The Coal Authority records indicate that within the Sandwell area there are recorded coal mining features present at surface and shallow depth including; mine entries, coal workings and reported surface hazards. These features may pose a potential risk to surface stability and public safety.

We are pleased to see that land instability is included at criteria (i) as a matter which should be addressed as part of development proposals, if relevant. The Coal Authority support this policy.

Sport England supports the approach in this policy to achieving good place making, and welcomes the reference in para 15.18 to Sport England's Active Design guidance, within which we draw out how Sport England's 10 Active Design principles align with those within the National Design Guide. Where possible we would support embedding a hyperlink to the guidance within this paragraph so that this is readily accessible to the reader.

https://www.sportengland.org/guidance-and-support/facilities-and-planning/design-and-cost-guidance/active-design

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.

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.

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.

Comments submitted in table form
Para 72 Consider re-phrasing and celebrating the industrial heritage of the area and how that has shaped the local identity of the area.
Para 73 Amend to ‘Registered Parks and Gardens’.
Consider amending heritage conservation areas to conservation areas and the setting of heritage assets or something similar.
Heritage assets themselves are ‘irreplaceable’ and should be conserved and protected and the Local Plan to provide a ‘positive strategy’ for this.
Their need to be protected is more than a recognition of their past use but as how heritage has shaped our identity and how they continue to remain relevant today and can contribute positively to the economy and social wellbeing.

It would be useful in this section if heritage can also be referenced as a component of landscape.
Page 29 Ambition 1 would benefit from a reference to the historic environment and recognising the benefits the historic environment can bring to a community and an area.

Ambition 2 would benefit from a reference to the historic environment and recognising the benefits the historic environment can bring to a community and wellbeing.

Would be worthwhile to check through the ambitions to consider where the historic environment would best be suited.


Page 33/34 We support the vision and the reference to heritage within it. We would welcome a reference to a wider variety of heritage such as heritage landscape/ archaeology etc. rather than a narrower definition of built heritage.
Objective 4/5 We are very supportive of specific objectives that seek to protect the historic environment. We would welcome a reference to heritage landscape and features and ensuring the wide range of historic environment is fully reflected and considered within the Plan.
Objective 15 We support the reference to heritage within this objective.
Para 2.18 We support this paragraph.
Para 2.30 clause C We support this clause.
Policy SDS1 clause j This could be amended to read conserve and enhance the significance of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings through xxx to ensure that it is the significance of heritage assets that is being considered and protected through the policy text.
Policy SDS2 This policy would benefit from reference to the historic nature of the area and its heritage assets and how conserving the historic environment will be a benefit for the regeneration of the area. It would also be useful to reference the Wednesbury High Street Action Zone during the text regarding regeneration in Sandwell and the benefit of heritage led regeneration programmes. This would help meet the aims of the Plan mentioned earlier in the text. We note a brief reference in paragraph 3.42.
Policy SDS3 clause a) i)

d) We would request re-phrasing of this clause as sites submitted during a Call for Sites exercise will not necessarily be suitable for development. We would request that this is also re-phrased in any other policies that this statement may appear.

Could make reference to the historic environment.
Policy SDS4
Clause 2)

Clause 3)


Clause 9)
We support this reference and recommend additional detail in the Plan on how this can be achieved.

Confusing wording, we would request that this is amended yet we support the principle that the significance of heritage assets including their setting will be protected and it would benefit from a clearer form of words. Also consider re-wording paragraph 3.61.

Historic England are available to engage in this work.
Policy SDS5 clause 11) We support the reference to heritage tourism and welcome its inclusion in the policy, as well as in the justification paragraphs.
Section on Green and Blue Infrastructure from page 74 onwards We would welcome a reference to the historic environment as a component of green and blue infrastructure and the role heritage plays in this area. If you have any questions we are happy to answer.
Policy SDS7 We would request a clause to be included in this policy regarding the historic environment and its function within Green/ Blue Infrastructure.
Policy SNE4 We welcome a policy on the UNESCO Geopark and recognition of the important cultural heritage of the area and the contribution it has made in historical terms. Clause 1) consider re-phrasing to ensure that the significance of the asset and its integrity is fully protected and conserved for future generations.
Policy SNE5 This policy would benefit from strengthening the reference to the historic environment context of the area, including non designated heritage assets and heritage features as well as the heritage components of landscape.

Policy SNE6 We support the recognition of the historic nature of canals as heritage assets/ role within the wider cultural heritage agenda and welcome reference within the policy and justification text in this area.

