In its representations to the Regulation 18 wording of Policy SDS1 (‘Development Strategy’), Vulcan stated the policy 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. The Council noted these comments.

The wording of the Regulation 19 version of Policy SDS1 (now titled ‘Spatial Strategy for Sandwell’) is closely similar to the predecessor wording, except (importantly) includes updated figures relating to the minimum number of new homes to be delivered (10,434 now compared to 11,167 in the Regulation 18 draft) and requirement for employment land (1,221ha compared to 1,206 in the Regulation 18 draft).

Other alterations to the policy wording are two additional criteria which it is expected would be addressed in development proposals to ensure growth is sustainable. The new criteria (e. and g.) are as follows:

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

“ensuring all new development is designed to encourage sustainable travel and minimise detrimental impacts on the transport network”

Vulcan supports the inclusion of the above criteria.

Maintain the ongoing provision of around 1,221ha of allocated employment land, save for where this land is no longer appropriate for employment uses in accordance with other policies in this Plan.

These representations are submitted by Fisher German on behalf of South Staffordshire Water in respect of their land interests at Park Lane West, Topton.

The site benefits from an allocation for 77 dwellings within the extant Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery DPD (SAD) which was adopted in December 2012, which itself carried over a former Sandwell Unitary Development Plan allocation from 2004.

The site however remains an operational part of South Staffordshire Water’s estate, albeit is located within an area which is itself predominantly residential in nature, with the site itself largely enclosed by existing residential properties to the east, north and west, and south beyond the canal which forms the site’s southern boundary.

The site is well related to existing services and facilities, including schools, community centre, employment, Victoria Park, etc. The site is also well related to existing and developing public transport, with existing bus stops served by the regular 230 service between Sedgley and Dudley and the 42 service to Tipton available adjacent to the site on Park Lane West. The site is also very well related to a proposed stop on the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill Extension of the West Midlands Metro tram service (Sedgley Road stop).

Policy SDS1 – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell

The aims of Policy SDS1 is broadly supported, however we believe an element of flexibility should be included to ensure that land is not unduly restricted from serving a more useful purpose. As detailed in our response to Policy SEC4 – Other Employment Sites, we have concerns that the Plan may not be adequately flexible in relation to lower quality and constrained employment sites. Part 1b of Policy SDS1 states that “decisions on planning proposals… maintain the ongoing provision of around 1,221ha of allocated employment land”. This statement is internally inconsistent with Policy SEC4 which acknowledges that much of the designated employment land designated as lower quality Other Employment Sites are constrained and could be better used to deliver another form of development. Policy SDS1 therefore requires amendment in wording to ensure that the release of employment sites designated as Other Employment Sites under Policy SEC4 is not in conflict with Policy SDS1 which provides the overarching strategic principles of development in Sandwell. Our view is this can be achieved with a slight amendment to Part 1b, to state:
Maintain the ongoing provision of around 1,221ha of allocated employment land, save for where this land is no longer appropriate for employment uses in accordance with other policies in this Plan.

Without this change, we find that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the statement of SDS1 and the approach to SEC4, thus the Plan is not sound as is not effective. This modification can however be delivered through Main Modifications without undue harm to the overall strategic function on Policy SDS1.

Policy SDS3 – Regeneration in Sandwell

Policy SDS3 provides high level guidance in respect of the various proposed regeneration areas in Sandwell. Parts 3-7 of the policy provide high level guidance for each of the designated areas. Part 8 provides general guidance to all areas. The policy puts emphasis on the provision of high quality employment. We have no objection to this aim but would stress that not all areas will be suitable to deliver this, and thus even within designated regeneration areas due regard will need to be had for the specifics of individual sites, including their context. We however support the acknowledgement that regeneration areas can make a positive contribution to residential and employment needs, and that the policy is of a high enough level to allow flexibility in what is delivered.

Policy SEC1 – Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs

Part 1 of Policy SEC1 states “the Sandwell Local Plan will seek to maintain the existing provision of around 1,221 hectares of employment land across the borough”. As per previous comments, this paragraph is in conflict with other policies of the Local Plan which are far more permissive of poor quality employment uses being transferred to non-employment uses. As per our recommended change to policy SDS1, we believe this can be rectified through a relevantly simply main modification to the policy, as per the below.

The Sandwell Local Plan will generally seek to maintain the existing provision of around 1,221 hectares of employment land across the borough, save for where this land is no longer appropriate for employment uses in accordance with other policies in this Plan.

Policy SEC4 – Other Employment Sites

Policy SEC4 provides a framework for the development of employment areas that are not either Strategic Employment Areas or Local Employment Areas on the policies map but comprise land that is or was last used in employment use. On such sites, employment redevelopment is supported in principle, and housing or other non-ancillary, non-industrial uses are supported subject to criteria. We support the overall aim of the policy, but have concerns in respect of its operation, particularly criteria a-f within Part 2 of the policy (the clause which enables non-commercial uses).

Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.

Paragraph 124 of the NPPF states planning policies should “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs” and “promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively”.

Paragraph 126 of the Framework is clear “Planning policies and decisions need to reflect changes in the demand for land”.

Whilst we understand the policies aims, we consider the policy framework submitted to be unreasonably restrictive when having regard for our client’s land interests. Whilst our comments relate solely to our client’s land interests, logically they may be relevant for other land under the same designation, as confirmed by the Council’s evidence (discussed below).

For ease of reference, we provide comments against each criteria in turn. a) if the site is vacant, that it has been marketed for employment use for a period of at least 12 months, including by site notice and through the internet or as may be agreed by the local planning authority;

This criterion is considered to be overtly restrictive and not commensurate with criterion b, discussed below. If a site suddenly vacates, then the policy essentially enforces a period of 12 months where the site will sit vacant whilst marketing is undertaken. During this time there could be issues of anti-social behaviour and crime, liability for site upkeep and security, potential harm to structures through neglect and the potential for ecology to become present, causing issues for redevelopment down the line due to protected species establishing on the site or through BNG.

It is also not clear why a vacant site would need to go through a period of enforced marketing, whereas a not-vacant site only needs demonstrate that occupiers have found alternative premises, without any need for a marketing exercise.

Paragraph 8.37 of the reasoned justification confirms that these sites by definition tend to be “less marketable” and often “within residential areas”. Enforcing the marketing of less marketable sites for employment uses within residential areas is clearly not appropriate and importantly not justified, effective or consistent with National Policy (namely the paragraphs provided above).

If a 12-month marketing exercise is to be enforced, there needs to be greater flexibility in the policy to enable this requirement to be absolved if supported by site specific evidence and context. For example, our client’s land interests are so contained by existing residential uses, this would negate much employment uses on the grounds of amenity, or place unreasonable conditions on future employment uses that would make the site simply unattractive to many potential occupiers. For example, restrictions of hours of operating, noise generation, etc.

