancing access will only come as a compensatory improvement as part of future development proposals through planning applications.
3.49 Providing such improvements would form part of a two-way process of negotiation as part of future planning applications, with the provision of housing potentially acting as an enabler, to allow the council to meet the enhanced recreational role of the Green Belt. This also supports Sandwell’s wider vision, which seeks to increase accessible open spaces, such spaces need to come from somewhere, the Green Belt is a key facilitator for this, however it will not come forward of its own accord.

Vision and Spatial Strategy for Sandwell
3.2 Turning to the proposed vision for Sandwell, the second to last paragraph on page 35 of the consultation document, seeks to ensure that by 2041:
“There is a wide range of housing available to Sandwell residents, aiming to help meet housing needs, designed to support green living and suitable for adaptation to benefit all sections of the community. Affordable, social, and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them. New developments are located within attractively landscaped areas, with access to district and low-cost energy and heating projects, sustainable drainage designed to improve the local environment as well as provide reliable protection against flooding and run-off and all necessary services and facilities within walking and cycling distance or a short bus ride away.”
3.3 Wain Estates support the broad intentions of this part of the vision, with regards to helping to meet the wide range of housing needs within Sandwell, supporting green living and being located in close proximity to local services and facilities via sustainable transport modes. However, within the associated Priorities, Strategic Objectives and Policies set out within Table 3 to support this vision, there is no recognition of the chronic shortage in housing provision to date and how a marked change in strategy will be required to try and address both the historic shortfalls and future demands. Instead, Objective 6 – Housing to Meet all Needs is relatively generic and indicates there is no proposed change in approach or strategy for new development, particularly the provision of housing.
3.4 Reference is then made to the relevant emerging policies which support the capability to meet this objective and help deliver the vision for Sandwell. Wain Estates are of the view that if these policies are progressed as proposed, they do not provide the capability to meet objective 6 and the provision of housing to meet all needs, including the borough’s chronic shortfall in both affordable and market housing, which is a fundamental part of the proposed vision for Sandwell.
3.5 The principle emerging policy which demonstrates this inability to meet the basic housing needs of Sandwell, as established via their own objectively assessed needs (OAN) is Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy. This emerging policy proposes to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the 2022 -2041 plan period. However, this 11,167 figure is minimal when compared to the identified housing need of 29,773 new homes throughout the same time period, identifying a shortfall of 18,606 homes.
3.6 As a percentage, the proposed supply in the draft plan represents just 38% (rounded) of the borough’s total housing needs. This is unacceptable, in both the immediate context and historic undersupply, but also when looking at the wider national level and Government objectives enshrined within the NPPF, particularly at paragraph 60 which requires the supply of homes to be “significantly boosted” and importantly that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to ensure the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed. Due to this, difficult decisions need to be made with regards to the proposed spatial strategy, including consideration of Green Belt land release, without which is artificially restricting the development potential within Sandwell.
3.7 The starting point of a new Local Plan cannot be the continued chronic under-provision of housing, such that the exist delivery issues will be further exacerbated. As evidenced by the latest Housing Delivery Test Result (2021 measurement, the updated version due for January 2023) – being at just 52%, one of the lowest in the county and automatically evoking the “presumption in favour” and “titled planning balance” when it comes to determining applications. This coupled with the latest Five-Year Housing Land Supply Figures released in October 2023, which have only worsened since the previous year, dropping from 3,092 homes (1.6 years) to 2,850 homes (1.57 years) provides clear evidence that the current spatial strategy is not fit for purpose. This historic underperformance in meeting housing needs, also needs to be viewed within the context of the NPPF’s emphasis on needing to boost the supply of housing, and the clear upward direction of travel of national policy in this respect.
3.8 To help address this shortfall, emerging Policy SH03 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility seeks to provide substantial uplifts to minimum density requirements to maximise on the most efficient use of land. This has resulted in a range from 40dph, to 45dph to 100dph in West Brom, this are much higher than the typical 25-30dph figures. The policy notes that further detailed design requirements will come forward in relation to these densities as part of future Sandwell Design Codes. However, with the growing pressures on development to provide more than just housing, such as the 10% BNG (with onsite provision as a preference), accessibility requirements such as the minimum of 15% provision of part M4(3) dwellings for developments of 10 or more dwellings (emerging Policy SH05), the need for sites of 2ha or larger to provide new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population on site (emerging Policy SH4W) all place additional demand for space on site, which may mean that the high minimum density standards cannot be met, resulting in an even lower number of housing units being capable of being provided within Sandwell.
3.9 To further help to address the shortfall, Sandwell are proposing to utilise the Duty-to- Cooperate with neighbouring authorities within the same Housing Market Area, or with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. The details of which are to be provided in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation – which is to be elaborated upon further at the Publication Stage of the plan. This is despite the fact that Birmingham City Council has already said that it does not have enough space to meet its own housing need and might not have enough space to meet its own employment land needs.
3.10 Sandwell note that this approach may only address a small proportion of the identified housing shortfall and therefore if this position remains then further work will be undertaken as appropriate to identify how this shortfall can be addressed. This position is reflected in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which concludes that,
“On balance, Option E is identified as the best performing option, assuming that a large proportion of growth under this option would be on previously developed land and within the existing centres, with the benefits in terms of regeneration meaning this option slightly out-performs Option D, although both would not deliver sufficient housing to satisfy the identified need.”
3.11 As part of a wider consortium, Wain Estates has instructed the “Falling Even Shorter: an updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area” report (copy enclosed at Appendix 4). This report finds that the wider HMA has a shortfall of between 34,742 and 40,676 homes up to 2031, 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040 based on each Council’s most up-to- date supply evidence. This shortfall will only be exacerbated by Sandwell’s approach, with other HMA authorities likely to be able to make a very limited contribution to Sandwell’s shortfall.
3.12 It therefore is clear that the additional work identified in the SA will be required to meet the housing shortfall, the historic approach to the spatial strategy is being undertaken as part of the emerging local plan, a strategy which was in place for the currently adopted Local Plan, which has resulted in the chronic under delivery of both market and affordable housing.
3.13 Wain Estates are of the view that the scale of Sandwell’s own shortfall alone, beyond considering the unmet needs of the wider HMA, amount to exceptional circumstances for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. This additional work should therefore begin now and a fresh approach to assessing the capacity for housing within the borough should be undertaken, which includes an assessment of Green Belt sites for potential release.
3.14 The site on land north of Wilderness Lane is a clear example of the availability of such sites, which are not technically constrained, are in an accessible location, provide the ability to offer enhanced access to the open countryside for recreation purposes and also provide housing in the least sensitive areas of the Green Belt (whilst retaining the majority of it), adjacent to existing built form – in this case situated along Wilderness Lane.
3.15 At present, it is concluded that the overall vision and spatial strategy proposed by the emerging SLP would not be effective in meeting the tests for soundness, as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF. In particular, criterion (a) which requires plans to be:
“Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
3.16 The council by their own admission have submitted a strategy which falls substantially short of providing a strategy which meets their OAN, which should be seen as a minimum requirement within the extract above. Even in meeting the substantially short figures there is a reliance on maximising out housing densities, in an era where development pressures to deliver supporting features beyond just housing – BNG, sustainability measures etc often restrict this capability. The duty-to-cooperate is also proposed to be utilised to account for this unmet need, but there is no clear strategy or commitment from neighbouring authorities that this would be achievable in part or as a whole. This is therefore not a sustainable approach to development and will inevitably result in the very purpose of the SLP – being to promote growth in planned manner, falling away, likely resulting in mass speculative development, in order for housing needs to be met.
3.17 Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances for reviewing Sandwell’s Green Belt boundaries. A further review of the Green Belt is therefore necessary in order to assess how the boundaries should be amended to maximise the potential for the most sustainable sites.
3.18 An example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, 40% affordable housing, a countryside park and associated infrastructure. This application is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.19 Turning more specifically to emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and the elements which make up the proposed housing supply of 11,167 new homes, Wain Estates also have significant concerns regarding the sources which make up this already insufficient number of homes.
3.20 Within Table 5 of the above emerging policy, the first source of the housing land supply is made up of sites currently under construction (1,060 homes), with planning permission or prior approval (998 homes) and sites with other commitments (61 homes)1. Therefore, 2,119 homes included within the figures, are made up of the current supply.
3.21 The second source is made up of housing allocations, comprising occupied employment land (2,234 homes), other (3,094 homes), sites with planning permission (1,545 homes) and sites under construction (78 homes). Therefore, 1,623 homes included within the housing allocations are made up of current / existing supply (calculated by adding together sites with existing planning permission and sites under construction). Of the remaining allocations, despite the occupied employment land (2,234 homes) having a 15% discount figure applied, in recognition of the fact that there can be multiple delivery constraints, this in itself does not mean that there is capability of the full 2,234 homes to be delivered given that these sites are in active use for employment.
3.22 It has also been demonstrated through the previous Black Country Plan that such approaches are not effective for delivering housing. As part of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) a total of 16,182 homes were allocated on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

1 10 units are also included for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, but this element of the supply is not discussed as part of these representations