Section 4, from page 113
We welcome a specific section on the historic environment and specific policies for the historic environment. We welcome the introductory paragraphs to the interesting, rich and varied history of the Black Country and the need to protect this and the value placed on heritage led regeneration.

Para 4.114
Consider the wording in this paragraph and also needs reference to the setting of heritage assets as well as an understanding of the context in which they are in and any relationships they may have with other heritage assets within the area/ heritage landscapes etc.

When considering a suite of policies for the historic environment, it is important to ensure that all the policies are consistent and that all assets are fully supported.

SHE1
We welcome the inclusion of this policy. We would request that there are some amendments to the wording to ensure it is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 199 to 205 particularly. Heritage assets are an ‘irreplaceable resource’ and efforts should be made to ensure that the significance of heritage assets, including their setting are protected. The policy wording in clause 1 and 2 can be strengthened to reflect this. The wording in clause 3 is welcome and we are supportive of the need for Heritage Impact Assessment. The assessment should also set out the level of harm, how harm can be avoided or mitigated against and any opportunities for enhancement. Clause 4, setting in itself is not a heritage asset but it should be included within the section on significance and can still be a reason for refusal where the setting contributes to the significance of an asset, but will be affected by proposed development. Recording the loss of any heritage asset/ features on the Historic Environment Record (HER) would also be beneficial to include within this policy. Consider the wording for clause 5 to ensure the protection of a Conservation Area. We would recommend deleting clause 6. Paragraph 4.121 relates to this paragraph also.

SHE2

Similar to comments above, ensure that the policy is NPPF compliant and that it seeks to protect and conserve the historic environment and sets out where applications will be refused. As referenced the historic environment is an ‘irreplaceable resource’ and the NPPF sets out clearly how to deal with harm and how if necessary to apply the tests of harm. Clause 1 for example requests that heritage informs proposals and is considered; there should be a clause that states that harm to heritage will be refused unless xx. Again, clause 2 refers to the need to inform proposals which is beneficial, yet there needs to be wording inserted to prevent harm to the historic environment and conserve their significance, including setting.

Where ‘historic assets’ are referenced this should be amended to state ‘heritage assets’.
Clause 3, heritage assets should be protected as set out in the NPPF and relevant legislation.

Clause 5, delete ‘aim’. The policy wording should be strengthened to ensure that heritage assets are protected and conserved in Sandwell. The examples used are useful and provide a context for the type of heritage within the Borough; it would be beneficial to ensure that this describes some examples only and reference the relevant heritage evidence base that prospective developers will need to consider in full.

It would be beneficial to have a clause that relates to the need for appropriate qualified individuals undertaking assessment work, that the Historic Environment Record should be considered as a minimum, that views analysis is a useful tool to consider in the wider process etc. for all proposals which could affect heritage.


Para 4.123
Delete ‘ancient’.

It would be useful to provide some additional information about what a heritage impact assessment could include.
SHE3
Consider referring to significance generally in this clause. It would be useful to have a link to the Sandwell Local List. We are supportive of a Local List and welcome this.

SHE4
Considering re-phrasing the opening clause to ensure that the significance of archaeological heritage assets are protected and where possible enhanced.

Development proposals which cause harm to heritage assets should be refused unless the specifications set out in the NPPF are met. We consider that the wording should reflect this. There also needs to be consideration of non designated archaeology that could be of national significance. Ensure that heritage assets are referred to in line with the relevant clauses of Section 16 of the NPPF. A separate clause for archaeological investigation would be useful and to set out how it applies to heritage assets. Any archaeological investigation should be carried out by an appropriate and qualified professional and a programme of works agreed by the Council’s archaeology officer. A separate clause for recording would be beneficial. Clause 5 we would anticipate that all relevant information would be provided for the Council to assess the level of harm and to then make an informed decision within the context of the requirements of the NPPF.

4.133/34
Additional information would be beneficial.
Consider re-ordering the policies to have a historic environment policy first, and then specific policies on asset type, where relevant.

Section 5 Historic England are supportive of a section on Climate Change within the Plan. We enclose a link to some relevant publications considering the historic environment and climate change that may be useful to understand in the context of the Local Plan.

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/climate-change/

Under this section it would be useful to consider how the historic environment can contribute to the climate change agenda, which measures are appropriate in the context of the historic environment and how heritage assets need to be considered. There may also be times when climate change proposals such as solar farms or wind turbines may not be an appropriate solution if it affects the significance of heritage assets and other areas may be more suitable for this technology.