Whilst our view is a 12-month marketing for sites under this category is not supported, if it is deemed to be acceptable, then the criterion should instead be amended to allow the flexibility as set out
below: a) if the site is vacant, that it has either
1) been marketed for employment use for a period of at least 12 months, including by site notice and through the internet or as may be agreed by the local planning authority; or
2) evidence has been provided by the landowner to demonstrate why the site is no longer suitable for employment uses, having regard for:
a. Improvements in residential amenity, street scene or regeneration
b. Market conditions and demands
c. Access
d. The benefits of an alternative use
b) if the site is occupied or part-occupied, that successful engagement has been undertaken with the occupiers to secure their relocation;

Again, concern is raised in relation to this policy, not least in that it may stray beyond the remit of planning. Clearly if tenants are in situ, they are protected by the law in respect of their rights with regard to their tenancy agreement, and this would be beyond the realm of planning rules. However, in the scenario where an agreeable rent cannot be agreed for extension for example, it would clearly be inappropriate for the landowner to not be able to actively develop the site for useful uses. Following the logic of the policy, if an occupier was to become insolvent for example, then the policy restricts any ability to advance matters on the site until a relocation that cannot occur occurs, or until the site vacates, by which point there will be a 12 month period of enforced marketing as per criteria a. This approach cannot be consistent with the NPPF which expects useful use of land, particularly available brownfield land, and also understands as per paragraph 126 that planning policies should appreciate the demand for land is constantly fluctuating and thus policies have to be able to be responsive to allow the market to deliver - not be unduly and incommensurately restricted from bringing forward active, useful development on available sites. Whilst there is an appreciation that the Council needs policies in place to ensure a healthy supply of employment land, particularly given localised employment needs in the region, the Council has policies to protect the more important employment sites, and the policy itself by definition accepts that non-employment development on these sites is in principle supportable.

The policy is also unclear on the circumstances relating to part occupation. If part of a site is sublet, then that should preclude the remainder of the site being advanced for other uses, so long as that area is not unduly impacted (in accordance with criteria C).

C) if the site forms part of a larger area occupied or last occupied for employment, that residential or any other use will not be adversely affected by the continuing operation of employment uses in the remainder of the area;

No objection, but as per our comments above the policy must be cognisant of the impacts of existing residential uses on the potential uses of Other Employment Sites and the prospects of their successful redevelopment for employment uses. It cannot be assumed because one employment use has existed successfully alongside residential uses, that this will definitively apply for other employment uses, even in the same Class. For example, our client’s land interests nearest residential are used for open storage, but even another open storage operator may lead to increased impact on amenity due to intensity and hours of operation, types of vehicles using the site, etc. If residential properties are located close to the site, and this will impact potential employment generating uses on the site, there needs to be avenues to enable better neighbour uses to come forward, without the need for a marketing exercise which itself may be doomed to fail, due to realistic uses of a given site being intrinsically limited by its context and relationship with the neighbouring residential uses. D) the site could be brought forward for housing in a comprehensive manner and would not lead to piecemeal development;

Whilst we have no objection to the presumed aim of this policy, we believe an amendment is required to ensure the policy will be effective and justified. We would argue that the policy could be improved via the inclusion of the word harmful before piecemeal development, to ensure the policy retains flexibility. For example, in a scenario where there is to be a parcel disposal of a site, due to tenancy issues of a phased withdrawal of operations of a current site operator for example, there may be scenarios where part of a site comes available before the rest of the site. We assert, in accordance with the aforementioned paragraphs of the NPPF, that it is sound to enable a phased redevelopment of the site, to expedite the useful delivery of housing or other uses, rather than essentially enforcing a site to sit part vacant for a period of time. Clearly in such a circumstance regard would need to be had for amenity, access, and other related issues, but in principle a site being redeveloped in phases is not inherently harmful and actually likely to be beneficial in the scenario as set out above, due to the expediting of beneficial development. As alluded to in the policy, the provision of a coherent masterplan for the site which could be delivered in phases, and control in respect of matters such as affordable housing triggers and delivery. This could enable what in theory could be considered piecemeal development, to occur in an acceptable way, and there should be scope within the policy to allow applicants and the Council to explore how this could delivered in a beneficial manner.
E) Residential development would not adversely affect the ongoing operation of existing or proposed employment uses on the site or nearby; and

See comments in respect of Criterion C. Ultimately we fully agree that there needs to be an understanding as to the nature of a site’s relationship with its neighbours, whether the neighbours be noise generating or susceptible to noise generation, but the policy needs to be more clear that where a site is intrinsically constrained by sensitive neighbouring uses, this will be used in consideration of a redevelopment proposal without a forced and wasteful marketing exercise. F) the site is suitable for housing or other non-ancillary non-employment uses in accordance with local or national policies relating to these uses.

No comments and agreed.

Park Lane West

Our client’s land currently benefits from a residential allocation for 77 dwellings. It is within a predominantly residential area and subject to our client vacating the site, our view is residential or good neighbour employment uses should be acceptable in principle, as the site is within the urban area. Had our client’s land simply be identified within the urban area, our client would be free to pursue either, subject to meeting any necessary tests related to either, access, flooding, ecology, etc. There is a demonstrable need for both employment and residential land in the HMA, and our view is on that basis both could reasonably be pursued.

The site is assessed under the Black Country Employment Area Review (BEAR) 2021, which concluded that the site was one of the worst scoring sites in review, scoring a 0 against all assessed criteria. Putting it in the bottom 22 sites of the 680 assessed, compared with an average score of 23.6 and a maximum score of 41. The assessment confirmed only that the site was in current employment use, and this seems to have formed the basis of its designation.

As already set out, the site is within an entirely residential area, benefits from good connectivity, particularly having regard for the Metro extension, meaning it will be highly sustainable. Residential redevelopment of the site would therefore in our view be entirely acceptable and should not be arbitrarily restricted, should the current use no longer be required.

Policy SDS1 (and SHO1) plan only for at least 10,434 net dwellings, which is far short of Sandwell's need by a massive 15,916 dwellings. We have not investigated the underlying data to these figures but are shocked by them. The implication is that Sandwell needs to export 15,916 dwellings beyond its boundary, but there is no obvious local destination for these exports:
* Dudley has recently launched a reg.19 consultation, claiming to have housing need 766 in excess of its capacity.
* South Staffordshire equally lacks capacity, and transport links from there to Sandwell are poor.
* Wolverhampton's last consultation similarly showed a deficit.
* The situation is no better in Worcestershire.
On the other hand, there may be scope for exporting housing demand to Telfo9rd or Shropshire, but these are not close to the Black Country

The remainder of this objection is concerned with showing that Bromsgrove district is not an appropriate destination for exported housing (or employment land) need:
Green Belt
Substantially the whole of the undeveloped land in Bromsgrove district is Green Belt. It serves to keep Birmingham and the Black Country separate from the town of Bromsgrove and from the large commuter villages within Bromsgrove District, particularly Hagley, Catshill, Barnt Green, Alvechurch and Wythall, all of which have populations great enough for them to be classified as market towns in more rural regions. The two remaining larger settlements within Bromsgrove District (Cofton Hackett and Rubery) are contiguous to Birmingham and so have no Green Belt gap between them and Birmingham.