3.23 Furthermore, as recognised in our previous representations, not only is the delivery of housing on such sites questionable, but it also reduces the ability for the Council to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, of which the Council recognise there are also not enough being provided for as part of the emerging SLP. Paragraph 8.11 of the emerging SLP notes that, 143ha of the employment land need arising in Sandwell cannot be met solely within the Borough, and that the unmet need is to be exported to neighbouring authorities, as part of ongoing duty-to-cooperate work, which is yet to be secured.
3.24 It is good practice to ensure that any elements of housing supply included in a council’s figures, are suitable, available, and achievable of being viably developed. Wain Estates are of the view that there has not been enough evidence provided for the proposed allocations on occupied employment land, as a robust element of the housing supply.
3.25 Taking the above into account, only 3,094 homes (see Table 5 Housing Land Supply Sources within emerging Policy SH01) are allocated which are not made up of existing commitments or situated on occupied employment land, this is a very minor figure when compared to both the proposed delivery of 11,167 net new homes over the plan period and even more so when compared to the actual housing need of 29,773 new homes.
3.26 Looking into more detail at some of the proposed allocations, as recognised by the Council when looking at Appendix B of the SLP, they are also not without their constraints and limitations, further demonstrating that the indicative capacity could be further reduced, resulting in an even lower number of housing allocations. For example:
• SH2 (SA 12) Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury is proposed for 62 homes, but it has access issues which need to be overcome in order to be deliverable, questioning the suitability of this allocation.
• SH26 (66) Lower City Road, Oldbury is proposed for 73 homes but has constraints including land remediation and site assembly issues, there also only appears to be interest from some land owners looking to bring the site forward, so also potential ownership issues to overcome, questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SH25 (SA 65) Bradleys Lane / High Street, Tipton proposed for 189 homes however, this site also has site assembly and land contamination issues to be overcome, it also requires the current owners to find a place to relocate their business before development can come forwards, again questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SM2 SA199 Lion Farm Oldbury, is proposed for a mix of uses, including the provision of 200 homes. However, it relies on relocation of 6 sports pitches to the south of borough, which is arguably not a minor feat. This brings into question the availability and achievability of the land to support an allocation.
• SM1 SA 91 Chances Glass Works, is proposed for a mix of uses including 276 homes, this is a heritage led regeneration project given its recognised constraints which are a Grade II listed building, Scheduled Ancient Monument and Galton Valley Conservation Area, the complexity of such a project brings into question the timescales and the potential delivery of the proposed housing numbers, given the statutory protections given to these heritage constraints, again questioning the suitability and achievability of this site to support an allocation.
3.27 The third part of the housing supply is made up of windfall units, a total of 1,868 are being proposed. However, the delivery of this level of homes is questioned when the restrictive nature of windfall provision within the SLP is assessed. Often and as recognised within the NPPF, the provision of windfall units can help contribute to meeting anticipated housing supply needs, where this aligns with compelling evidence, they can provide a reliable source of supply (paragraph 71). Emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth, does indeed include for an element of windfall provision – some 1,868 homes over the plan period. However, the delivery of such windfall units will be highly restricted given the limitations placed within emerging Policy SH02 – Windfall developments. The policy allows for windfall development on previously developed land without exception, but for greenfield sites, windfall development is only allowed subject to certain conditions. These conditions are:
• That the site is not protected as community open space or
• The site is council owned land surplus to requirements or
• The development of the site will bring an under-used piece of land back into beneficial use and will not harm the environmental, ecological, or historic value of the site and the wider area, in accordance with other relevant policies in the SLP
3.28 The justification text to the policy notes that windfall sites are likely to include surplus public land, small non-conforming employment uses and some residential intensification sites where appropriate. However, greenfield sites are only permitted where they conform with the bulleted list above. Such restrictions are overly onerous and severely limit the capability for windfall sites on greenfield land to come forwards. This is also not in conformity with the definition of windfall development contained within the NPPF (Appendix M – Glossary), which simply states that windfall sites are sites not specifically identified in the development plan. Again, placing unnecessary restrictions on the delivery of housing, for a number that is already significantly below the required capacity.
3.29 The fourth part of the housing supply is made up of additional floorspace in centres (219 homes). This element makes up a very small part of the overall proposed supply figures. It demonstrates the limitations that emerge from seeking to maximise land on brownfield sites, and the misconception that such spaces are often not being utilised to the best of their ability.
3.30 Overall, the elements which make up the already under-delivering housing land supply as part of the emerging SLP are seen to be questionable.
• Firstly, there is a large reliance on existing commitments, as sites with planning permission or already under construction to make up the housing numbers.
• Secondly, the level of allocations which are included on occupied employment sites is high and such sites are known to be slow at delivering and riddled with issues which slow down or prevent the development for more vulnerable residential uses, in addition to the fact they will result in a loss of employment floorspace, for which there is a recognised need within the borough.
• Thirdly, the proposed allocations themselves are not without issues to overcome – such as access, site assembly, land ownership and remediation – which are not insubstantial.
• Finally, the overly restrictive nature of the windfall housing policy means there is a severe limit as to where such sites can come forward and on what type of land, despite the NPPF not stipulating such limitations exist.
3.31 In light of the above, Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances exist in terms of both the scale of unmet need and the likely under delivery of the proposed supply. It is therefore essential that Sandwell reviews its Green Belt boundaries, to ensure it meets its housing needs in the least sensitive locations.
3.32 It is well evidenced that greenfield land will deliver much quicker than brownfield land, where issues of land assembly and remediation severely delay the delivery of housing. It should also be acknowledged that removing land from the Green Belt can also be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and the accessibility of remaining Green Belt land as well as providing improvements to Green Infrastructure (GI) provision. Overall, the Council must “turn on all taps of supply” if it is to meet its housing needs.
3.33 As emphasised throughout this representation, an example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, a countryside park and enhancements to existing biodiversity and Green Infrastructure within the area. This site is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Affordable Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.34 Turning to affordable housing, which is a key issue in terms of the housing supply within the borough, whereby a chronic shortfall has been identified and has historically only worsened. The 25% requirement figure contained within emerging Policy SH04 represents a 5% increase on the existing requirement, which has not been delivering to the levels expected. This demonstrates that the Council must increase its overall supply, in order to increase the supply of affordable housing.
3.35 Indeed the proposals for land north of Wilderness Lane site include the provision 40% affordable housing, this can viably be done given the site’s greenfield nature. On brownfield sites where additional remediation costs are to be factored into viability considerations, meeting increased and even the basic affordable housing requirements is challenging, demonstrating why Green Belt release of greenfield sites would further assist in meeting the chronic shortfall in both market and specifically affordable housing needs within Sandwell.
3.36 Reference within the policy also notes the aspiration of providing affordable housing through a range of schemes delivering up to 100% funding through grant and other financial sources. However, as reflected in the wording of the policy, this is just that – aspirational. It is likely to be particularly difficult given the already stretched nature of government funding and the lengthy process of applying for such funding.
3.37 Wain Estates suggest that further evidence of the delivery of such schemes coming forward or having funding secured needs to be included within the evidence base to support this policy, in order to make it more robust and increase the chances of such developments coming forward.
3.38 Appendix 1 of the previous representations submitted (see Appendix 1 of this document) contains an Affordable Housing Statement which assesses this issue in further detail.
Exceptional Circumstances for Green Belt Release
3.39 The purpose of plan-making is to be positively prepared and set out a long term vision for the area, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable (paragraph 16 of the NPPF). A plan that only provides for around a third of its housing requirement, using the standard method baseline, cannot possibly meet these purposes or deliver the minimum requirement for housing. This is simply not acceptable and does not represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
3.40 Wain Estates consider that the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing crisis, is an important factor that constitutes the exceptional circumstances that justify Green Belt release. As this is a housing focused representation, employment needs are not explored in detail, however it is clear from reviewing the proposed plan that it proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This will only be exacerbated by the anticipated loss of current employment sites for housing, as identified within emerging policy SH01 and the 2,234 homes proposed to come forward as allocations on occupied employment land. The adverse consequences of not meeting the basic housing or employment needs, demonstrate the exceptional circumstances which are required to justify Green Belt release.
3.41 The approach to Green Belt boundary reviews is set out in the NPPF at paragraphs 141 and 142. Paragraph 141 states that the policy making authority need to “examine fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” before concluding if exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. It then goes on to state account needs to be taken for whether the strategy:
“(a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
(b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
(c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”
3.42 As discussed previously, all three of these elements have been included within the proposed spatial strategy, however, are not without their own constraints and when combined, still fall woefully short of meeting the minimum requirements of the identified OAN for Sandwell. This alone demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist for Sandwell to review its Green Belt boundaries. The release of land within the Green Belt needs to be further explored, to allow for plan-led development in the future, particularly when also coupled with the inability to also meet required employment land needs. For this reason, Wain Estates suggest a further review of the Green Belt is undertaken, to identify the most sustainably located sites, in line with paragraph 142 of the NPPF.
3.43 A clear example of such a site is land North of Wilderness Lane, which is currently pending determination for up to 150 new homes, a countryside park, 40% affordable housing provision and associated infrastructure. The accompanying Green Belt Assessment contained within the LVA supporting the application, concludes that the harm to the Green Belt arising from development on the site would be low. Development of the site would maintain the physical and visual separation of the different parts of the wider suburban area and would have a very limited effect on encroachment on the countryside. Spatial and visual openness would be minimally affected. The significant new Wilderness countryside park will provide new public access to local people, and the habitat value of the site will be enhanced. The compensatory improvements to the land remaining in the Green Belt would be significant. Whilst we recognise that the LVA has been produced for the purposes of a planning application, it demonstrates that the contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt is limited, and it is suitable for release and allocation for residential development.
Proposed Amendments to the Green Belt Policy
3.44 Emerging Policy SDS6 provides guidance for the approach to Sandwell’s Green Belt, which will be applied to any development proposed in the Green Belt once the plan is adopted.
3.45 Criterion 2 of the policy notes that: “Sandwell green belt’s nature conservation, landscape, heritage and agricultural value will be protected and enhanced.” Wain Estates draw issue with this wording, as it implies that the Green Belt is a designation of both environmental and heritage value, this is not the case, it is a spatial designation for which there can also be both environmental and heritage features and designations within it. This type of wording adds confusion to the purposes of the Green Belt and the value placed upon its protection. This is recognised in the supporting text to the policy at paragraph 3.84 which states that:
“While green belt is not itself a reflection of landscape quality or value, large parts of the local green belt are also identified as being of significant historic, environmental and landscape importance.”
3.46 Wain Estates suggest that the policy wording is amended to make clearer the difference between the spatial designation and the purposes of the Green Belt and the distinction between this and environmental and heritage designations, whilst recognising their potential concurrent nature.
3.47 Criterion 3 of the policy states that:
“Opportunities will be taken to improve the value and recreational role of the green belt in Sandwell Valley:
a. through improving safe accessibility for all users;
b. by providing facilities for active and passive recreation (if this preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”
3.48 It must be recognised that in order to improve the value and recreational role of the Green Belt in Sandwell, development will likely need to occur. Land within private ownership is not accessible to the public for these purposes, enhancing access will only come as a compensatory improvement as part of future development proposals through planning applications.
3.49 Providing such improvements would form part of a two-way process of negotiation as part of future planning applications, with the provision of housing potentially acting as an enabler, to allow the council to meet the enhanced recreational role of the Green Belt. This also supports Sandwell’s wider vision, which seeks to increase accessible open spaces, such spaces need to come from somewhere, the Green Belt is a key facilitator for this, however it will not come forward of its own accord.

Vision and Spatial Strategy for Sandwell
3.2 Turning to the proposed vision for Sandwell, the second to last paragraph on page 35 of the consultation document, seeks to ensure that by 2041:
“There is a wide range of housing available to Sandwell residents, aiming to help meet housing needs, designed to support green living and suitable for adaptation to benefit all sections of the community. Affordable, social, and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them. New developments are located within attractively landscaped areas, with access to district and low-cost energy and heating projects, sustainable drainage designed to improve the local environment as well as provide reliable protection against flooding and run-off and all necessary services and facilities within walking and cycling distance or a short bus ride away.”
3.3 Wain Estates support the broad intentions of this part of the vision, with regards to helping to meet the wide range of housing needs within Sandwell, supporting green living and being located in close proximity to local services and facilities via sustainable transport modes. However, within the associated Priorities, Strategic Objectives and Policies set out within Table 3 to support this vision, there is no recognition of the chronic shortage in housing provision to date and how a marked change in strategy will be required to try and address both the historic shortfalls and future demands. Instead, Objective 6 – Housing to Meet all Needs is relatively generic and indicates there is no proposed change in approach or strategy for new development, particularly the provision of housing.
3.4 Reference is then made to the relevant emerging policies which support the capability to meet this objective and help deliver the vision for Sandwell. Wain Estates are of the view that if these policies are progressed as proposed, they do not provide the capability to meet objective 6 and the provision of housing to meet all needs, including the borough’s chronic shortfall in both affordable and market housing, which is a fundamental part of the proposed vision for Sandwell.
3.5 The principle emerging policy which demonstrates this inability to meet the basic housing needs of Sandwell, as established via their own objectively assessed needs (OAN) is Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy. This emerging policy proposes to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the 2022 -2041 plan period. However, this 11,167 figure is minimal when compared to the identified housing need of 29,773 new homes throughout the same time period, identifying a shortfall of 18,606 homes.
3.6 As a percentage, the proposed supply in the draft plan represents just 38% (rounded) of the borough’s total housing needs. This is unacceptable, in both the immediate context and historic undersupply, but also when looking at the wider national level and Government objectives enshrined within the NPPF, particularly at paragraph 60 which requires the supply of homes to be “significantly boosted” and importantly that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to ensure the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed. Due to this, difficult decisions need to be made with regards to the proposed spatial strategy, including consideration of Green Belt land release, without which is artificially restricting the development potential within Sandwell.
3.7 The starting point of a new Local Plan cannot be the continued chronic under-provision of housing, such that the exist delivery issues will be further exacerbated. As evidenced by the latest Housing Delivery Test Result (2021 measurement, the updated version due for January 2023) – being at just 52%, one of the lowest in the county and automatically evoking the “presumption in favour” and “titled planning balance” when it comes to determining applications. This coupled with the latest Five-Year Housing Land Supply Figures released in October 2023, which have only worsened since the previous year, dropping from 3,092 homes (1.6 years) to 2,850 homes (1.57 years) provides clear evidence that the current spatial strategy is not fit for purpose. This historic underperformance in meeting housing needs, also needs to be viewed within the context of the NPPF’s emphasis on needing to boost the supply of housing, and the clear upward direction of travel of national policy in this respect.
3.8 To help address this shortfall, emerging Policy SH03 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility seeks to provide substantial uplifts to minimum density requirements to maximise on the most efficient use of land. This has resulted in a range from 40dph, to 45dph to 100dph in West Brom, this are much higher than the typical 25-30dph figures. The policy notes that further detailed design requirements will come forward in relation to these densities as part of future Sandwell Design Codes. However, with the growing pressures on development to provide more than just housing, such as the 10% BNG (with onsite provision as a preference), accessibility requirements such as the minimum of 15% provision of part M4(3) dwellings for developments of 10 or more dwellings (emerging Policy SH05), the need for sites of 2ha or larger to provide new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population on site (emerging Policy SH4W) all place additional demand for space on site, which may mean that the high minimum density standards cannot be met, resulting in an even lower number of housing units being capable of being provided within Sandwell.
3.9 To further help to address the shortfall, Sandwell are proposing to utilise the Duty-to- Cooperate with neighbouring authorities within the same Housing Market Area, or with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. The details of which are to be provided in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation – which is to be elaborated upon further at the Publication Stage of the plan. This is despite the fact that Birmingham City Council has already said that it does not have enough space to meet its own housing need and might not have enough space to meet its own employment land needs.
3.10 Sandwell note that this approach may only address a small proportion of the identified housing shortfall and therefore if this position remains then further work will be undertaken as appropriate to identify how this shortfall can be addressed. This position is reflected in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which concludes that,
“On balance, Option E is identified as the best performing option, assuming that a large proportion of growth under this option would be on previously developed land and within the existing centres, with the benefits in terms of regeneration meaning this option slightly out-performs Option D, although both would not deliver sufficient housing to satisfy the identified need.”
3.11 As part of a wider consortium, Wain Estates has instructed the “Falling Even Shorter: an updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area” report (copy enclosed at Appendix 4). This report finds that the wider HMA has a shortfall of between 34,742 and 40,676 homes up to 2031, 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040 based on each Council’s most up-to- date supply evidence. This shortfall will only be exacerbated by Sandwell’s approach, with other HMA authorities likely to be able to make a very limited contribution to Sandwell’s shortfall.
3.12 It therefore is clear that the additional work identified in the SA will be required to meet the housing shortfall, the historic approach to the spatial strategy is being undertaken as part of the emerging local plan, a strategy which was in place for the currently adopted Local Plan, which has resulted in the chronic under delivery of both market and affordable housing.
3.13 Wain Estates are of the view that the scale of Sandwell’s own shortfall alone, beyond considering the unmet needs of the wider HMA, amount to exceptional circumstances for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. This additional work should therefore begin now and a fresh approach to assessing the capacity for housing within the borough should be undertaken, which includes an assessment of Green Belt sites for potential release.
3.14 The site on land north of Wilderness Lane is a clear example of the availability of such sites, which are not technically constrained, are in an accessible location, provide the ability to offer enhanced access to the open countryside for recreation purposes and also provide housing in the least sensitive areas of the Green Belt (whilst retaining the majority of it), adjacent to existing built form – in this case situated along Wilderness Lane.
3.15 At present, it is concluded that the overall vision and spatial strategy proposed by the emerging SLP would not be effective in meeting the tests for soundness, as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF. In particular, criterion (a) which requires plans to be:
“Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
3.16 The council by their own admission have submitted a strategy which falls substantially short of providing a strategy which meets their OAN, which should be seen as a minimum requirement within the extract above. Even in meeting the substantially short figures there is a reliance on maximising out housing densities, in an era where development pressures to deliver supporting features beyond just housing – BNG, sustainability measures etc often restrict this capability. The duty-to-cooperate is also proposed to be utilised to account for this unmet need, but there is no clear strategy or commitment from neighbouring authorities that this would be achievable in part or as a whole. This is therefore not a sustainable approach to development and will inevitably result in the very purpose of the SLP – being to promote growth in planned manner, falling away, likely resulting in mass speculative development, in order for housing needs to be met.
3.17 Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances for reviewing Sandwell’s Green Belt boundaries. A further review of the Green Belt is therefore necessary in order to assess how the boundaries should be amended to maximise the potential for the most sustainable sites.
3.18 An example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, 40% affordable housing, a countryside park and associated infrastructure. This application is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.19 Turning more specifically to emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and the elements which make up the proposed housing supply of 11,167 new homes, Wain Estates also have significant concerns regarding the sources which make up this already insufficient number of homes.
3.20 Within Table 5 of the above emerging policy, the first source of the housing land supply is made up of sites currently under construction (1,060 homes), with planning permission or prior approval (998 homes) and sites with other commitments (61 homes)1. Therefore, 2,119 homes included within the figures, are made up of the current supply.
3.21 The second source is made up of housing allocations, comprising occupied employment land (2,234 homes), other (3,094 homes), sites with planning permission (1,545 homes) and sites under construction (78 homes). Therefore, 1,623 homes included within the housing allocations are made up of current / existing supply (calculated by adding together sites with existing planning permission and sites under construction). Of the remaining allocations, despite the occupied employment land (2,234 homes) having a 15% discount figure applied, in recognition of the fact that there can be multiple delivery constraints, this in itself does not mean that there is capability of the full 2,234 homes to be delivered given that these sites are in active use for employment.
3.22 It has also been demonstrated through the previous Black Country Plan that such approaches are not effective for delivering housing. As part of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) a total of 16,182 homes were allocated on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