Policy SCC1 We welcome clause j). It could relate to heritage assets more widely.
Policy SCC2 Clause 4 is useful. It may need to be stated that development which causes harm will be resisted or other solutions sought.

Policy SCC3 Clause 2, consider the potential impacts for the historic nature of canals and ensure that this is protected and conserved.

Policy SCC4 It would be useful to incorporate a clause on the historic environment within this policy and the specific considerations for the historic environment.

Policy SCC5 It would be useful to incorporate a clause on the historic environment within this policy and the specific considerations for the historic environment.

Policy SCC6 We would recommend re-phrasing to state protects the significance of the historic environment, heritage assets including their setting or similar wording.

Policy SHW4 We support the reference to heritage within clause 8.

Policy SH01 We have not been able to comment on the specific housing proposals at this time, we will consider these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to understand how the historic environment has been considered. If there are any proposed allocations which could cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, we would expect to see heritage impact assessment.
Policy SHO2 Clause 2) c amend to will not cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting or similar.
Policy SH010 We have not had the opportunity at this time to comment on the site allocations specifically. We would request that any proposed allocations consider the impact on the historic environment and ensure that where there is harm for the historic environment that an appropriate heritage impact assessment is available as an evidence base to support a proposed allocation.
Policy SEC1 We have not been able to comment on the specific employment proposals at this time, we will consider these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to understand how the historic environment has been considered. If there are any proposed allocations which could cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, we would expect to see heritage impact assessment.
Policy SEC2 We have not been able to comment on the specific employment proposals at this time, we will consider these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to understand how the historic environment has been considered. If there are any proposed allocations which could cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, we would expect to see heritage impact assessment.
Policy SEC3 We have not been able to comment on the specific employment proposals at this time, we will consider these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to understand how the historic environment has been considered. If there are any proposed allocations which could cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, we would expect to see heritage impact assessment.
Policy SCE1 This policy would benefit from a clause relating to the historic environment, heritage led regeneration, heritage led public realm improvements, information relating to shop fronts and design within heritage centres and conservation areas and reference to Wednesbury High Street Heritage Action Zone and other potential opportunities.
Para 9.161 Are there any proposals within the Plan to address this?
Para 9.283 onwards We welcome the inclusion of this section in the Plan. Are there any tools or opportunities from this project that could be replicated elsewhere in the Borough?
Policy SWB1 This policy would benefit from a clause on the historic environment.
Policy STR1 How has the historic environment been considered in the process of highlighting transport infrastructure needs? Have any assessments been undertaken about the potential for harm to heritage assets, as a result of proposed transport initiatives?
Policy STR2 Comments above apply.
Policy STR6 Is there any information available at present about potential park and ride sites?
Policy SWA1 We would recommend re-phrasing clause 3) f to ensure that the policy protects the significance of heritage assets including their setting and inappropriate waste developments will be resisted. The policy may further benefit from some additional text on this issue in the reasoned justification text.
Policy SWA3 We have not been able to comment on specific proposed waste sites at this time. We will assess these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to discuss proposed allocations and any impacts these may have on the historic environment. If any proposed allocations could impact on the historic environment, we would expect to see a heritage impact assessment as evidence base.
Policy SWA4 This policy would benefit from a clause on the historic environment.
Policy SMI1 Are there minerals sites that are being proposed for allocation or safeguarding? If so, how has the historic environment been considered in this process?
Policy SMI2 Clause 5) b should set out an approach for what happens if a mineral working site is not appropriate due to the harm to the historic environment or if there are mitigation measures required to overcome any harm. The clause for cumulative impacts could also apply for the historic environment where there are already approved mineral workings in a historic landscape.

The policy would benefit from a clause on remediation so that the long term future of any minerals working site is appropriate in its environment.

Para 13.012 This para would benefit from additional detail.

SDM1 Clause g) we welcome reference to the historic environment within this policy and would request that ‘historic assets’ are amended to ‘heritage assets’ and that the significance of heritage assets including their settings are protected and where possible, enhanced.

Policy SDM3 Does the Council have any evidence base relating to tall buildings and which has been/ could be used to inform locations which may be appropriate or may not be appropriate for tall buildings? We have concerns about the impact of this policy on the historic environment and the historic nature of the area and are keen to understand if there is more information available at this time that has considered these issues?