Regional Park
National Trust are developing the concept of a Seven Hills Regional Park, stretching from Wychbury Hill in Hagley to Weatheroak Hill in Alvechurch. I am led to believe that this is supported by Bromsgrove District Council and so expected it to be referred to in their plan, which I now expect to be consulted on in the autumn. This is an area of valued landscape. Part (at least) of it was formerly designated as a Landscape Protection Area (or such like) under planning policy of the 1990s. I therefore anticipate that the emerging Bromsgrove Plan will make some provision for its protection.

Landscape
CPRE Worcestershire commissioned research into part of the area (Clent and Lickey Hills), which provided recommendations for areas suitable to be designated as protected landscapes and additional areas to be designated as buffers to protect these. A full version of the report can be downloaded from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cu97th78lzka8oy/AAB8UK4FAaeXU-Ttjpic0C7la?dl=0
Observed from the south, this is a range of hills, but from the north, the elevation above the surrounding area is rather less, because Birmingham and the Black Country occupy a plateau. It is nevertheless undesirable that Birmingham should expand to penetrate the range of hills.
Land supply

Bromsgrove’s last plan was adopted with an explicit policy for a Green Belt Review to provide more land to meet its own housing land supply need. Such a review has not been completed, partly due to difficulties in obtaining evidence on subjects for which Worcestershire County Council was responsible and partly because Redditch’s plan (examined and adopted at the same time) estimated a housing need considerably in excess of the need estimated under the Standard Methodology. This meant that land on the edge of Redditch released by Bromsgrove from its Green Belt for the alleged needs of Redditch was not needed for them and could instead supply Bromsgrove’s own needs. It nevertheless remains the case that Bromsgrove has scope to meet part of Birmingham’s land deficit.

We welcome the target being expressed as “at least” 10,064 houses in SDS.1a. CPRE strongly supports the urban regeneration and the reuse of brownfield sites for housing, such as redundant employment sites, and more mixed-use developments with housing included. This is the most sustainable option and provides houses where they are needed for the people who need them most. This includes windfall sites, which result from the development ‘churn’ in large urban areas, which is often under-estimated. We do not have the capacity to examine the housing supply figures in detail but we suspect that there is more capacity that can be found from redundant space in town centres and by the release of redundant small industrial sites for housing, particularly in areas where this is a non-conforming use.

We are however concerned at the enormous amount of housing and employment land that Sandwell plans to export to other areas. It is difficult to see where such need might be met. Birmingham appears to have about enough land for its own needs; Dudley not quite enough. Wolverhampton and Walsall also have difficulties in meeting their own needs. South Staffordshire has submitted a plan that provides very limited amounts of land for others' needs, and the parts of that district near the Black Country are all within the Green Belt (other than built up areas). Similarly undeveloped land in the nearest Worcestershire districts are within the Green Belt. On the other hand, Shropshire and Telford seem to be planning for considerably more housing than their Objectively Assessed Need, but this is all a long way from Sandwell.

previously stated during earlier stages in preparation of the Local Plan, the City Council has had a strong working relationship with Sandwell alongside the other Black Country Authorities regarding planning matters for many years, particularly as the two authorities share a considerable joint boundary. This was illustrated by the successful adoption of the Smethwick to Birmingham Corridor Framework SPD in February 2022 which will help to maximise mutually beneficial development opportunities across the boundary along that corridor. In addition, the two local planning authorities continue to work closely alongside the other local authorities which make up the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA), to identify ways in which housing and employment land shortfalls can be met across the wider HMA since such shortfalls first emerged following the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan in 2017.

Birmingham is currently progressing its own Local Plan with consultation on the Preferred Options document having taken place in July and August 2024. The consultation document identified significant potential housing land shortfalls for the city. The City Council is currently considering its position following the consultation on the proposed changes to the NPPF and the Standard Methodology for the calculation of housing projections announced by the Government in July 2024. However, even if these proposed changes are taken into account, it is still likely that meeting Birmingham’s housing and employment land needs in full will be challenging.

Overall, Birmingham City Council is supportive of the approach taken by Sandwell Council within their Local Plan Publication. Further detailed comments on specific strategic and cross-boundary issues are set out below.

Policy SDS1 – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell

The Sandwell Local Plan identifies that there is a need for land to accommodate 26,350 homes by 2041. However, due to the highly urbanised and constrained nature of Sandwell, the Local Plan is only able to identify sufficient land to supply 10,434 homes. This leaves a significant shortfall and an unmet housing need of 15,916 homes.

Similarly, the Local Plan has also identified 42 hectares of additional employment land compared to its projected need of 211 hectares as set out in its Employment Development Needs Assessment meaning a shortfall of 169 hectares. 18 hectares of this will be met through apportionment of land from the West Midlands Strategic Freight Interchange near J12 of the M6 in accordance with the assessment report produced by Stantec in 2021.

In view of the levels of both housing and employment land needs identified within the Local Plan and the significant shortfalls experienced, options such as densification, development of open and green spaces and development of the green belt were previously explored to reduce this shortfall. However, the Spatial Strategy sets out that further ‘overdevelopment’ would have a detrimental effect on the living environment in Sandwell along with degradation of the natural and built environment including habitats and green and blue infrastructure. We accept that other potential sources of additional supply have been fully explored. Similarly, we accept that there is very little potential for green belt release in Sandwell given that its green belt areas (which fall mainly within or adjacent to the Sandwell Valley) are limited and heavily constrained due to the intersection by the M5/M6 interchange and potential flooding issues.
As mentioned above, the Preferred Options for the Birmingham Local Plan also identified a 46,153 shortfall for housing. Proposed changes to the NPPF and the Standard Methodology for the calculation of housing projections announced by the Government in July 2024 may have a significant effect in reducing this shortfall but this is countered by increases in housing projections elsewhere in the West Midlands conurbation which means that there will likely be continued significant capacity issues in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA going forwards. It is therefore essential for close working to continue between the two authorities and across the HMA to try and address the shortfalls as much as possible across the wider area.

Policy SDS3 – Regeneration in Sandwell

As the two local authorities share a considerable boundary, it is welcomed that the Sandwell Local Plan recognises in paragraph 3.19 the need to “support its neighbours in bringing forward land for employment and housing that sits adjacent to existing administrative boundaries and will work in partnership to ensure related infrastructure needs are addressed across those boundaries.”

This has been illustrated in recent years with the successful joint production and adoption of the Smethwick to Birmingham Corridor Framework SPD in February 2022 and this work is further reflected in the Local Plan with the Smethwick section of the corridor being identified as one of the key Regeneration Areas within Policy SDS3. This is welcomed by Birmingham to further assist in successfully securing much needed cross boundary development and regeneration opportunities to this part of the conurbation (with a focus around the development of the recently opened Midland Metropolitan Hospital which will serve communities on either side of the boundary).