1 10 units are also included for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, but this element of the supply is not discussed as part of these representations

3.23 Furthermore, as recognised in our previous representations, not only is the delivery of housing on such sites questionable, but it also reduces the ability for the Council to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, of which the Council recognise there are also not enough being provided for as part of the emerging SLP. Paragraph 8.11 of the emerging SLP notes that, 143ha of the employment land need arising in Sandwell cannot be met solely within the Borough, and that the unmet need is to be exported to neighbouring authorities, as part of ongoing duty-to-cooperate work, which is yet to be secured.
3.24 It is good practice to ensure that any elements of housing supply included in a council’s figures, are suitable, available, and achievable of being viably developed. Wain Estates are of the view that there has not been enough evidence provided for the proposed allocations on occupied employment land, as a robust element of the housing supply.
3.25 Taking the above into account, only 3,094 homes (see Table 5 Housing Land Supply Sources within emerging Policy SH01) are allocated which are not made up of existing commitments or situated on occupied employment land, this is a very minor figure when compared to both the proposed delivery of 11,167 net new homes over the plan period and even more so when compared to the actual housing need of 29,773 new homes.
3.26 Looking into more detail at some of the proposed allocations, as recognised by the Council when looking at Appendix B of the SLP, they are also not without their constraints and limitations, further demonstrating that the indicative capacity could be further reduced, resulting in an even lower number of housing allocations. For example:
• SH2 (SA 12) Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury is proposed for 62 homes, but it has access issues which need to be overcome in order to be deliverable, questioning the suitability of this allocation.
• SH26 (66) Lower City Road, Oldbury is proposed for 73 homes but has constraints including land remediation and site assembly issues, there also only appears to be interest from some land owners looking to bring the site forward, so also potential ownership issues to overcome, questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SH25 (SA 65) Bradleys Lane / High Street, Tipton proposed for 189 homes however, this site also has site assembly and land contamination issues to be overcome, it also requires the current owners to find a place to relocate their business before development can come forwards, again questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SM2 SA199 Lion Farm Oldbury, is proposed for a mix of uses, including the provision of 200 homes. However, it relies on relocation of 6 sports pitches to the south of borough, which is arguably not a minor feat. This brings into question the availability and achievability of the land to support an allocation.
• SM1 SA 91 Chances Glass Works, is proposed for a mix of uses including 276 homes, this is a heritage led regeneration project given its recognised constraints which are a Grade II listed building, Scheduled Ancient Monument and Galton Valley Conservation Area, the complexity of such a project brings into question the timescales and the potential delivery of the proposed housing numbers, given the statutory protections given to these heritage constraints, again questioning the suitability and achievability of this site to support an allocation.
3.27 The third part of the housing supply is made up of windfall units, a total of 1,868 are being proposed. However, the delivery of this level of homes is questioned when the restrictive nature of windfall provision within the SLP is assessed. Often and as recognised within the NPPF, the provision of windfall units can help contribute to meeting anticipated housing supply needs, where this aligns with compelling evidence, they can provide a reliable source of supply (paragraph 71). Emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth, does indeed include for an element of windfall provision – some 1,868 homes over the plan period. However, the delivery of such windfall units will be highly restricted given the limitations placed within emerging Policy SH02 – Windfall developments. The policy allows for windfall development on previously developed land without exception, but for greenfield sites, windfall development is only allowed subject to certain conditions. These conditions are:
• That the site is not protected as community open space or
• The site is council owned land surplus to requirements or
• The development of the site will bring an under-used piece of land back into beneficial use and will not harm the environmental, ecological, or historic value of the site and the wider area, in accordance with other relevant policies in the SLP
3.28 The justification text to the policy notes that windfall sites are likely to include surplus public land, small non-conforming employment uses and some residential intensification sites where appropriate. However, greenfield sites are only permitted where they conform with the bulleted list above. Such restrictions are overly onerous and severely limit the capability for windfall sites on greenfield land to come forwards. This is also not in conformity with the definition of windfall development contained within the NPPF (Appendix M – Glossary), which simply states that windfall sites are sites not specifically identified in the development plan. Again, placing unnecessary restrictions on the delivery of housing, for a number that is already significantly below the required capacity.
3.29 The fourth part of the housing supply is made up of additional floorspace in centres (219 homes). This element makes up a very small part of the overall proposed supply figures. It demonstrates the limitations that emerge from seeking to maximise land on brownfield sites, and the misconception that such spaces are often not being utilised to the best of their ability.
3.30 Overall, the elements which make up the already under-delivering housing land supply as part of the emerging SLP are seen to be questionable.
• Firstly, there is a large reliance on existing commitments, as sites with planning permission or already under construction to make up the housing numbers.
• Secondly, the level of allocations which are included on occupied employment sites is high and such sites are known to be slow at delivering and riddled with issues which slow down or prevent the development for more vulnerable residential uses, in addition to the fact they will result in a loss of employment floorspace, for which there is a recognised need within the borough.
• Thirdly, the proposed allocations themselves are not without issues to overcome – such as access, site assembly, land ownership and remediation – which are not insubstantial.
• Finally, the overly restrictive nature of the windfall housing policy means there is a severe limit as to where such sites can come forward and on what type of land, despite the NPPF not stipulating such limitations exist.
3.31 In light of the above, Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances exist in terms of both the scale of unmet need and the likely under delivery of the proposed supply. It is therefore essential that Sandwell reviews its Green Belt boundaries, to ensure it meets its housing needs in the least sensitive locations.
3.32 It is well evidenced that greenfield land will deliver much quicker than brownfield land, where issues of land assembly and remediation severely delay the delivery of housing. It should also be acknowledged that removing land from the Green Belt can also be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and the accessibility of remaining Green Belt land as well as providing improvements to Green Infrastructure (GI) provision. Overall, the Council must “turn on all taps of supply” if it is to meet its housing needs.
3.33 As emphasised throughout this representation, an example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, a countryside park and enhancements to existing biodiversity and Green Infrastructure within the area. This site is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Affordable Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.34 Turning to affordable housing, which is a key issue in terms of the housing supply within the borough, whereby a chronic shortfall has been identified and has historically only worsened. The 25% requirement figure contained within emerging Policy SH04 represents a 5% increase on the existing requirement, which has not been delivering to the levels expected. This demonstrates that the Council must increase its overall supply, in order to increase the supply of affordable housing.
3.35 Indeed the proposals for land north of Wilderness Lane site include the provision 40% affordable housing, this can viably be done given the site’s greenfield nature. On brownfield sites where additional remediation costs are to be factored into viability considerations, meeting increased and even the basic affordable housing requirements is challenging, demonstrating why Green Belt release of greenfield sites would further assist in meeting the chronic shortfall in both market and specifically affordable housing needs within Sandwell.
3.36 Reference within the policy also notes the aspiration of providing affordable housing through a range of schemes delivering up to 100% funding through grant and other financial sources. However, as reflected in the wording of the policy, this is just that – aspirational. It is likely to be particularly difficult given the already stretched nature of government funding and the lengthy process of applying for such funding.
3.37 Wain Estates suggest that further evidence of the delivery of such schemes coming forward or having funding secured needs to be included within the evidence base to support this policy, in order to make it more robust and increase the chances of such developments coming forward.
3.38 Appendix 1 of the previous representations submitted (see Appendix 1 of this document) contains an Affordable Housing Statement which assesses this issue in further detail.
Exceptional Circumstances for Green Belt Release
3.39 The purpose of plan-making is to be positively prepared and set out a long term vision for the area, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable (paragraph 16 of the NPPF). A plan that only provides for around a third of its housing requirement, using the standard method baseline, cannot possibly meet these purposes or deliver the minimum requirement for housing. This is simply not acceptable and does not represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
3.40 Wain Estates consider that the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing crisis, is an important factor that constitutes the exceptional circumstances that justify Green Belt release. As this is a housing focused representation, employment needs are not explored in detail, however it is clear from reviewing the proposed plan that it proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This will only be exacerbated by the anticipated loss of current employment sites for housing, as identified within emerging policy SH01 and the 2,234 homes proposed to come forward as allocations on occupied employment land. The adverse consequences of not meeting the basic housing or employment needs, demonstrate the exceptional circumstances which are required to justify Green Belt release.
3.41 The approach to Green Belt boundary reviews is set out in the NPPF at paragraphs 141 and 142. Paragraph 141 states that the policy making authority need to “examine fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” before concluding if exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. It then goes on to state account needs to be taken for whether the strategy:
“(a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
(b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
(c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”
3.42 As discussed previously, all three of these elements have been included within the proposed spatial strategy, however, are not without their own constraints and when combined, still fall woefully short of meeting the minimum requirements of the identified OAN for Sandwell. This alone demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist for Sandwell to review its Green Belt boundaries. The release of land within the Green Belt needs to be further explored, to allow for plan-led development in the future, particularly when also coupled with the inability to also meet required employment land needs. For this reason, Wain Estates suggest a further review of the Green Belt is undertaken, to identify the most sustainably located sites, in line with paragraph 142 of the NPPF.
3.43 A clear example of such a site is land North of Wilderness Lane, which is currently pending determination for up to 150 new homes, a countryside park, 40% affordable housing provision and associated infrastructure. The accompanying Green Belt Assessment contained within the LVA supporting the application, concludes that the harm to the Green Belt arising from development on the site would be low. Development of the site would maintain the physical and visual separation of the different parts of the wider suburban area and would have a very limited effect on encroachment on the countryside. Spatial and visual openness would be minimally affected. The significant new Wilderness countryside park will provide new public access to local people, and the habitat value of the site will be enhanced. The compensatory improvements to the land remaining in the Green Belt would be significant. Whilst we recognise that the LVA has been produced for the purposes of a planning application, it demonstrates that the contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt is limited, and it is suitable for release and allocation for residential development.
Proposed Amendments to the Green Belt Policy
3.44 Emerging Policy SDS6 provides guidance for the approach to Sandwell’s Green Belt, which will be applied to any development proposed in the Green Belt once the plan is adopted.
3.45 Criterion 2 of the policy notes that: “Sandwell green belt’s nature conservation, landscape, heritage and agricultural value will be protected and enhanced.” Wain Estates draw issue with this wording, as it implies that the Green Belt is a designation of both environmental and heritage value, this is not the case, it is a spatial designation for which there can also be both environmental and heritage features and designations within it. This type of wording adds confusion to the purposes of the Green Belt and the value placed upon its protection. This is recognised in the supporting text to the policy at paragraph 3.84 which states that:
“While green belt is not itself a reflection of landscape quality or value, large parts of the local green belt are also identified as being of significant historic, environmental and landscape importance.”
3.46 Wain Estates suggest that the policy wording is amended to make clearer the difference between the spatial designation and the purposes of the Green Belt and the distinction between this and environmental and heritage designations, whilst recognising their potential concurrent nature.
3.47 Criterion 3 of the policy states that:
“Opportunities will be taken to improve the value and recreational role of the green belt in Sandwell Valley:
a. through improving safe accessibility for all users;
b. by providing facilities for active and passive recreation (if this preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”
3.48 It must be recognised that in order to improve the value and recreational role of the Green Belt in Sandwell, development will likely need to occur. Land within private ownership is not accessible to the public for these purposes, enhancing access will only come as a compensatory improvement as part of future development proposals through planning applications.
3.49 Providing such improvements would form part of a two-way process of negotiation as part of future planning applications, with the provision of housing potentially acting as an enabler, to allow the council to meet the enhanced recreational role of the Green Belt. This also supports Sandwell’s wider vision, which seeks to increase accessible open spaces, such spaces need to come from somewhere, the Green Belt is a key facilitator for this, however it will not come forward of its own accord.