With reference to both tall buildings and gateway sites, we are unclear what has informed the policy and what the policy is seeking to achieve.

Policy SDM5 It would be useful to include a section on the historic environment and what is appropriate in the context of heritage assets including conservation areas and listed buildings.

Policy SH01 and residential allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street”

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 – 2041 and includes 6,951 homes from “Housing Allocations that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period.
Appendix B of the draft Plan sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations, including Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2030.

Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They intend to put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

As such, our client remains generally supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan – following its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan.

However, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.
Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:
-
The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client submitted an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of a pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market, and ultimately one that could have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation at a density of 80 dph is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development density of 56dph – for example.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SMD1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the greening of Sandwell (for example) and SH03 which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of these draft policies on behalf of our client also.
As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are indicative but they should nonetheless be be amended to reflect a deliverable proposal, and to avoid delivery at this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s reference to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.57 years’ worth of housing land and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period. The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory projects that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32, compounded by the Council’s continued reliance on windfall sites (being the 3rd largest contributor to the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period (delivering 17% of homes needed in Sandwell). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on delivery at undeliverable densities from brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

The draft Plan sets out that 11,167 net new homes can be delivered over the Plan period (2022 to 2041) but recognises that this figure, when measured against the Council’s calculated Local Housing Need (currently calculated at 29,773 homes over the Plan period), represents a significant shortfall, and generates a substantial unmet need (of 18,606) homes within Sandwell over the Plan period.

In this context, significantly more sites must be allocated for residential development in Sandwell, including green field sites. This would reduce the burden of delivery from brownfield sites which, if the allocated brownfield sites are going to make the contribution they need to make in delivering much needed homes in Sandwell, a more realistic, and flexible, policy approach is needed to facilitate delivery from the allocated brownfield sites, like SH55, which are often subject to more stringent policy criteria than windfall sites (for example) – and demonstrates why the Council has to rely so heavily on windfall sites.

In essence, the brownfield allocation sites are being relied on too heavily to deliver the homes needed and this is leading to unrealistic and undeliverable development densities, which are at odds with other policy aspirations being inflexibly applied. A more flexible approach is needed to avoid continued stifling of these sites.

The draft Plan Proposals Map indicates that a cycle path is proposed to be routed along the Cape Arm but the Map itself is unclear if this route is proposed to the north of the Cape Arm or to the south, and suggests it is actually to be located within the canal. The Grove Lane Masterplan shows the cycle path on the southern (hospital) side of the Cape Arm and its route should be clarified within the Local Plan Proposals Map.

If this route is delivered on the northern side of The Cape Arm it will further reduce the net density / deliverability from SH55. That said, the area on the southern side, adjacent to the Midlands Metropolitan Hospital site, would readily connect over Cranford Street onto the cycle path which has been delivered through the residential development to the north, and thus connect onto the wider network running along the Birmingham Canal further to the north – suggesting the southern side of The Cape Arm is preferable for the cycle path.

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility)

Requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness”.

However, it is not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve the minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness.

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements.

Draft Policy SH06 (Financial Viability Assessments for Housing)

Sets out at its part 4) that on sites where applying the affordable housing or accessibility and wheelchair user requirements set out in Policies SHO4 and SHO5 can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Whilst the recognition that any such provision needs to be viable is welcome, financial viability is key for all policy requirements if much needed residential development is going to come forward. With this in mind, draft Policy SH06 must refer to other policy requirements, such as SMD1 (Design Quality) for example, and make it clear that if any policy requirements make the development unviable, the optimum provision will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix, development density and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Draft Policy SMD1 (Design Quality) part 2)

Requires (all) developments to demonstrate that its listed criteria have been addressed and at part 3) requires (all) major developments to contribute to the greening of Sandwell by delivering against its listed criteria.

However, the draft Policy’s prescriptive approach lacks flexibility and is likely to impact upon deliverability of development – particularly allocated brownfield sites which are subject to other policy requirements and masterplan aspirations which, if inflexibly applied, are stifling development from them. The Policy also needs to recognise that development must be viable in order to deliver its requirements.

As such, the Policy must be amended to provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that development is viable, and ultimately deliverable, whilst delivering its requirements where possible, or where viable.

This more flexible approach is provided in draft Policy SH04 and draft Policy SH05 for example, which make it clear, and are explicit, that affordable housing provision and wheelchair accessibility standards (respectively) are required but only ‘subject to financial viability’.

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.