Summary

Overall, Birmingham City Council is supportive of the approach being taken by Sandwell in the development of its Local Plan and in meeting the soundness requirements set out in the NPPF. We agree that the Council has worked with neighbouring authorities to provide as much certainty as possible about how and where its full housing and employment land needs will be delivered as part of its Duty to Cooperate obligations.

We also support the commitment to ongoing engagement with its neighbours, building on the partnership approach developed across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA). This is particularly important, given the housing land shortfalls experienced by the GBBCHMA under the current Government housing projection methodology and the likely continuance of shortfalls across the HMA under the proposed new methodology which will likely come into effect during 2025.

It is therefore important that the two local authorities continue to work closely, as well as with surrounding local authorities in the HMA, to identify and implement an agreed approach to tackle how such shortfalls are to be accommodated to ensure the continued soundness and effectiveness of both Plans. Once Birmingham’s position is known, following the forthcoming changes to the NPPF and housing projection methodology, we will continue to promote and encourage further work across these wider market areas to provide a strategic approach to the supply and delivery of housing and employment needs in future years to mitigate for the potential unmet needs across the conurbation. As previously stated, this may require and include further studies across the wider West Midlands area as well as Statements of Common Ground with, and between, relevant local authorities as a roadmap for meeting shortfalls through potential local plan allocations elsewhere.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council’s (SMBC) Local Plan Publication (Regulation 19) consultation. Lichfield District Council (LDC) welcomes this opportunity to provide formal comments on the plan.

The comments below focus on the primary area of concern from Lichfield District Council’s perspective which relates to unmet housing need arising from Sandwell and the wider Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA).

LDC along with SMBC have been an active member of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) officers’ group and have contributed to discussion relating to the delivery of unmet need within the housing market area, including the ongoing work to update the 2018 Strategy Growth Study.

LDC notes that the consultation on the NPPF included proposals to change the ‘standard method’ which is used to calculate an areas Local Housing Need. Under the proposed changes SMBCs LHN would decrease by 3%, whilst LDC’s will increase significantly (by 160%). As such, it is important that as both authority’s plans progress, they have regard to the relevant housing requirement and consider the implications for both councils should the proposed changes to the standard method be implemented by Government having regard to any transitional arrangements.

It is noted that at paragraph 3.13, the SLP identifies that there is a total local housing need of 26,350 and that the SLP aims to allocate sites to deliver 10,434 of these homes. As such, the plan proposes a supply of just over 39% of its total need. This shortfall when combined with further potential shortfalls within the housing market area is significant. There is concerned that the ‘balanced green growth’ may not have thoroughly explored all opportunities to increase housing delivery within its administrative area, including reviewing Green Belt boundaries and increasing densities. As such, LDC considers that in the context of this unmet need SMBC should have undertaken a review of its Green Belt boundaries to order to understand whether changes to the boundary could be made to assist in meeting its own needs. SMBC will need to full evidence and justify that they have explored and exhausted all options to accommodate growth within their administrative area. Furthermore, SMBC should identify any further potential sources of housing land supply and ensure that all development opportunities within its administrative area are maximised prior to any shortfall being exported to other areas.

LDC notes that Policy SDS1 states that housing and employment needs that cannot be accommodated within the borough will be exported to neighbouring local authority areas. LDC wishes to stress that this should be based on a clear understanding of the functional and physical relationships within the functional economic area, including migration and commuting patterns, to ensure needs are met as close as possible to where they arise.

Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy are instructed by Bloor Homes Western (“Bloor”) to submit representations to the Sandwell Local Plan Publication Version and welcome the opportunity to comment at this time. We have previously submitted representations to the Preferred Options consultation version and these comments build on our previous representations. Bloor are currently promoting sites in the Housing Market Area (HMA) and whilst these are not all in Sandwell, the Sandwell Plan as drafted will have repercussions on the identification and delivering of housing across the wider HMA. It is for these reasons that Bloor now wish to submit representations to the Plan and our comments should be read with these objectives in mind.
Policy SDS1 – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell

The strategy as presented proposes to allocate 10,434 new homes in Sandwell leaving a shortfall of 15,916 dwellings that are needed but which cannot be accommodated in the Council’s administrative area. This is a substantial number of homes and represents a substantial number of people and families that will go without homes should a definitive solution not be found.

Bloor consider that in the absence of any formal agreement with the other authorities within the HMA to find a location to secure the delivery of these 15,916 dwellings the plan is unsound and object to the plan on this basis. As will be demonstrated below, the housing shortfall has reached critical levels across the HMA and the onus is on the authorities where the housing need cannot be met to secure the support of the authorities with land available, including those with Green Belt land, to assist.

Meeting the needs of all part of the population

The pressure to find a definitive solution to address the housing shortfall, is only further emphasised by the fact that the delivery of affordable housing on those sites within the Sandwell administrative area will fall woefully short of the affordable housing need identified. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment Report (March 2021) identified a need for 4,605 social rented properties and 1,913 shared ownership dwellings (accounting for nearly 24% of the total housing requirement. The release of Green Belt sites in the HMA to meet the overspill from both Sandwell and Dudley will deliver not only market, but much need affordable homes for those parts of the population that most need it.

Supporting Economic Growth

Delivering the right number of homes, in the right location is an important component in fostering economic growth. For Sandwell, this means securing the delivery of homes as close to and /or in locations well connected to Sandwell as possible. The obvious locations being Bromsgrove to the south and South Staffordshire to the west, when you account for the adjoining authorities not having the capacity to assist with meeting Sandwell’s need. It is Bloor’s view that the starting point should be sites on the edge of the conurbation to provide homes close to where the demand arises which can provide a range of homes for the existing and future workforce; supporting indigenous economic growth and inward investment opportunities.

Shortfall in housing land across the HMA

The shortfall of land for housing is not unique to Sandwell and is a long-established concern within the HMA.

Birmingham Development Plan

The Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”) was adopted in January 2017 and was the first authority in the HMA to conclude it could not meet its housing need within its administrative area. Policy PG1 – Overall Levels of Growth, advised that 89,000 dwellings are required during the course of the plan period (2011 to 2031) to meet the growth requirements of the City. However, only 51,100 additional dwellings can be accommodated within the City’s administrative area. This leaves a shortfall of 37,900 homes including 14,400 affordable homes (that will need to be delivered elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area). The BDP stipulated that Birmingham’s unmet need was to be met by other authorities in the HMA as and when they produced individual Local Plans. This has not happened.

Birmingham City Council has commenced a review of its Local Plan and consulted on Preferred Options concluding in August 2024. The Preferred Options Local Plan advised that the Standard Method housing requirement for the period 2020 to 2042 is 149,180 dwellings. The plan stated that a supply of 103,027 dwellings had been identified leaving a shortfall of 46,153 dwellings. The supply is made up of reuse of employment sites along with a number of SHLAA sites. The shortfall of 46,053 dwellings relies upon all SHLAA sites coming forward for development and the provision of a significant number of windfalls. Bloor have submitted representations to the Birmingham plan querying whether the identified supply is robust.