Housing Delivery
The proposed development strategy in the Local Plan identifies a housing requirement of 29,773 dwellings to meet the minimum Standard Method housing needs figure. It is, however, advised that there is only available capacity to deliver 11,167 of these dwellings in the Plan area, leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. There are only two solutions for addressing the shortfall. Either Sandwell need to allocate additional sites within its administrative area, or the Council need to reply upon neighbouring authorities allocating land for development to meet the unmet housing need.
There is no evidence to suggest that neighbouring authorities will be able to provide significant support to meet Sandwell’s housing shortfall. Indeed there is a significant shortfall in the wider Housing Market Area due to a shortfall of housing sites. As a consequence Sandwell should actively make additional housing allocations in the meeting Local Plan.
The housing shortfall arising in Sandwell is reflected elsewhere in the Housing Market Area with the matter of unmet need arising specifically from Birmingham City well established. The Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”) was adopted in January 2017. Policy PG1 – Overall Levels of Growth, advised that 89,000 dwellings are required during the course of the plan period (2011 to 2031) to meet the growth requirements of the City. However, only 51,100 additional dwellings can be accommodated within the City’s administrative area. This leaves a shortfall of 37,900 homes including 14,400 affordable homes (that will need to be delivered elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area). The BDP stipulated that Birmingham’s unmet need should be met by other authorities in the HMA as and when they produced individual Local Plans. This has not happened.
Birmingham City Council has now commenced a review of its Local Plan. The City Council undertook Issues and Options consultation on a draft Plan in November and December 2022. The Issues and Options document advised that the Standard Method housing requirement for Birmingham for the period 2020 to 2042 is 149,286 dwellings. The Issues and Options consultation document suggests that the total capacity for development within the built up area of the City is 70,871 dwellings. This relies upon all SHLAA sites coming forward for development and the provision of a significant number of windfalls (the windfall sum is 11,675 dwellings). This would result in a housing shortfall in the City of 78,415 dwellings.
Birmingham City will clearly be unable to support the delivery of Sandwell’s housing needs.
The other Black Country authorise are in a similar position. Previously, the four Black Country authorities had been preparing a Joint Plan which has now been abandoned in favour of the preparation of individual Plans for each authority. Notwithstanding the above, the Preferred Options Black Country Plan proposed a housing requirement based upon the Standard Method which was the sum of the four individual authority housing requirements. The housing requirement for the four authorities was 76,076 dwellings, however, there was only an identified capacity of 47,837 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be directed to other authorities.
Following the abandonment of the Black Country Plan each authority will calculate its own housing requirement using the standard method calculation. The requirement in Dudley is 11,954 dwellings however, Dudley claims it only has capacity to accommodate 10,876 of these leaving a shortfall of 1,076. The positions in Wolverhampton and Walsall have not yet been published although it is anticipated that there will be a further shortfall in what is required against the capacity within these two authorities, particularly in light of the shortfall that arose at the Black Country Plan Preferred Option stage.
The remaining Black Country authorities are unlikely to be able to assist Sandwell in delivering its unmet housing needs.
If the housing shortfall figure identified in Policy PG1 of the BDP and the emerging shortfalls in both the Dudley and Sandwell Preferred Options are added together it totals 57,582 dwellings. If the shortfall arising in Dudley and Sandwell is added to the emerging shortfall identified in the Birmingham Issues and Options this increases to 98,097 dwellings. As noted above, this has the potential to increase even further when any shortfall arising in Wolverhampton and Walsall is added.
Having regard to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area there are 14 authorities within it which include Birmingham, the four Black Country authorities and 9 other surrounding authorities. In light of the shortfall arising in Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell this effectively leaves 11 remaining authorities where the need could be distributed.
Turning to each of the remaining authorities Redditch Borough is effectively built up to its boundary and already has to look to its adjoining neighbour, Bromsgrove, in order to accommodate its housing need. It would be unable to accommodate any further unmet need. Similarly, Tamworth had to look to its adjoining neighbours of Lichfield and North Warwickshire in order to meet its current housing requirement in its adopted Local Plan. It too would be unlikely to be able to accommodate any unmet need.
Cannock Chase’s capacity is restricted due to environmental constraints including the Cannock Chase SAC and AONB. A small part of Stratford-upon-Avon District falls within the Housing Market Area whilst North Warwickshire have previously committed to delivering 3,790 dwellings to meeting Birmingham’s needs up to 2031 in its adopted Local Plan (2021).
Solihull’s Local Plan is currently at examination and is on hold awaiting publication of the updated Framework and currently proposes approximately 2,000 dwellings to meet the needs of Birmingham. If the Plan progress towards adoption in its current form there would be no scope to seek any increase in the size of the contribution from Solihull until such time as they commenced a further review. This effectively leaves Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove as the three remaining authorities that would be able to make any meaningful contribution to meeting housing needs arising in the wider HMA.
Lichfield has recently withdrawn its Local Plan and is now preparing a new Local Plan, whilst Bromsgrove had commenced a review of its Local Plan having undertaken Issues and Options consultation in 2018 with no programme for when the Preferred Options Local Plan is intended to be published for consultation. South Staffordshire have also consulted on a Pre-submission version of its Local Plan concluding in December 2022 that makes a contribution of just 4,000 dwellings to the overall shortfall. Sandwell should, therefore identify additional sites for housing within its own administrative area.
Land at St Brades Close, Tividale
Our clients land at St Brades Close should be allocated for residential developments to support housing delivery. It is in a highly sustainable location, immediately adjoining in an existing residential area. It is in close proximity to Oakham Primary School and the Portway Lifestyle Centre. There are a variety of services and facilities located on the A4123 – New Birmingham Road, to the north east that are within easy walking distance. Indeed, Oldbury Town Centre is approximately 1 mile from the site. Oldbury Town Centre provides a variety of services and facilities as well as employment opportunities.
The extent of the site being promoted for development means that there will be no functional harm to the area of public open space in this location. Indeed, the area is in private ownership in any event.
The topography in the area is challenging. As a consequence the Representor has commissioned DTA Transport Consultants to undertake an assessment of the access to the site and the ability to deliver roads of an adoptable standard as part of any residential development. The results of this work are attached at Appendix 2. DTA have concluded that a safe and convenient access to the site and a scheme can be serviced by roads of adoptable quality.
Ecology surveys have been undertaken to support the promotion of the site. It will be ensured that any development on the site achieves a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain. The Representor has been in discussions with neighbouring landowners regarding the opportunity to enhance the wider sites ecological resource. As part of the development of this site ecological improvement and a management plan can be established for the wider area helping to safeguard and enhance its ecological potential.
There is the opportunity to create vehicular access from public roads to a smaller car park in close proximity to the site, making the wider site more accessible to the elderly and disabled to enjoy the benefits of the BBCWT land that currently is challenging to access. This is a significant social benefit.
Antisocial behaviour on site has been prevalent for many years, including substantial littering (including shopping trolleys to the east side adjoin A4123), people driving scrambler bikes and quad bikes across the site along with underage drinking, dog fowling amongst other issues. There was a fire on the site in 2022 that needed to be extinguished by the fire service. A closer presence of local homeowners and greater pedestrian access to the area would lead to heightened the natural surveillance of the wider site helping to reduce such incidents.
My client would work with the Council to ensure that all technical matters addressed and that the site will appropriately deliver biodiversity net gain. If the site is allocated for development it will be deliverable in the short term and deliver market and affordable housing in a highly sustainable location.

Evidence Base

Sequential Test
Before the next consultation on the plan, the Council will need to decide how to present evidence that the strategic site allocations have passed the Sequential Test. It will need to be obvious how the Sandwell Local Plan has met the requirements to apply the Sequential Test strategically as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 167-171 inclusive. We specifically highlight paragraph 168;

“The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding.”

The Black Country Councils Strategic Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (2020) sets out an objective of the SFRA in helping the Councils to undertake the Sequential Test i.e. Identify areas where further assessment of flood risk is needed and provide sufficient detail to enable the Sequential Test to be applied to inform allocations of land for development (page iii). One of the recommendations (page 109) is to locate new development in areas of lowest risk, in line with the Sequential Test, by steering sites to Flood Zone 1. If a Sequential Test is undertaken, and a site at flood risk is identified as the only appropriate site for the development, the Exception Test shall be undertaken.

We have reviewed the Spatial Strategy Paper, Local Site Assessment Report including Appendix D Site Assessment Forms and the Sustainability Appraisal as we had thought one of these documents would explain how the Sequential Test has been applied and what conclusions were drawn. We acknowledge that two sites (North and South of Tamebridge Parkway Station) had been rejected due to the presence of Flood Zone 3 as part of the Local Site Assessment screening process. However, unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a clear or consistent approach to how these assessments have considered flood risk or clear conclusions as to whether this means the Sequential Test has been passed or not. There also appear to have been some missed opportunities to have incorporated the aims of the Sequential Test either within one or more of the growth strategies as a distribution of spatial growth consideration, or the Sustainability Appraisal SA Objective Framework and subsequent appraisal of sites.

We acknowledge the difficult balancing act the Council must grapple with and the preferred growth strategy of ‘Balanced Green Growth’ having appraised the options will likely have some positive effects. However, a number of site allocations are proposed in areas of Flood Zone 2 (medium risk) and/or Flood Zone 3 (high risk) and will now need evidence to (a) demonstrate whether they have passed the Sequential Test (there are no alternative sites at a lower risk of flooding) and (b) be assessed by a Level 2 SFRA. The Council will need to ensure this is considered and demonstrated prior to the next iteration of the Local Plan, either as an update to the Sustainability Appraisal or as a standalone document.

Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
The Black Country Councils Level 1 SFRA (2020) recommends (section 10.3.1) that a Level 2 SFRA should be undertake to further inform the site allocations and development of local plan policies. It also enables the Council to address paragraphs 169 and 170 of the NPPF which relate to the Exceptions Test. The Level 2 assists with part (b) of the Exceptions Test, in demonstrating that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. The Level 2 SFRA and it’s more detailed assessment of the site-specific risk including residual risk will help the Council determine the overall deliverability and acceptability of the site allocation, and what development will be possible within the sites. It will need to demonstrate that any potential mitigation measures could protect the site and would not increase flood risk elsewhere taking account of the revised climate change guidance. This may require the running of new or additional flood models in line with the EAs flood modelling guidance. The Council will need to ensure this is considered and demonstrated prior to the next iteration of the Local Plan. The SFRA consultants will need to screen sites requiring a Level 2 Assessment. We will email you separately a list of sites we think would potentially require a Level 2 Assessment for your information.

Black Country Councils Water Cycle Study Phase 1 Scoping (2020)
Our concern is that since the Phase 1 was published, Severn Trent Water and South Staffordshire Water have been preparing and are in an advanced stage of developing their new and latest Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP24) and Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans. The data and assumptions relied on in respect of available water supplies, sustainable abstraction and impact of sustainability reductions to licences, wastewater capacity and climate change data have now changed. The study should be updated to reflect these latest plans and the water companies approached again for their input. The Council will need to be confident that the Sandwell Local Plan chosen growth strategy (and strategic sites) both in terms of distribution and timing can be adequately served by both water resources and wastewater infrastructure and considering the wider cross-boundary service needs of the neighbouring districts.

• Water resources
In addition, some of our plans and strategies have been updated. Our West Midlands Abstraction Licencing Strategies (ALS) have been updated since 2020. The Tame Anker and Mease ALS was updated and republished in June 2022, Worcestershire Middle Severn ALS in July 2022 and Staffordshire Trent Valley ALS in July 2021. Whilst the outcomes on water availability designations have not changed, some of the assessment points (e.g. Worcestershire Middle Severn ALS) and Common End Date (CED) (Staffordshire Trent Valley ALS) have changed.
The River Basin Management Plans have also been updated with a 2022 online version and has water efficiency as a key measure. As of July 2021, Severn Trent Water and South Staffs Water are now classified as operating in seriously water stressed areas (excluding Chester Water Resource Zone). Having said that we support the recommendations on water efficiency for new developments which have informed your draft Policy SDM2 Development and Design Standards. Whilst our plans and strategies have been updated, the primary reason for reviewing the study is to consider the latest water company plans as stated above.

• Water quality
Sandwell district is served by two Wastewater Treatment Works: Minworth WwTW and Roundhill WwTW. Given the additional growth proposed in the Local Plan it is important that this growth can be accommodated by the wastewater network and receiving Wastewater Treatment Works without risking deterioration of the receiving waterbodies in the district and beyond.
Chapter 7 on Wastewater Treatment assesses the headroom capacity for both WwTW and has classed them as ‘green’ i.e. having significant headroom capacity and no other constraints.
However, Figure 7.16 which shows the summary map of headroom based on quality assessment suggests that for most of Dudley and Sandwell the classification is ‘amber’ stating ‘limited headroom based on quality assessment.’ It is important that any discharge consent implications are discussed with us at an early stage, and any delays that might prevent

development being accommodated within a catchment area due to permit restrictions or other are clearly indicated. If phasing of development or restrictions are necessary within a particular catchment area as a mitigation measure this should be outlined.

We concur with the conclusions within chapter 9 that a further assessment of the impact upon water quality from increased wastewater discharges should be undertaken as part of a Phase 2 Outline Study. This could also incorporate a review of the latest data from Severn Trent’s Drainage and Waste Water Management Plan.

We are concerned there is very limited reference to water quality within the draft Local Plan across a range of relevant policies. The Water Framework Directive classification of water bodies across Sandwell is ‘moderate.’ Treated effluent discharges from WwTW, discharges from sewer outfalls and urban and transport runoff will all have a bearing on the waterbodies overall classification and the reason it does not currently achieve ‘good’ status or potential.

Policy SCC5 on Sustainable Drainage has missed an opportunity to prefer sustainable drainage systems that improve water quality in addition to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. It is important that the recommendations from the Water Cycle Study are considered, for example, for the Minworth catchment where a combined sewer system exists, there could be opportunities for the separation of surface water through suitably designed SuDs. We strongly recommend the Council include a policy addressing the strategic infrastructure of waste water, that development will only be permitted where adequate waste water infrastructure and capacity exists, including requirements for mitigation such as phasing. This should be based on recommendations from the Phase 2 WCS when available. Policy DLP48 Water Quality and Groundwater Protection Zones from the draft Dudley Local Plan provides a good working example where it addresses the hierarchy for foul drainage connection and unacceptable risks to quality or quantity of a water body will not be permitted.

Black Country Waste Study Update 2023
Our WDIs are updated annually, and the latest data is the 2022 dataset (for calendar year 2021) is now available. References in this study to 2021 WDI presumably refers to the 2020 data. We recommend checking the latest data and revising figures or clarifying accordingly.

Draft Local Plan Policies

Policy SDS7 Green and Blue Infrastructure in Sandwell
It is positive that the policy recognises rivers, canals and other waterways (as blue infrastructure) in combination with green infrastructure elements. The watercourses in Sandwell include the River Tame, Birmingham Canal, Hobnail Brook, Tipton Brook, Swan Brook, Dudley Canal Netherton Tunnel Branch, Whiteheath Brook, York Road Brook to name some of the main surface water bodies. The overall Water Framework classification of waterbodies in the Sandwell district is moderate, with the aim to achieve good ecological potential by 2027 or alternate date.

Except for parts 1 and 2 of the policy, the remainder of the policy is tipped towards improving green infrastructure. We would like the Council to consider how this policy can be rebalanced in order that ‘blue infrastructure’ is also given equal or additional weight. Restoring and enhancing the river network as part of development opportunities in Sandwell will help the Council deliver the Humber and Severn River Basin Management Plan objectives, as well as providing a strategic framework for other policies in the plan such as Policy SCC4. Whether restoring a heavily modified channel, breaking a river out of its culvert, creating in-channel habitat such as reeds and wetlands or enhancing a river corridor – all these activities will help to improve blue

infrastructure alongside achieving other biodiversity and water quality objectives. Ultimately, both blue and green infrastructure are needed to work in harmony with each other to restore habitats and over time establish good healthy connectivity of habitats and green spaces across the district.

For example, part 3 of the policy could be revised to state “Development in Sandwell will be expected to maintain and where possible enhance the existing network of green and blue infrastructure across the borough.

Policy SNE2 Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats
We welcome the policy and its requirements for achieving Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) as part of developments in Sandwell. The Humber and the Severn River Basin Management Plans are a key evidence base to identify ways in which water-related habitats and biodiversity can be created and enhanced for water bodies across the district. The BNG guidance refers to RBMPs as an important source of information for achieving BNG for the water environment. Therefore, we recommend the policy acknowledges the contribution BNG will be expected to make to creating water-related biodiversity credits where the watercourse metric is required for a planning application. River restoration, de-culverting, removal of redundant structures from main rivers, creating wildlife-rich corridors to buffer watercourses and sensitive native planting are all likely to be elements that can contribute to an applicants biodiversity gain plan and achieve credits.

We also recommend the Council considers the inclusion of the water environment in the list of potential sites for Biodiversity Net Gain credits. We are likely to support the production of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy so that the priorities for nature recovery capture the water environment opportunities.

Policy SCC1 Increasing efficiency and resilience
We support part (e) of the policy where it proposes to minimise the impact of surface water drainage on drainage systems by considering grey water recycling and rainwater harvesting. Droughts are becoming more common. This is also beneficial to reduce the districts reliance on potable water supplies, using water resources sustainably and climate change resilience.

We support part (i) of the policy in requiring that applications should promote circular economy outcomes and seek to reduce whole life-cycle carbon emissions of development proposals by considering the reuse of existing resources. We agree that buildings need to support a circular economy model where wastes can be segregated and sorted to allow materials to be conserved, reused or remanufactured. The construction sector can be a significant consumer of circular materials, not just concrete and metals, but also composite materials derived from plastics, waste wood, recycled plasterboard, insulation, etc.

We are advocating the adoption of ‘Whole Life’ plans (or ‘Passports’) for all buildings to reduce energy, conserve water and control carbon emissions and waste. This applies not only during construction but during use, maintenance, refurbishment and enlargement, repurposing and at end-of-life. There is also the scope to require building adaptability so developments can be adapted over time according to changing needs, such as converting redundant office or retail premises into accommodation or storage.


Policy SCC4 Flood Risk
Overall, we think the policy is robust and has considered the recommendations of the Black Country Councils Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2020) particularly with regard to its

protection of the functional floodplain and seeking to achieve wider betterment such as a reduction in flood risk downstream with the policies detail on assessment and mitigation requirements. The strength of the policy is necessary given Sandwell’s flood risk characteristics: a combination of densely populated urban areas which are in places, steeply sloping leading to rapid surface water runoff and a district criss-crossed by many watercourses both main and ordinary many of which are heavily modified. Therefore, it’s likely we would be able to support this policy as it is currently drafted, however, we have made some suggestions below as to how it can be improved.

We also strongly support the requirement for no built development within ten metres of the top of bank of a main river. Although this is more than the minimum of eight metres outlined within the SFRA, with the current onset of climate change, there is a need for greater resilience.
Opportunities should be sought to make space for water to accommodate climate change as set out in the SFRA. Other Councils have adopted similar policies such as Policy S27 in Dudley’s Borough Development Strategy (2017). Where watercourses are heavily modified the space provided will allow for restoration, reconnection with the floodplain and the provision of a green corridor. Natural watercourses move through their landscapes over time via the process of erosion and deposition, and it makes practical sense to allow additional space for this rather than risk future emergency remedial measures.
The Sequential Test requirements for planning applicants are clear, based on the SFRA recommendations, and will enable the Council to make decisions on the acceptability of the Sequential Test at the planning application stage.

Although this policy mentions culverts, the removal of weir structures where possible should also be prioritised as this would likewise decrease flood risk and help re-naturalise the watercourse. In general, removing redundant hardstanding and replacing with vegetation would also improve flood risk from surface waters. Many watercourses in the district and beyond are hindered by obsolete structures such as weirs, and we have specific measures outlined in the River Basin Management Plan to remove these where possible and feasible.
The policy justification text should specifically reference the SFRA and summarise the conclusions drawn from this assessment for the Sandwell district (where not already covered in the text). The policy justification text and/or the SFRA could make specific reference to the ‘Tipton and Swan Brook Flood Risk Management Scheme’ currently under development as this is relevant to part 15 (b) of policy SCC4 (provision of partnership funding contributions).

Policy SCC6 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards
We support the BREEAM standards for non-residential developments of 1,000 sqm gross or more to achieve BREEAM Very Good or Excellent including full credits for category Wat 01 (water efficiency).

Policy SHO10 Accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Permanent Gypsy and Traveller communities can be particularly vulnerable to the risks from flooding. We recommend the following wording be added to section 4:
The site should ensure that it is safe from flood risk and proposals do not increase flood risk for others in accordance with Policy SCC4.


Policy SDM2 Development and Design Standards
We support the policy requirement to achieve the lower water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person per day, as set out in Part G2 of the Building Regulations. We agree with section

15.26 of the Justification text that this standard is justified given Severn Trent Water (apart from Chester Water Resources Zone) now operates in an area classed as seriously water stressed as of July 2021. This would also be in the spirit of paragraph 158 of the NPPF where it stresses the need to take into account the long-term implications including water supply and support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities.

The focus of building design can often be on energy efficiency and water consumption. However, reducing waste from occupation and use can include improved design and provision for sufficient waste storage and sorting on site. Designing for waste can make recycling easier and cover a wider range of waste items (i.e. Waste Ergonomics the right type of bin in the right location). For example, designing where food waste collections or other specific waste streams such as Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) and Batteries are established.
Building design can also address accessibility considerations around handling waste to help the elderly, infirm or disabled residents move bags or bins easily, especially when segregating waste. Building design can also help to minimise problems such as fly tipping in insecure communal areas. This might also be relevant for policy SCC1.

Policy SWA2 Waste Sites
We welcome the general principles of this policy. We recommend sections 1 and 2 of the policy consider safeguarding process and remanufacturing facilities that can consume waste to supply useful recovered raw materials and new products. This would help in implementing a Circular Economy as mentioned earlier in paragraph 13.11. In relation to this promoting traditional disposal facilities up the Waste Hierarchy into recovery capacity, for example, adding a pre- sorting line to a waste to energy facility or allowing a skip-waste sorting operation at a closed landfill would be beneficial.

We welcome paragraph 3 of the policy in principle in the aim to avoid potential conflict between the uses of an existing waste site with proposals for housing and other sensitive uses by not permitting (with exceptions). However, we suggest the term ‘near to’ is not very precise and the policy could be made more robust by providing an indicative minimum distance. The proximity may vary depending on the source and receptor, and it’s worth noting that anaerobic digestion facilities produce gases very similar in nature to landfill gas. Please consider the Environment Agency guidance relating to development near landfill sites due to the hazards of landfill gas migration as well as amenity impact.

Discussion – Responses of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Midlands (PCCWM)

Sandwell Spatial Portrait – paragraphs 27-77 and Challenges and Issues – paragraph 78

This section of the draft Local Plan sets out the background to the Borough and includes key statistics. There is no reference at all in paragraphs 27 to 77 of the crime statistics for the Borough, whereas statistics/ profiles are given for health, economy and skills, employment, transport, broadband and 5G etc. This is considered a significant omission, given crime and disorder are key indicators of relevance in painting a spatial portrait of the Borough. Indeed, it is noted in the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal under Table 2.1: Summary of SA Objectives confirms under point 11 that the reduction of poverty, crime and social deprivation and secure economic inclusion are a Sustainability Appraisal objective, however, no crime statistics are provided against which to measure the success of the objectives. Furthermore, Table 9.1 of the Sustainability Appraisal includes in its recommendations at (11) Equality, ensuring that development proposals take into account crime and safety, and promote safe and accessible neighbourhoods, helping to reduce crime and fear of crime. These recommendations need better translating into the policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan.

An understanding of the crime profile of the Borough, in accordance with the requirement under paragraph 130(f) of the NPPF 2023, ensures that planning policies and decisions, amongst other requirements, “…create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.”

In this respect, it is considered that the crime profile should be included, and to that end, the existing crime statistics from West Midlands Police (2022), i.e. the last full calendar year, are set out below. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) population projections indicate that the expected number of households across the West Midlands for 2022 was 1,163,039. For the Sandwell area alone, the projected number of households is 129,512.

In 2022, the total number of recorded Police incidents (i.e. those occasions when West Midlands Police were called upon to deploy 1 or more Officer(s) to an incident) was 635,972 for the entire force area. The actual number of crimes recorded, resulting from these incidents, was 364,950 crimes (which equates to 0.55 incidents/0.31 crimes per household, across the entire WMP force area).

The table below sets out these figures, along with those incident and crime figures relating to Sandwell by way of comparison, as highlighted, which coincidently are very similar to the incidents/crimes per household for the whole force area.

Table 1: Crime Statistics from 2022 (See attachment)

On the basis of the above crime statistics, the following proportional factor can be applied to reliably predict the potential additional incidents/crimes which would be likely to occur within a calendar year upon completion as a result of the planned new population growth in the borough of Sandwell.

The proposed numbers of new homes of 11,167 (supply) and 29,500 (need) would represent 8.5% and 22.8% increases in the number of households within Sandwell, respectively. If the same percentage increases are applied to the actual incident and crime statistics for the area, the predicted proportional additional and total incidents/crimes likely to occur within a calendar year are as set out in the following table.