Black Country Core Strategy Review

Previously, the four Black Country authorities had been preparing a joint Plan although this has was subsequently abandoned in late 2022 in favour of the preparation of individual Plans for each authority. Notwithstanding the above, the Preferred Options Black Country Plan

proposed a housing requirement based upon the Standard Method which was the sum of the four individual authority housing requirements. The housing requirement for the four authorities was 76,076 dwellings, however, there was only an identified capacity of 47,837 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be directed to other authorities. Now, each authority will calculate its own housing requirement using the standard method calculation. Dudley has recently published a Publication Draft of its Local Plan that confirms that its housing need is 11,169 dwellings but that it only has capacity to delivery 10,470 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 699 homes. Wolverhampton also carried out Preferred Options consultation earlier in the year and they had identified a shortfall of just under 12,000 homes. Walsall is yet to publish a plan although it is anticipated that there will be a further shortfall in what is required against their capacity to meet these needs.

Total shortfall

If the housing shortfall figures in the emerging Birmingham and Wolverhampton Preferred Option plans and the shortfalls in the Dudley and Sandwell Publication Plans are added together it totals 74,768 dwellings. As noted above, this has the potential to increase even further when the shortfall arising in Walsall is added.

Objection

Bloor object to Policy SDS1 on the basis that it is not positively prepared, not effective and not consistent with national policy. The policy and approach to meeting housing needs within Sandwell will result in significant housing need going unmet leaving those in need of housing having to incur increasing costs of housing be that through purchase or renting costs, increased overcrowding and a greater number of people living in housing that is not suitable for their needs. As well as the social cost of not providing enough housing the economic impacts of not meeting the needs of the population are potentially as significant, if not more so, if those of working age population cannot find somewhere to live in the Borough they will leave and work elsewhere. This outward migration could lead to an ageing population being left with a smaller working age population present which could impact on the delivery and provision of services. The impacts are significant and as such, the approach set out in the plan is unsound.
In order to address our concerns the Council need to establish and agree with other authorities in the HMA how and where its unmet needs are going to be met. This needs to be a tangible and workable solution as opposed to the mere suggestion of working together. Without a signed memorandum of understanding between the HMA authorities with each setting out what proportion of unmet need each is due to take there is no realistic prospect that Sandwell’s housing needs are going to be met in full.

Duty to Cooperate

Paragraph 24 of the Framework confirms that Local Planning Authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. Paragraph 26 goes on to state that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary and where development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular area could be met elsewhere. The level of unmet need arising within the HMA is one such area where the Duty to Cooperate should be employed in order to determine where this unmet need should be directed.
Having regard to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area there are 14 authorities within it which include Birmingham, the four Black Country authorities and 9 other surrounding authorities. In light of the shortfall arising in Birmingham, Dudley, Wolverhampton and Sandwell this effectively leaves 10 remaining authorities where the need could be distributed.

to each of the remaining authorities it is highlighted above that there is potentially a shortfall that will arise in Walsall when it comes to publish their Preferred Options Local Plan. Redditch Borough is effectively built up to its boundary and already has to look to its adjoining neighbour, Bromsgrove, in order to accommodate its housing need. It would be unable to accommodate any further unmet. Similarly, Tamworth had to look to its adjoining neighbours of Lichfield and North Warwickshire in order to meet its current housing requirement in its adopted Local Plan. It too would be unlikely to be able to accommodate any unmet need from the Sandwell. Cannock Chase’s capacity is restricted due to environmental constraints including the Cannock Chase’s SAC and AONB. A small part of Stratford-upon-Avon District falls within the Housing Market Area whilst North Warwickshire have previously committed to delivering 3,790 dwellings to meeting Birmingham’s needs up to 2031 in its adopted Local Plan (2021). Solihull’s Local Plan previously proposed to contribute approximately 2,000 dwellings to meet the needs of Birmingham although the Council has subsequently withdrawn the plan from Examination.
This effectively leaves Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove as the three remaining authorities that would be able to make any meaningful contribution to meeting housing needs arising in the wider HMA. However, a review of what these local authorities has been proposing to help meet the housing shortfall across the HMA falls woefully short of what is needed.
South Staffordshire have previously proposed to accommodate 4,000 dwellings to meet the needs arising in the Black Country although this was subsequently reduced to just under 700 homes when the council re consulted on a Pre-Submission draft Plan in April 2024. Lichfield were proposing around 2,000 homes before withdrawing their plan. Bromsgrove has yet to publish a draft plan and so it is yet to state how many dwellings it may be prepared to accommodate. Collectively this equates to just under 700 homes that are currently being made available to meet the unmet needs of the HMA (this may increase if Bromsgrove propose to meet some unmet need) which will fall woefully short of addressing the housing need of local people and families across the HMA.
The outcome of the above is that there is a significant unmet housing need arising principally from Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Sandwell, with Walsall also likely to add to this, and at the current time there is no agreement or clear strategy between the 14 HMA authorities as to where or how this unmet need is to be met. Furthermore, in the few authorities that have the ability to assist in meeting the overspill, full opportunity of the land available around the conurbation to assist with meeting the housing overspill is not being taken.
It is clear from the above that the emerging position across the HMA is one where there is a significant housing need that exists, but where certain authorities, such as Sandwell, cannot currently meet its needs in full. Bloor contend that these un-met needs must be met by the HMA authorities in the next round of plans that are now being prepared. If this need is not met in full, it risks giving rise to a number of significant knock on effects on the delivery and provision of housing across the greater Birmingham area. These impacts include:
• worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
• worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
• economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
• the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.

Objection

In light of the Council's need and the significant shortfall that the Council is faced with, Bloor do not consider that the Council has met its duty to cooperate. We urge the Council to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including Bromsgrove, to seek agreement on how and where this unmet housing need is going to be delivered. Meeting the housing needs of the HMA cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and that a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the HMA’s housing needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including affordable homes.

It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall in Sandwell should be those authorities closest to them. Bromsgrove and South Staffordshire are the closest authorities with a meaningful ability to address the shortfall and with land available adjacent to the conurbation. The Bromsgrove plan review is still at an early stage and there is still plenty of scope to hold meaningful discussions to provide land to meet the needs arising in Sandwell.

Barratt West Midlands are promoting the residential development of part of Rowley Regis Golf Club, located off the Portway Road in Rowley Regis (part of the golf club). A plan showing the extent of the site is provided at Appendix 1 to this letter. The site extends to approximately 7.1 hectares. An indicative block plan can be provided at request. It is envisaged that the site will deliver approximately 175 dwellings.

The Regulation 19 consultation draft plan does not apply a policy designation to the southern part of the Rowley Regis Golf Club. The northern section of the site is identified as a SLINC, however, this in itself is not a constraint to development. The emerging replacement Local Plan departs from the adopted Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document that identifies the northern part of the site as a residential allocation, as well as part of a SLINC (helping demonstrate that this is not a constraint to the development of the site). It is Barratt West Midlands’ view that there is no reason for the removal of this site as an allocation. Indeed, the allocation should be extended to include all the land identified on the attached plan. Given the significant unmet housing need identified by the Regulation Consultation 19 document, the Council should be actively seeking to deliver all suitable and sustainable residential sites. The site is in the control of an experienced developer who would look to bring the site forward for development promptly.

Part of the site was a former landfill area. This area forms approximately 35% of the land proposed for an allocation. This is not a constraint to the development of the site. Landfill can be addressed through appropriate remediation. In any event, the scheme will be expected to provide public open space on site. This could be provided in the section of the site that formed the landfill if it is concluded that this is more appropriate than treating the site to facilitate the development.

The site is well suited to residential development. It is surrounded by built form in its north, east and west. The majority of the surrounding development is residential in nature, including the recently approved scheme at Bryan Bud Close.

Ambition 7 of the Plan is to ensure that Sandwell has new homes to meet a full range of housing needs to create an attractive neighbourhoods and deliver housing close to key transport routes. Whilst we fully support this ambition, it is not realized in the policies in the Plan. The Plan does not allocate enough housing land to meet the identified housing need. There is no agreement in place through the Duty to Cooperate to deliver the housing shortfall in other local authority areas. It is, therefore, imperative that the emerging Plan allocates all suitable and sustainable housing sites for development to address the significant housing shortfall.

As detailed in the covering letter accompanying these representations, Barratt West Midlands are promoting part of Rowley Regis Golf Club. The site is a suitable and sustainable housing site and should be identified as an allocation in the Plan as a housing allocation.

The draft Local Plan identifies a requirement for the provision of 26,350 homes by 2041. However, the Plan advises that only 10,434 dwellings can be provided within the plan area, resulting in an unmet housing need of 15,916 dwellings. It is the intention that the housing shortfall will be met through the Duty to Cooperate. It is recognised in the “Duty to Cooperate” section of the Plan that agreement on such matters through Statements of Common Ground are now a necessity.

At the present time there are no agreed Statements of Common Ground or an agreed solution to delivering the housing shortfall through the Duty to Cooperate. Given that a significant proportion of the Plan’s housing requirement will need to be met in other local authority areas this has the potential to cause a range of potential problems with ensuring sufficient housing delivery during the course of the plan period.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon Sandwell to identify as much housing development as possible on suitable and sustainable sites within the Plan area to reduce the housing shortfall.

As detailed within Barratt West Midlands’ representations, it is our view that their land interest at Rowley Regis Golf Club should be identified as a residential allocation in the Plan. The rationale for this is provided in the accompanying cover letter.

Policy SDS1 – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell, does not provide an appropriate approach to meet the
Plan’s housing requirement.

Paragraph 2.6 of the draft Plan confirms that there is a need to identify 26,350 homes to meet the growth requirements of Sandwell by 2041. There is not, however, sufficient land within the Plan area to meet this requirement. As a consequence policy SDS1 advises that the Plan will deliver “at least” 10,434 dwellings. Given that there are no strategies in place to meeting the housing shortfall the spatial strategy set out in policy SDS1 should be designed to deliver as much of the housing requirement as possible within Sandwell’s administrative area. The policy should be amended to advise that a minimum of 10,434 dwellings will be delivered during the course of the plan period, however, the Council will adopt a positive approach to the determination of all residential planning applications to try to exceed this figure. In doing so, the Council will actively support planning applications proposing the redevelopment of suitable and sustainable sites within the plan area including those sites that are not allocated for residential development in the Plan.

Whilst we generally support the provisions of policy SDS8 – Green and Blue Infrastructure in Sandwell, further clarity should be added to the policy to help confirm which sites in the plan area are afforded protection by the policy.

The Proposals Map identifies areas of community open space, wildlife corridors, strategic green space, local nature reserves, SINCs, areas of ancient woodland, SLINCs, amongst other designations as green and blue infilling. These designations should be afforded proportionate protection and control from development. There are, however, areas of “white land” on the Proposals Map that are not subject to any such designation. Sites such as this, that perform no natural or green space role, should be priority areas for development to help meet the housing requirement if they are subject to planning applications that demonstrate other policy requirements in the Plan can be met.

A large proportion of Barratt West Midlands’ land interest at Rowley Regis Golf Club is “white land” with the remainder forming part of a SLINC. The SLINC is not a constraint to development and can be addressed through appropriate mitigation. A SLINC section of the site is allocated for residential development by the adopted Local Plan, demonstrating it is suitable for development.

Policy SDS8 should clarify that it will not afford disproportionate protection to areas of open space in the plan area simply because they are undeveloped. Any protection will be proportionate to their value as a role of open space or their environmental resource.

Policy SHO1 should be revised to confirm that whilst a minimum of 10,434 new dwellings will be delivered during the course of the plan period it will be an objective to deliver as many houses as possible on suitable and sustainable sites to meet the identified housing need.

Whilst the policy advises that additional housing supply will also be secured on windfall sites throughout the urban area it should actively encourage and facilitate the delivery of windfall housing development given the significant housing shortfall. It is our view that the policy should adopt a similar approach to paragraph 11.d of the Framework when local authorities are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply to actively facilitate housing development. It should advise that given the significant housing shortfall the Council will grant residential planning applications on sustainable sites unless the adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

We have a number of significant concerns with policy SHO2 – Windfall Development. Whilst we support the recognition that the policy actively supports windfall developments on sustainable previously developed sites, its approach to residential planning applications on unallocated greenfield sites is entirely inappropriate. The Council have a significant housing shortfall and there are currently no arrangements in place for it to be met. The policy should support the development of unallocated greenfield sites unless there are specific reasons to resist development, such as an insurmountable ecological designation, or if re-identification of the site is an area of parkland or public open space.

It is also entirely inappropriate for the policy to prioritise “Council owned land that is deemed surplus to requirements”. There are owners of greenfield sites in the borough that are also surplus to their requirements. It is entirely inappropriate to the Council to differentiate the approach to supporting windfall planning applications based purely upon land ownership, particularly given that the preferred landowner is the Council.

Policy SHW5 – Playing Fields and Sports Facilities, advises that playing fields and sports facilities will not be built upon unless one of four criteria are met. The policy or its supporting text should clearly define what is meant by “playing fields” and “sports facilities”.

The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996 defines playing fields/pitches as sites of 0.4 hectares or more which are used for association football, American football, rugby, cricket, hockey, lecross, rounders, baseball, softball, Australian football, Gaelic football, shinty, hurling, polo or cycle polo. The policy supporting text advises that there is an issue in Sandwell with the low quality of playing pitches, therefore it is rational for this policy to afford playing pitches protection from development unless these criteria can be met. The term “sports facilities” is not defined by the policy or in legislation. However, the policy supporting text appears to suggest that this is principally built sport facilities, albeit this is not clear.

It should be made clear that this policy does not afford protection to golf courses. Golf courses fall outside the definition of “playing pitch”. Private golf courses have no public access and are, in effect, recreational businesses. As they have no public access they are only of benefit to fee paying members. They should not, therefore, be afforded protection from development by policy SHW5.