Table 2: Predicted Crime Statistics (See attachment)

As set out in the Arup ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment
Reference: v2.0 dated 2nd November 2023:

• Sandwell has seen a 25% increase in recorded crime since 2020;
• The demands placed on the police service can increase as the local population increases;
• The demands on the police are exacerbated by the major changes in the nature of crime and methods needed to deal with it, particularly regarding cybercrime, child sex exploitation and terrorism;
• Based on analysis of WMP’s crime statistics (2022), it is predicted that the rising population
would require the recruitment of c120 extra staff members;
• As Sandwell’s population increases, there is a greater need to ensure new development is supported by adequate policing infrastructure in the interest of creating sustainable communities;
• This highlights the importance of new developments employing Secured by Design principles to reduce the amount of additional crime generated as the population grows in certain areas.
The PCCWM clearly has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for its area and, of course, the Council is also statutorily required to consider crime and disorder and community safety in the exercise of its duties with the aim of achieving a reduction in crime (ref. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998).

The PCCWM requests that in accordance with national planning policy, the theme of community safety and crime prevention is given greater prominence in the draft Sandwell Local Plan consultation, including in the Spatial Visions, Priorities and Objectives (Chapter 1), to promote improvements in community safety, reducing crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, which are vital objectives in the context of creating sustainable communities. There should also be reference in ‘Challenges and Issues’ (paragraph 78) to crime and disorder.

Policy SDS4 - Achieving well-designed places

The PCCWM supports the requirement at Policy SDS4 point 6 that ‘Development should contribute positively to creating high quality, active, safe and accessible places.’ And at point 7 that ‘To support the development of safe neighbourhoods, ensure quality of life and community cohesion are not undermined and minimise the fear of crime, the design of new development should create secure and accessible environments where opportunities for crime and disorder are reduced or designed out.’

In addition, the justification to the policy at paragraph 3.58 confirms the environmental, economic and social benefits, including community safety, of designing high-quality places.
However, the PCCWM objects to the omission of any reference to ‘Secured by Design’ principles and the ‘Park Mark’ parking standards, which would ensure a consistency in designing out crime. Secured by Design is proven to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour by 87% - see Police Scotland research: Secured by Design - The success of Secured by Design – Police Scotland’s Stuart



Ward showcases extraordinary 87% reduction in crime in Secured by Design properties

Park Mark facilities have seen vehicle-related crime drop by 80%: ParkMark - About The Scheme

It is recommended that the following modification to the policy (shown in bold) be included after Point 7 of Policy SDS4:

‘All new development should include consideration of crime prevention measures, Secured by Design, Park Mark principles, and the need for a maintenance plan to reduce crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour.’

Policy SDS5 - Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy

The PCCWM highlights the need to consider the threat of terrorism and measures to minimise crime and anti-social behaviour which can be associated with large gatherings, such as in town centres, under the remit of Policy SDS5. All locations which will generate crowds in public places should consider the need for appropriate security measures in the design of buildings and spaces. Good counter-terrorism protective security can also support wider prevention.

Policy SDS5 is considered to be one measure to achieve Strategic Objective 7 (ensuring communities in Sandwell are safe and resilient and social cohesion is promoted and enhanced) and Objective 11 (to ensure new development supports health and wellbeing).

The PCCWM supports the inclusion of the following wording in Policy SDS5 (point 5), which take on board the previous representations made on behalf of the WMP in respect of Policy CSP5:

‘An assessment should be undertaken (as part of the design of new developments likely to attract large numbers of people) to demonstrate and document how potential security and crime-related vulnerabilities have been identified, assessed and where necessary, addressed in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate.’

However, the justification to the policy does not reference the background to this wording and why it has been included. It is requested that the justification takes account of, and references, the following policy background:

• Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 53-011-20190722 revised 22nd July 2019) recognises that for all locations which will generate crowds in public places, consideration should be given to appropriate security measures in the design of buildings and spaces. Good counter-terrorism protective security can also support wider prevention. The PPG identifies a number of sources of guidance in this respect including ‘Protecting Crowded Places: Design and Technical Issues’, which refers to ‘Secured by Design and ‘Safer Parking’ standards, ‘National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO)’ crowded places and ‘Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI)’ built environment guidance.



The PPG goes onto advise that as well as the above referenced guidance, local police Counter Terrorism Security Advisors (CTSAs) and Designing Out Crime Officers (DOCOs) have training and experience of advising on security, are independent in their advice and have further access to more specialist resources where required, including the NaCTSO and the CPNI), and states that local planning authorities should consider referring appropriate planning applications for public access buildings and spaces to the police who will determine the appropriate specialist input (Paragraph: 012 Reference ID:53-012-20190722 revised 22nd July 2019)

• The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear in its requirement that local planning authorities should anticipate and address possible malicious threats, especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate. It states at paragraph 97 that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by: a) anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and natural hazards, especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate. Policies for relevant areas (such as town centre and regeneration frameworks), and the layout and design of developments, should be informed by the most up-to-date information available from the police and other agencies about the nature of potential threats and their implications. This includes appropriate and proportionate steps that can be taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience and ensure public safety and security.’

The footnote to the above paragraph confirms this includes transport hubs, night-time economy venues, cinemas and theatres, sports stadia and arenas, shopping centres, health and education establishments, places of worship, hotels and restaurants, visitor attractions and commercial centres.

Accordingly, the justification to Policy SDS5 should be expanded to include the requirement for point 5.

Policy SHW1 – Health Impact Assessments

The PCCWM notes the Council’s acknowledgement (in the preamble to polices on health and wellbeing, e.g. paragraph 6.6) of ensuring a healthy and safe environment that contributes to people’s health and wellbeing being a key Council objective and its partners in the health, voluntary and other related sectors.

The proposed Health Impact Assessments (HIA) cover an assessment of how proposed development will be, inter alia, ‘…inclusive, safe, and attractive, with a strong sense of place, encourages social interaction and provides for all age groups and abilities’ (paragraph 6.14).

The PCCWM supports the policy and its objectives.



SHO1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

The need for contributions towards Police infrastructure to ensure sustainable growth

In order to sustain the level of growth proposed in the draft Sandwell Local Plan consultation and to meet the national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services to create environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or social cohesion. The PCCWM objects to Policy SHO1 as it should include reference for the need for contributions for social, environmental and physical infrastructure to support sustainable housing growth in accordance with the aspirations of the policy and the plan – however point 4 of the Policy states ‘The development of sites for housing should demonstrate a comprehensive approach, making best use of available land and infrastructure and not prejudicing neighbouring uses.’

As set out elsewhere in this representation, in the comments of the PCCWM on the Sandwell Spatial Portrait and Chapter 12 ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’, a growth in housing and population in the Borough will bring increased demand for police services and there is a need for developer contributions to fund that growth for the reasons set out.
Therefore, new development, including larger housing sites/ housing allocations, should be subject to CIL/ S.106 agreements as appropriate to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services, and the requirement for this infrastructure should be enshrined in the wording of Policy SHO1.

Of note, point 5 to Policy SHO1 refers to ‘ancillary uses appropriate for residential areas’ in sites with existing planning permission, sites allocated for housing by the Plan and windfall sites, in tacit acknowledgement that such uses as health facilities, community facilities and local shops are linked to housing development and that there may be a gap in provision. However, funding for such community services as policing is necessary and contributions should be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of, inter alia Police services to create environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or social cohesion.

Proposed housing allocations

The PCCWM requests that the following police sites are considered for residential allocation in the draft Sandwell Local Plan. All sites are owned by the PCCWM.

Table 3 – PCCWM - proposed housing allocations (See Attachment)

SHO2 – Windfall Developments

Under Policy SHO1, windfall housing is to deliver 1,868 dwellings during the plan period. In order to sustain the level of growth proposed in the draft Sandwell Local Plan consultation and to meet the national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services to create environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or social cohesion. The PCCWM objects to Policy SHO2, as it should include reference for the need for contributions for social, environmental and physical infrastructure to support windfall development. Windfall development, as well as development on larger sites/ allocations, should be subject to CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services, and the requirement for this infrastructure should be enshrined in the wording of Policy SHO2.

The Council’s attention is also drawn to the comments of the PCCWM on the Sandwell Spatial
Portrait and Chapter 12 ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’.

Policy SHO8 – Houses in Multiple Occupation

The PCCWM supports the wording of the policy and justification to Policy SHO8, which reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation.

The PCCWM supports the specific reference within the policy itself, point 3(e) as follows -

‘3. Once the current level of HMO provision has been established in a relevant area, the following criteria will be applied to a new proposal:…

e) the development would not give rise to unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on amenity, character, appearance, security, crime, anti-social behaviour or the fear of crime.’

The PCCWM also fully supports the footnote to this policy which recommends that pre-application and planning application advice is sought for HMO proposals from the West Midlands Police Design Out Crime Officers.

In addition, the PCCWM supports the reference in point 6 of the Policy that states that the policy criteria will also apply to the intensification or expansion of an existing HMO.

The justification to Policy SHO8, paragraph 7.54(g) is also supported by the PCCWM. It explains that harmful impacts associated with high numbers of HMOs can include: ‘…g) increased anti-social behaviour and fear of crime resulting from the lifestyles of some HMO occupants, the transient nature of the accommodation and inadequately designed / maintained properties;…’



However, in addition to the support for Policy SHO8, the PCCWM suggests there is a Borough wide Article 4 Direction introduced to seek to remove the permitted development right to convert a residential dwelling to a small HMO (providing living accommodation for 3 to 6 unrelated persons), such that planning permission would be required for any proposals, alongside the proposed policy against which all HMO applications, as well as planning applications for large HMO (for which there are no permitted development rights and thereby planning permission is required) will be assessed. This is an approach taken by a number of the West Midlands authorities, including Birmingham City Council and Coventry City Council.

An Article 4 Direction regarding permitted development for HMOs, alongside the proposed policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan will manage the distribution and delivery of HMOs, to reduce the potential harm that arises from the over-concentration and poor quality of HMOs, and the consequential impact this has on crime and disorder and to community safety, and the increased pressure this places on Police resources.


Policy SHO10 – Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Show people

The PCCWM supports the wording of the policy and justification to Policy SHO10, which reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation.

The PCCWM supports the specific reference within the policy itself, point 6 as follows -

‘6. Proposals should be well designed and laid out in accordance with Secured by Design
principles as set out in Policy SDM1.’

The justification to Policy SHO10, paragraph 7.70, that pitches and plots are well designed in line with Secured by Design principles, and that advice is sought from West Midlands Police Design Out Crime Officers is also supported by the PCCWM.

Policy SCE1 - Sandwell Centres

Sandwell’s Local Plan Vision 2041 includes the following:

‘Sandwell’s town centres thrive by day and by night, with an expanded range of retail, leisure and socialising opportunities as well as acting as the foci for new residential developments, community activities and social enterprises. They are safe, welcoming and accessible locations during both day and night, designed to encourage positive public interactions and minimise antisocial behaviour.’

Strategic Objective 15 supports Sandwell’s towns and local centres as places for economic, residential and cultural activity with good access to services, in ways that protect their heritage, character and identity vision is echoed in other policies, for example, paragraph 3.20 confirms that Sandwell is committed to the regeneration of its towns and employment areas and has adopted its



Sandwell Regeneration Strategy 2022-27 that sets out exactly how this will be achieved. The strategy contains a vision for this process, which includes reference to creating ‘exciting, busy, and green centres where people meet throughout the day, with a thriving cultural and night-time economy’. The strategic approach for the Borough’s economic and regenerative growth is set in Policy SDS2 (para 3.21) and Policy SCE1 ‘Sandwell’s Centres’ (paragraph 9.9) that confirms that the Council will support the evening economy, as well as reference to creating evening/ night-time offers in individual polices relating to all the Town Centres, e.g. Policy SWB1 ‘West Bromwich Town Centre’ etc.

However, the PCCWM considers it prudent to include more detail in Policy SCE1 to cover specific issues in relation to the evening economy, to ensure development proposals, particularly in dense areas such as town centres, promote safe and accessible neighbourhoods, helping to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

The PCCWM considers it vital that a proposed expansion of the evening economy should include reference to town centres being safe and secure environments to enable the attainment of that vision. Such a policy should also consider supporting the use of the ‘Secured by Design’ scheme in relation to crime prevention. The aim/ vision should be to reduce crime, the fear of crime, anti- social behaviour and potential disturbance to existing businesses and people. If crime, or the fear of crime is not addressed, people will not feel safe, are unlikely to use the entertainment/night-time facilities, with potential of an economic spiral of decline. Bars, restaurants and shops will close and be boarded up, resulting in less people being attracted to the area, leading to the closure of more premises and companies going out of business. Such a policy would deliver economic, social and environmental sustainability, meeting the objectives of Policy SDS2 ‘Regeneration Areas’ and others. Without a specific policy, the objectives and the vision set out in the draft Local Plan is not met.

The PCCWM notes that Policy SCE1 seeks to meet the Strategic Objectives 2 (sustainable development) and 15 (supporting the town centres). Within the policy itself it is noted that it is proposed to diversify and repurpose centres, enhanced by appropriate complementary uses, particularly including, inter alia, community uses and supporting the evening economy.