Dudley MBC considers the policy to be sound. The key principles of the policy are supported by Dudley MBC, including delivering as much new development as possible on previously developed land and on sites within the urban area (including appropriate greenfield sites) and increasing densities. Dudley MBC is supportive of Sandwell MBC maximising its urban area supply to meet its own growth needs as far as possible, and the approach taken by the Council for identifying land supply within the borough to date is supported.

Sandwell MBC should continue to keep its urban capacity under review over the plan period to identify any further opportunities for new development that would contribute to the land supply shortfalls currently set out (please see our separate response to paragraph 3.12/3.17).

Following the representations made in November 2023 in response to Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, we are pleased to see the land subject of this representation has been considered suitable, available and appropriate for residential development. This representation relates to the land and buildings at 192-200 Dudley Road, Oldbury referred to as ‘The site, which is identified for development in Appendix B under Site reference SH63’. We fully support the draft allocation for the redevelopment of the land the subject of this representation for residential purposes, and our comments on the emerging policies are set out below.

In our view the proposed allocation of the site under Site Reference SH63 in Appendix B of the Local Plan meets the soundness tests in paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as it is previously developed land and therefore accords with Government policy ‘to make as much use as possible of previously developed land,’ (paragraph 123) and therefore its allocation meets the ‘soundness tests’ of being consistent with national policy (NPPF para 35 d)) and also ‘justified’ (NPPF para 35 b)) as the allocation is ‘an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.’ However, given the sites location in a highly sustainable location which meets the criteria for very high-density development of 100+ dwellings per hectare as set out in emerging Policy SH03, it is considered that the site should be allocated for high density development, instead of the medium density of 41 dph currently identified for site SH63. The current medium density allocation is not consistent with the advice in paragraph 129 of the NPPF that:

‘Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. In these circumstances:

a) plans should contain policies to optimise the use of land in their area and meet as much of the identified need for housing as possible. This will be tested robustly at examination, and should include the use of minimum density standards for city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport. These standards should seek a significant uplift in the average density of residential development within these areas, unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate;

b) the use of minimum density standards should also be considered for other parts of the plan area. It may be appropriate to set out a range of densities that reflect the accessibility and potential of different areas, rather than one broad density range; and

c) local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).’

The identified medium density in this highly sustainable location and given the constraints of identifying further land for housing in this constrained urban location means that the density component of Site Allocation SH63 is not consistent with the NPPF guidance in paragraph 129 above and is therefore not consistent with either national policy or justified and therefore fails the soundness tests in paragraph 35 of the NNPF. Further justification is set out in the attached cover letter, dated 5th November 2024.

Following the representations made in November 2023 in response to Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, we are pleased to see the land subject of this representation has been considered suitable, available and appropriate for residential development. This representation relates to the land and buildings at 192-200 Dudley Road, Oldbury referred to as ‘The site, which is identified for development in Appendix B under Site reference SH63’. We fully support the draft allocation for the redevelopment of the land the subject of this representation for residential purposes, and our comments on the emerging policies are set out below.

In our view the proposed allocation of the site under Site Reference SH63 in Appendix B of the Local Plan meets the soundness tests in paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as it is previously developed land and therefore accords with Government policy ‘to make as much use as possible of previously developed land,’ (paragraph 123) and therefore its allocation meets the ‘soundness tests’ of being consistent with national policy (NPPF para 35 d)) and also ‘justified’ (NPPF para 35 b)) as the allocation is ‘an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.’ However, given the sites location in a highly sustainable location which meets the criteria for very high-density development of 100+ dwellings per hectare as set out in emerging Policy SH03, it is considered that the site should be allocated for high density development, instead of the medium density of 41 dph currently identified for site SH63. The current medium density allocation is not consistent with the advice in paragraph 129 of the NPPF that:

‘Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. In these circumstances:

a) plans should contain policies to optimise the use of land in their area and meet as much of the identified need for housing as possible. This will be tested robustly at examination, and should include the use of minimum density standards for city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport. These standards should seek a significant uplift in the average density of residential development within these areas, unless it can be shown that there are strong reasons why this would be inappropriate;

b) the use of minimum density standards should also be considered for other parts of the plan area. It may be appropriate to set out a range of densities that reflect the accessibility and potential of different areas, rather than one broad density range; and

c) local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).’

The identified medium density in this highly sustainable location and given the constraints of identifying further land for housing in this constrained urban location means that the density component of Site Allocation SH63 is not consistent with the NPPF guidance in paragraph 129 above and is therefore not consistent with either national policy or justified and therefore fails the soundness tests in paragraph 35 of the NNPF. Further justification is set out in the text below and on the accompanying representation forms.

Comments on the emerging Sandwell Local Plan (2024-2021) Publication Version

Previously Developed Land

Planning policy at national and local level encourages re-use or intensification in the use of underused, vacant or previously developed land and buildings where there will be an appropriate increase in the efficient use of the site, particularly in areas with an excellent access to public transport or the road network such as the site the subject of this representation. The current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, December 2023), sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. It also states that strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land. Paragraph 124 (c) advises that planning policies and decisions should give substantial weight (our emphasis) to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land.

The emerging Draft Policy SDS1 (Spatial Strategy for Sandwell) provides the overarching strategy for Sandwell, setting out the broad scale and distribution of new development for the Plan period to 2041. Among many other criteria, this policy seeks to ensure this growth is sustainable by requiring as much new development as possible on previously developed land and sites in the urban area.

The site has an area of approximately 0.58 hectares and comprises of a number of commercial buildings, including a petrol station, car repair and services, a hand car wash, hardstanding area and two-storey dwellings. One of the dwellings is separated from the rest of the site by a track used to access the properties on Payton Close and Brades Road. The commercial buildings on the site fall within sui generis use class, with the residential dwellings falling within Use Class C3. The site is currently unattractive, containing a large number of parked cars as shown on the google maps aerial image below and therefore detracts from the character of the local area and its redevelopment would enable significant environmental enhancement.

A review of the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (SAD) and Policies Map (adopted December 2012) shows that the site is neither located within a conservation area nor identified as a statutory Listed Building having any special architectural or historic merits, either nationally or locally. In fact, the site is not assigned any particular designations on the adopted Local Plan Policies Map. The site also has no designations relating to landscape or biodiversity value. The site is located in Flood Zone 1 where there is a low risk of flooding.

We fully support the emerging Policy SDS 1 which sets out the overarching strategy for Sandwell. The land the subject of this representation is currently underutilised ‘previously developed land’ within the existing well-established built-up area and should be allocated for housing development.

Housing Needs & Density

The emerging Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 10,434 net new homes over the period 2024 - 2041. 97% of the supply is on brownfield land such as the land the subject of this representation land and 3% is on undeveloped sites. We fully support the policies aspiration for the majority of new homes to be built on the available brownfield land such as the site subject of this representation.

Since July 2024, the new Government has given more emphasis to building more housing with the aim being to boost economic growth and address the shortfall in housing provision. The Government plans to increase housing targets to 300,000+ homes a year. This means the Council needs even more housing in the near future to achieve their targets.