Therefore, the PCCWM objects to the lack of appropriate wording within Policy SCE1 to address the expansion of the leisure evening economy which will impact on policing. It would be unsound for the impact of this significant area of growth and development to be ignored as it could potentially undermine the Plan’s Strategic Objectives and the sustainable development objectives of the NPPF. Similarly, there is no reference to safety, crime or disorder in the justification to the policy.

Safety issues of particular relevance to the evening economy include for example:

- Access to and from the facilities e.g. nearby public transport network, access to taxis and private hire vehicles;
- Safe and reasonably priced parking facilities - well lit, accessible car parks where people feel



safe, with CCTV and good access control, meeting the standards set out in the Police Crime Prevention Initiatives Safer Parking Scheme - ParkMark - About The Scheme
- Well-run premises, with qualified/licenced door staff, who are able to deal with the conflict and problems associated with such premises, as well as presenting a welcoming ‘customer service’ approach to people visiting the city and the premises concerned;
- CCTV facilities within bars, clubs and restaurants;
- Hot food takeaways/ late-night refreshment houses are often the flashpoint for violence after the pubs and clubs close;
- Late night opening off-licenses and small retail stores (that sell alcohol) tend to be ‘honey pots’, i.e. areas where people linger for longer than they would normally do so and attract increased levels of anti-social behaviour;
- Position of ATM (‘hole in the wall’ and ‘stand-alone’). These are often situated in night-time economy areas. These become ‘crime-generators’ (intoxicated people using cash machines are vulnerable to becoming victims of crime).
- ATMs and ATM replenishments. ATMs are a common focus of ‘cash in transit’ robberies - where cash vans are attacked, either entering or leaving a bank with cash bags, or replenishing ATMs. Across the UK (and Midlands) there have been a number of physical attacks on ATMs, including the use of gas – see best-practice-for-physical-atm-security.pdf (link.co.uk); and
- Sheesha (Shisha/Hookah) Lounges and the potential impact on surrounding
communities. These are increasing in number, but they do not fall under alcohol licensing or other forms of regulation. Many of these lounges have outside areas where people can smoke together. These are often unsafe, crowded shelters or internal areas which may not comply with smoking regulations. The police have to use powers afforded to other agencies (e.g., Fire and Environmental Services) to restrict inappropriate developments, which could be dangerous to the service-users or cause conflict within the local community. Policy opportunities to manage premises would be welcomed.

The PCCWM therefore requests that Policy SCE1 be modified by the introduction of the following text at 6(d) shown in bold:

‘6. A land use approach will be adopted to encourage regeneration and to meet the challenges facing Sandwell's centres, particularly as little retail capacity has been identified to support additional floorspace, through supporting:

…d. a variety of facilities, appealing to a wide range of age and social groups, provided in such a way to ensure a safe, accessible and inclusive environment and any anti-social behaviour is discouraged, for example through management, improved lighting and CCTV coverage where appropriate.’

Policy SCE2 - Non-E Class Uses in Town Centres

The PCCWM objects to the lack of appropriate wording within Policy SCE2 to address the expansion



of the non-E class uses in town centres which will primarily relate to the leisure evening economy - as drafted the policy will impact on policing. It would be unsound for the impact of this significant area to be ignored as whilst the policy makes reference to such uses as public houses and live music venues, it does not provide details of how such applications will be assessed in the context of crime and disorder and therefore the policy could potentially undermine the Plan’s vision and objectives and the sustainable development objectives of the NPPF.

The PCCWM considers that the general objectives of evening specific issues for any decision-maker include ensuring a thriving, vibrant economy where people can feel safe, with reduced crime and a reduction in the fear of crime.

The PCCWM objects to the lack of any reference in Policy SCE2 to crime, fear of crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour as considerations for planning applications for non-E class uses in town centres. The PCCWM requests that the policy be modified by the introduction of the following text shown in bold:

‘5. In all areas of Town Centres, it is important that a variety of facilities, appealing to a wide range of age and social groups, are offered and that these are provided in such a way to ensure a safe, accessible and inclusive environment and any anti-social behaviour is discouraged, for example through management, improved lighting and CCTV coverage where appropriate.’

Policies SCE3, SCE4 and SCE5

In these policies which relate to Town, District and Local Centres, as well as Small-Scale Local Facilities not in Centres, there is no reference in the policies to crime, fear of crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour as considerations for planning applications as would be expected in light of the Council’s statutory duty and its objectives and vision in the draft Sandwell Local Plan, and therefore the PCCWM objects and requests that these policies all contain the following wording:

‘In locations where there are considered to be issues concerning community safety, crime, and disorder, advice will be sought from the police and other safety organisations before planning permission is granted for proposals.’

The justification to the policies should similarly reference this requirement.

Policy SWB2 - Development in West Bromwich

The PCCWM objects to this Policy as it does not cross reference other relevant policies of note, including those relating to town centres, therefore the Policy should cross reference policies such as Policy SCE1 ‘Sandwell Centres’ etc. For example, point 4 should reference an amended Policy SDS5.



Policy SDM9 - Community Facilities

The PCCWM’s response to Policy SDS5 is also applicable to Policy SDM9, in terms of the importance of proposals relating to new community facilities needing to consider the threat of terrorism and measures to minimise crime and anti-social behaviour which can be associated with large gatherings. Policy SDM9 gives examples of the community facilities it applies to, which include but are not limited to, banqueting suites and entertainment venues, places of worship and / or religious instruction and community centres. However, such community uses have the potential to attract large numbers of people. Whilst the policy acknowledges that most community facilities would be best located in town centre, it is recognised that such uses also take place outside of town centres, therefore the policy references to uses attracting the congregation of large numbers of people should also be included in policies relating to sites outside of town centres.

Whilst Policy SDM9 makes reference to the need to consider noise and car parking in relation to such proposals, the policy makes no reference to the need for applicants to undertake an assessment as part of the design of new developments likely to attract large numbers of people, or to demonstrate and document how potential security and crime-related vulnerabilities have been identified, assessed and where necessary, addressed in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate.

The requirement for this is set out in the PCCWM response under Policy SDS5 above and the PCCWM objects to the omission of this policy wording under Policy SDM9, and requests a new bullet point that states that:

‘6. An assessment should be undertaken (as part of the design of new community developments likely to attract large numbers of people) to demonstrate and document how potential security and crime-related vulnerabilities have been identified, assessed and where necessary, addressed in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate.’

In addition, it is noted that the listed community facilities do not include emergency services such as police or fire, all of which are community facilities necessary for achieving sustainable development.

Policy ENV7 – Canals

The PCCWM objects to the omission of reference to the need to consider crime, anti-social behaviour, and the fear of crime when considering development proposals on the canal network. The policy justification acknowledges that ‘The network has significant value for nature conservation, tourism, health and wellbeing and recreation, and the potential to make an important contribution to economic regeneration through the provision of high-quality environments for new developments and a network of pedestrian, cycle and water transport routes.’ The success of the policy will to some extent be dependent upon people being and feeling



safe. It is therefore proposed that the following additional wording (shown in bold) be added as a modification to the policy:

‘3) Where opportunities exist, all development proposals within the canal network must:…

d. relate positively to the adjacent waterway by promoting high quality design, incorporating crime prevention measures by reference to Secured by Design principles to reduce crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, including active frontages onto the canal and improving the public realm;

g. include a management plan where appropriate to, for example, ensure any planting does not
provide concealment or facilitate illegal access to property or premises.’

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

In accordance with national policy, it should be recognised that good design can have a role in reducing opportunities for crime and policies or design codes/ SPD should include reference to the mechanisms for achieving safe environments.

The PCCWM supports the proposed policy requirement (2d) that Design and Access Statements must demonstrate that a number of aspects of design have been addressed, including, ‘…d) crime prevention measures, Secured by Design and Park Mark principles and the requirements of Part Q of the Building Regulations 2010 or any successor legislation;’ However, the PCCWM considers the policy does not go far enough as it does not have a requirement for Secured by Design principles and Park Mark to be incorporated into development proposals. Furthermore, only some mainly larger planning applications require Design and Access Statements so as an overarching design policy for the plan, it should apply to all development proposals.

The PCCWM also supports the inclusion in point 4 of the policy that states that development must not cause an adverse impact on the living environment of occupiers of existing residential properties, or unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers of new residential properties, including in terms of ‘h) crime and safety’.

The PCCWM also supports the wording of justification paragraph 15.17 which explains that ‘A key objective for new developments should be that they create safe and accessible environments where crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour do not undermine the quality of life, health or community cohesion. Good design, layout and spatial relationships (including the use of sensitively designed and located landscaping that reduces opportunities for anti-social behaviours) can make a positive contribution towards improving community safety in an area. It is the intention of Sandwell Council to work with the police towards the reduction of crime and the fear of crime, and anti-social behaviour across Sandwell. This will be a material consideration in all planning proposals.’ However, as this policy is the overarching design policy in the draft Local Plan, the PCCWM requests that reference is also made within this paragraph 15.17, to the need for



developers, as well as the local authorities, to engage with the West Midlands Police Design Out Crime Officers (DOCO) at the pre-application as well as the planning application stage.

Policy SDM6 – Hot Food Takeaways

The PCCWM supports a prescriptive policy on Hot Food Takeaways as set out, noting that the justification to the policy acknowledges that such uses (compared to other retail uses) are more likely to have, inter alia, a detrimental impact on amenity and such harmful impacts tend to increase anti-social behaviour.

However, it is considered that Policies SDM6 and SDM7 should be amalgamated into one policy as the inference is that if a proposal complies with the prescriptive and numerical thresholds under Policy SDM6 it will be acceptable, even though it at may not meet the criteria set out in Policy SDM7 – Management of Hot Food Takeaways – and vice versa. The PCCWM considers the criteria in Policy SDM7 to be equally important in the consideration of a planning application for a hot food takeaway, particularly as hot food takeaways are often a flashpoint for violence after pubs and clubs close.

Policy SDM7 – Management of Hot Food Takeaways

The PCCWM notes that the Council confirm at paragraph 15.62 that in addition to Policy SDM6,
‘…Policy SDM7 offers guidance on the requirements for the provision of hot food takeaways. Applicants wishing to provide or alter a hot food takeaway outlet should ensure they address the issues raised in the policy, which is designed to manage adverse impacts on adjacent residents and properties.’

However, it is noted that Policy SDM7 itself does not include any policy requirements to reflect the references in paragraphs 15.66 and 15.67 to such uses attracting gatherings of people and becoming a focus for anti-social behaviour and nuisance, especially at night. Paragraph 15.67 notes that where there are concerns in this respect, the applicant may be asked to contribute towards or install safety and security measures, such as CCTV systems.

In order for this consideration to carry appropriate weight, to reflect the reference to possible nuisance and anti-social behaviour created by hot food takeaways, the PCCWM objects to Policy SDM7 and requests that it should be amended to include a new point 8 (current point 8 should be renumbered 9) as follows –

‘Management of Associated Impacts…
8. In locations where there are considered to be issues concerning community safety, crime, and disorder, advice will be sought from the police and other safety organisations before permission is granted for proposals for new hot food takeaways.’



In accordance with the PCCWM comments made under Policy SDM6, it is considered that Policies SDM6 and SDM7 should be amalgamated into one policy as the inference is that if a proposal complies with the prescriptive and numerical thresholds under Policy SDM6 it will be acceptable, even though it at may not meet the criteria set out in Policy SDM7 – Management of Hot Food Takeaways – and vice versa.

Chapter 12 - Infrastructure and Delivery and Policies SID1 – SID3

Background to S106/CIL contributions towards Police infrastructure

The scale of the development during the plan period will inevitably have implications for the maintenance of safety and security in the Borough and there will clearly be a need for additional and/or enhanced Police infrastructure.

Policy SDS1 ‘Development Strategy’ which provides the overarching spatial strategy for Sandwell, sets out the scale and distribution of new development for the Plan period to 2041. The policy is clear that at point (1) ‘To support the attainment of the Sandwell SLP Vision, drive sustainable and strategic economic and housing growth and meet local aspirations, Sandwell, working with local communities, partners and key stakeholders, will make sure that decisions on planning proposals (c) ensure that sufficient physical, social, and environmental infrastructure is delivered to meet identified requirements’.

This is compatible with legislation and national planning policy, as follows:

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states, ‘Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area’. The PCCWM therefore has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for the area. Sandwell Council is also statutorily required to consider crime and disorder and community safety in the exercise of its duties with the aim of achieving a reduction in crime.

The NPPF, September 2023, Paragraph 2 states that the NPPF must be taken into account in preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory requirements.

Paragraph 7 of the NPPF explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and Paragraph 8 confirms that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives: an economic, a social and an environmental objective. These objectives include supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe



built environment.

Paragraph 20 of the NPPF includes, inter alia, a requirement for policies to deliver sufficient provision for infrastructure, including those related to security, with paragraphs 16, 26 and 28 indicating that this could be delivered through joint working with all partners concerned with new development proposals.

Section 8 of the NPPF ‘Promoting health and safe communities’, Paragraph 92, identifies that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

Paragraph 130 (f) of the NPPF calls for the creation of safe places where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Annex 2 (NPPF) identifies the police as ‘Essential local workers’, defined as ‘Public sector employees who provide frontline services including health, education and community safety’.

It is also especially noteworthy that Part 10A Infrastructure Levy: England of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 confirms at Section 204N (3) relating to Infrastructure Levy regulations that ‘infrastructure’ includes ‘(h) facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services.

It should also be noted that it is the case that increases in local population and the number of households do not directly lead to an increase in funding for WMP from Central Government. It is therefore necessary to secure CIL and/or S.106 contributions for infrastructure due to the direct link between the increased demand for police services and changes in the physical environment due to new housing and economic growth, which have permanent impacts on future policing and demands upon WMP. Securing contributions towards policing enables the same level of service to be provided to residents of new developments, without compromising the existing level of service for existing communities and frontline services. Put simply, the consequence of no additional funding is that existing infrastructure will become severely stretched and thereby have a severe adverse impact on the quality of the service that WMP are able to deliver.

The High Court judgement of Mr Justice Foskett in The Queen and Blaby DC and Others [2014] EWHC 1719 (Admin) at Appendix 1 is a clear example of the case for S106/CIL contributions towards Police infrastructure. In that case, a development of 4,250 dwellings, community and retail development, schools and leisure facilities was proposed, the judgement reads:

‘It is obvious that a development of the nature described would place additional and increased burdens on local health, education and other services including the police force.’ (Para 11).



The judgement goes on to comment that:

‘Those who, in due course, purchase properties on this development, who bring up children there and who wish to go about their daily life in a safe environment, will want to know that the police service can operate efficiently and effectively in the area. That would plainly be the “consumer view” of the issue.’ (Para 61).

‘I am inclined to the view that if a survey of local opinion was taken, concerns would be expressed if it were thought that the developers were not going to provide the police with a sufficient contribution to its funding requirements to meet the demands of policing the new area.’ (Para 62).

To ensure that levels of service can be maintained for both existing and future residents in the wider Sandwell Borough area, developer contributions through the mechanism of CIL and/or
S.106 Obligations for Police infrastructure are considered essential.

It is the case that, Planning and S78 Appeal decisions (Appendix 2) have long recognised that the infrastructure requirements of the Police are perfectly eligible for consideration and can be allocated financial contributions through S106 Obligations which accompany qualifying planning permissions for major development (residential and commercial alike), with the Planning Inspector in PINS appeal reference APP/X2410/A12/2173673) stating that:

‘Adequate policing is so fundamental to the concept of sustainable communities that I can see no reason, in principle, why it should be excluded from purview of S106 financial contributions…’

Specific comments on Chapter 12 and policies SID1 – SID3

The PCCWM objects to the lack of reference in Chapter 12 and policies SID1 – SID3 to the requirement for Police infrastructure to serve the new development proposed in the draft Sandwell Local Plan. Chapter 12 of the Local Plan ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’ acknowledges at paragraph 12.1 that ‘Ensuring effective delivery of this amount of development [11,167 new houses and provide for 1,206ha of employment land] will require strong collaborative working with public, private and third sector partners, involving a robust process of infrastructure planning and delivery’, however the policies in that chapter solely reference digital infrastructure and the chapter covers no other forms of infrastructure, despite the ‘Introduction’ to the chapter at paragraph 12.1 stating ‘A key role of the SLP is to plan for the growth required for a sustainable and prosperous Sandwell.’

To achieve sustainable development, as required by the NPPF and PPG, the necessary supporting infrastructure must be identified through proactive engagement between the Council and the infrastructure providers, including the WMP. Infrastructure needs and costs arising as a result of the proposed growth in the draft Sandwell Local Plan should be included in



the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – and representations have already been made by the PCCWM in this regard - and Viability and Delivery Study and specific requirements should be clearly set out in the individual site allocation policies and/or accompanying masterplans, Area Action Plans (AAPs) or Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), to ensure that developers are aware of their obligations at the outset. In addition, as the primary document for planning decisions, the draft Sandwell Local Plan must also address the need for sustainable safe developments supported by essential infrastructure including Police infrastructure. There also needs to be wording in relevant policies to require this, to ensure that developers are aware of the importance attached to issues of crime and safety by Sandwell MBC, as well as the need to maintain an appropriate level of community infrastructure and Emergency Services infrastructure.

The definition and support for infrastructure should be explicitly set out in the draft Local Plan, to meet national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, and it should be clearly set out that contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of facilities and equipment for Police services, in order to sustain the level of growth proposed in the draft Local Plan.

There are numerous examples of adopted planning policies in Local Plans which have been found sound after examination, which specifically refer to police infrastructure provision and contributions.

At the time of the Police’s representations to the Draft Black Country Plan Consultation (Regulation 18), it was noted that there was inclusion in the Viability and Delivery Study of an indicative contribution of £43.00 per dwelling towards the funding gap in Police infrastructure from the need for additional services arising directly from the proposed scale of growth. This was welcomed and the need for financial contributions in the form of CIL/S106 needs to be taken forward into policy, as well as the contribution figure needing to be increased/ linked to inflation.

Harm will result if West Midlands Police do not have the necessary funding to maintain an appropriate level of service for existing and for future residents, work and visitors within Sandwell (and surrounding areas) and therefore it is imperative that the draft Sandwell Local Plan addresses the need for sustainable safe developments supported by essential infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the clear omissions in these policies, there appears to be only limited reference to the emerging Infrastructure Delivery Plan in the draft Local Plan, it is only referenced 4 times and only in the justifications to Policy SDS3 – Towns and Local Areas, Policy SHW2 – Healthcare Infrastructure and Policy STR4– The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics. Most surprisingly, there is no reference to it whatsoever in Chapter 12 ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’ which is a great concern. The IDP should be regarded as integral to the local plan process with a commitment given to ensuring that it is maintained as a ‘live document’ throughout the plan



period.

As with many publicly funded services, Police forces within England have seen significant reductions in resources since 2010 due to reduced budgets. During this period, WMP has seen real terms funding reductions of in excess around 22% before taking into account the police officer uplift programme. As a result, the PCCWM has adopted a continuing programme of budgetary reductions, which in turn has had implications for operational pressures, against a backdrop of continued development (and in particular housing) growth within the WMP Force area.

Changes in general population do not increase the overall funding made available to WMP through Central Government grant. Even if there were to be an increase in funding because of development growth, such funding would be fully utilised in contributing to additional salary, revenue and maintenance costs (i.e. not capital costs). That being the case, such funding would not be available to fund the infrastructure costs that are essential to support significant new development growth during the Plan Period.

Full details of Police funding requirements are set out in the previous PCCWM representations, as reported in the Sandwell Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment, November 2023.

In order to meet the national policy objectives of ensuring safety, reducing crime and the fear of crime, it is vital that the Police are not under-resourced or deprived of legitimate sources of funding. The aim is to deploy additional staffing and additional infrastructure to cover the demand from new development at the same level as the policing delivered to existing households. Hence, additional development would generate a requirement for additional staff and additional personal equipment (such as workstations, radios, protective clothing, uniforms and bespoke training), police vehicles of varying types and functions.

If additional policing infrastructure is not provided, future growth in Sandwell will seriously impact on the ability of the Police to provide a safe and appropriate level of service and to respond to the needs of the local community. That outcome would be contrary to national policy.

Without this, the PCCWM objects to Chapter 12 and polices SID1-3 of the draft Local Plan. As the statutory Development Plan, it is the purpose of the draft Sandwell Local Plan to confirm the types of infrastructure which will be required to provide sustainable development in the Borough during the plan period and a new policy should be drafted accordingly.



Policy SDM8 - Gambling Activities and Alternative Financial Services

The PCCWM supports Policy SDM8 and particularly Point 6 as follows –

‘6. In determining any planning application for all pay day loan shops, pawnbrokers, and gambling uses the Council will consider any issues concerning community safety, crime, and disorder and will, where necessary, seek advice from the police and other safety organisations.’

The PCCWM recommends that the justification to this policy be expanded to cover point 6.

Glossary – SBD and Park Mark definitions

The PCCWM requests that definitions be provided of the following which are referred to in the draft Sandwell Local Plan.

‘Secured by Design –

Secured by Design (SBD) is the official police security initiative that is owned by the UK Police Service with the specific aim to reduce crime and help people live more safely. The Police seeks to improve the physical security of buildings using products, such as doors, windows, locks and walling systems that meet SBD security requirements. In addition, the Police include proven crime prevention techniques and measures into the layout and landscaping of new developments, such as maximising natural surveillance and limiting excessive through movement.

Through SBD, the Police work closely with builders, developers, local authorities and registered housing associations to incorporate police crime prevention standards from initial concept and design through to construction and completion. West Midlands Police have specially trained Designing Out Crime Officers (DOCOs) who offer police designing out crime and Secured by Design advice free of charge.

Park Mark –

The Safer Parking Scheme is a national standard for UK car parks that have low crime and measures in place to ensure the safety of people and vehicles. Each car park undergoes a rigorous assessment by specially trained police assessors and a Park Mark is awarded to each car park that achieves the challenging standards.

A Park Mark is awarded to parking facilities that have met the requirements of a risk assessment conducted by the Police, meaning the operator has put in place measures that deter criminal activity and anti-social behaviour.’



Conclusions

The Police and Crime Commissioner for West Midlands has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force in its area and Sandwell MBC has a statutory duty to consider crime and disorder and community safety in the exercise of its planning functions.

The PCCWM encourages the Council in the draft Sandwell Local Plan to ensure that the theme of community safety and crime prevention is given greater prominence on the basis that improving community safety, reducing crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour are vitally important to the creation of sustainable communities.

In addition, as the scale of development during the plan period will inevitably have implications for the maintenance of safety and security in the Borough, there will clearly be a need for additional and/or enhanced Police infrastructure. To ensure that levels of service can be maintained for both existing and future residents in the wider Sandwell Borough area, developer contributions through the mechanism of CIL and/ or S.106 Obligations for Police infrastructure are considered essential.

Lastly, the PCCWM has put forward a number of sites for residential development towards meeting the unmet needs of the Borough in terms of housing land supply.

It is noted that Sandwell Council needs to identify land for 29,773 homes by 2041. However, as set out in Policy SHO1 the supply of suitable residential land identified by Sandwell Council stands at 11,167 homes, leaving an unmet need for 18,606 homes in the Plan period. Further clarity is sought in relation to table 5 ‘Housing Land Supply’ and how the 11,167 units supply figure has been calculated. It is not clear from the table or the supporting evidence.

However, the draft plan recognises that there is a finite supply of land readily available for development in Sandwell and it is very likely that it would not currently be possible to meet the full extent of Sandwell's housing need within the Sandwell administrative area. In light of this it is essential that Sandwell makes the best use of the land it has available. The Edwin Richards Quarry (ERQ) site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver a significant amount of housing, within the plan period and into the subsequent plan period.

In relation to the housing allocations proposed, the inclusion of ERQ (site ref. SH37) is strongly supported. The proposed allocation suggests a capacity of c.526 dwellings in the Plan period; with a further c.100 dwellings in the post-Plan period (total site capacity c.626 dwellings). It is noted that this quantum includes the reserved matters planning application for 278 dwellings in the western area of the ERQ site. A resolution to grant has been given at Planning Committee and reserved matters approval will be issued imminently.

This proposed quantum of development at ERQ set out in the draft allocation is considered to be sensible, conservative and achievable at this time. There is also the potential for further housing, over and above the 626 figure to come forward on site during and / or beyond the Plan period. The final capacity of the site will be dependent on the restoration programme for the site, the speed of infilling and detailed masterplanning.

It is also noted that a battery energy storage system facility is proposed on site, with installation expected next year (see screening opinion DC/23/68263). This is likely to be operational on site until circa 2055. The presence of the battery energy storage system is not anticipated to preclude the delivery of the identified c. 526 dwellings during the Local Plan period. The location of the battery energy storage system will be taken into account as part of the planning and delivery of the final phases of residential development.

The current quarry void has approximately 5.3 million metres cubed of capacity until it is filled with soils and similar non-putrescible materials. Using a cubed density of 1.6 results in a remaining infill tonnage of 8.48 million tonnes of material (soil). Over past years the infill rates have varied as would be expected for a commercial operation of this type not backed by long term guaranteed contacts. As such the annual quantum of fill may vary but realistically the quarry could be filled within 12 years subject to annual inputs of circa 750,000te. This represents a reasonable assumption, but it should however be noted that this cannot be guaranteed and the landfill completion, may ultimately take longer if less materials is available than currently expected.

On the basis that FCC Environment cannot guarantee the rate of material to be deposited on site each year, two trajectories are provided to show potential build out rates on site based on differing rates of landfill.

Trajectory v2.1 predicts the landfill operations ceasing by 2033, assuming c.1 million tonnes entering site on average a year. A fill rate of c.1 million tonnes has been achieved in a year previously but is at the higher level of fill expected. This would thus allow residential development to commence on phases 6-8 in 2034 (assuming that the necessary planning permission is secured during the early 2030s). While this level of fill is unlikely over a sustained number of years. the trajectory shows how on this basis the site could potentially be built out during the Plan period .

Trajectory v2.2 demonstrates the implications of a reduced rate of fill (c.750,000 tonnes per year for 12 years) and shows that it would still be possible to achieve 526 dwellings in the Plan period whilst retaining a reasonable and deliverable assumption of 40 dwellings completed per year. We would highlight that in Savills experience, in recent years some developers have been achieving 50+ completions per year on a single site.