The land the subject of this representation has been submitted through the ‘Call for Sites’ process. The Site Assessment found that “the site is suitable for residential use at moderate density 40-50dph, and its comprehensive redevelopment could improve the appearance of the area. The developable area of the site could accommodate a minimum of approximately 24 dwellings (40dph minimum).”

The emerging draft Policy SHO3 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility) advises that the density and type of new housing provided on any housing site should be informed by the need for a range of types and sizes of accommodation to meet identified local needs; the level of accessibility by sustainable transport to residential services, including any improvements to be secured through development, and the need to achieve high-quality design, to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and minimise amenity impacts, considering the characteristics and mix of uses in the area where the proposal is located. This policy also advises that any development that fails to make efficient use of land will be refused (our emphasis) in accordance with the requirements of this policy.

The site is within a highly sustainable area with Oldbury Town Centre located 650 metres southeast of the site which is a 8-minute walk away, where a wide range of shops and services can be found. Albion Street bus stop is located approximately 60 metres southeast of the site, from which frequent services can be accessed to Dudley Centre, Birmingham City Centre, and the areas in between. Sandwell and Dudley Railway Station is located approximately 0.8 miles east of the site, which is a 17-minute walk away, and this provides frequent services to surrounding towns and cities, as well as other stations within Birmingham.

The site is also adjoined on its north-west, south-west and south-east boundaries by residential uses, and there are commercial uses within the immediate area including a takeaway, a pub, a car wash and a tyre sales shop. The Brades Road employment site is only 200 metres from the site. The Oldbury Health Centre is 1 km away. The Luxmy Foodstore is located 200 metres from the site. Sainsbury supermarket is located approximately 650 metres form the site. The Brades Primary School is approximately 700 metres way, with the Ormiston Sandwell Community Academy a similar distance away. The Meadows School which caters for children with disabilities is only 400 metres away. Therefore, the future occupiers of the dwellings would not need to travel a long distance for their day-to-day requirements (i.e. milk, bread etc), which can be easily accessed by foot, cycle or using public transport.

Notwithstanding the existing site’s sustainability above, there are a number of sites allocated for development in the Regulation 19 Sandwell Local Plan that are in close proximity to the site to the north-west (highlighted orange on the above emerging policies map extract). These partly fall within the Dudley Port and Tipton Regeneration area and have been identified as suitable for residential development. Allocated less than 100m south-east of the site is a mix of Local and Strategic Employment Sites (highlighted blue and purple on the above emerging policies map extract). Development of these sites would significantly improve the site’s sustainability. It will bring more shops, services and facilities closer to the site. It will improve accessibility to employment areas and public transport. Furthermore, paragraph 9.249 of the emerging Local Plan identifies that there are bus priority measures proposed from Dudley Road, through the junction of Oldbury Ringway / Freeth Street, which is approximately 500 metres from the site. Altogether, this means that the site is considered, in public transport terms, an excellent accessibility being on a key route and therefore sustainable location suited to residential use.

The site therefore is located in a highly sustainable location and meets the criteria for very high-density development of 100+ dwellings per hectare as set out in emerging Policy SH03. Whilst the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point in decision making, the NPPF constitutes an important material consideration in determining applications. The new government issued a statement opening a consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF. Although the NPPF is still in draft form (consultation closed on Tuesday, 24 September 2024), it is unlikely that it would significantly change in the final version, as this is a key government policy initiative. The NPPF constitutes the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system.

The Government’s objective in publishing the revised NPPF was to secure a significant culture change in the way planning applications are determined, with a clear presumption in favour of sustainable development, with local planning authorities proactively driving and supporting sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units and infrastructure the country needs. A key message in the new NPPF is the need for positive planning to significantly boost the supply of housing to meet the full objectively assessed housing needs for an area.
The latest SHLAA (April 2022) and the Urban Capacity Appraisal (November 2023) outlines that there is a potential uplift in housing capacity which could be achieved through adoption of higher densities. This has been explored through the Sandwell Local Plan, with Policy SHO3 of the Local Plan setting out the minimum density standards as 100 dwellings per hectare where accessibility standards for very high-density housing are met and the site is located within West Bromwich; 45 dwellings per hectare where accessibility standards for high density housing are met, and 40 dwellings per hectare where accessibility standards for moderate density housing are met.

There will be variation across Sandwell, but this acknowledges the density optimising approach that is set out in national policy which seeks to maximise the use of land.

The proposed redevelopment of this site presents an opportunity to address both housing demand and urban planning objectives while maximising the site's full potential. Given the existing challenges—such as the need for demolition, site clearance, and remediation of any land contamination—it is prudent to consider these factors in the project’s budget and timeline. However, these upfront costs could be offset by developing a high-density residential complex, which aligns with both the location’s characteristics and the needs of the local housing market.

The site's layout, especially with the significant land level difference, naturally lends itself to flatted development. This approach not only makes efficient use of the available space but also provides the potential for a substantial number of smaller residential units (1-2 bedrooms), which are ideal for professionals and young couples who may prioritise proximity to work and access to public transport. Including some larger units (3 bedrooms) would also help attract a diverse range of residents, including families who are looking for urban living with convenient access to amenities and transportation.
The emphasis on public transport, walking, and cycling infrastructure further supports the sustainability of this redevelopment plan. The area's existing pedestrian and cycle networks will be advantageous in creating a walkable, connected community, aligning well with current urban planning trends that prioritise environmental impact reduction, and meet the Council’s climate change policy goals.

In summary, a high-density, mixed-unit flatted development is not only financially viable but also strategically aligned with emerging local policies, such as draft Policy SHO3. The development’s potential to attract professionals, young couples, and families seeking sustainable and transit-oriented living should make this a valuable addition to the local housing market, contributing positively to the area’s long-term urban growth objectives.
For these reasons, we recommend that the site be allocated for a mixed-use flatted development in the emerging new Local Plan (2041). Based on the Council’s analysis of housing densities, the redevelopment could accommodate approximately 50–80 flats above commercial units on the ground floor. These figures are indicative only. From our experience, it is conceivable that a sensitively designed, high-density, and financially viable scheme could be developed as part of a comprehensive site redevelopment, potentially encouraging and rejuvenating the surrounding area.
It is anticipated that this site could make a significant contribution toward meeting Sandwell’s housing needs while enhancing the character and appearance of the area. As noted, factors such as housing types, sizes, internal layouts, and site conditions will ultimately determine the achievable number of homes. The final development potential will be subject to detailed planning and design considerations.

Conclusions

The land subject of this representation should continue to be allocated for housing development as identified in Appendix B Site Allocation SH63, as this would contribute towards the achievement of these sustainable development objectives as it is previously developed land; has the highest levels of sustainable transport access to residential services; would regenerate an existing housing and employment area and help deliver a cleaner, more energy efficient development; would significantly improve the environment; is located on the Sedgley to Birmingham key route network where the Council is seeking to improve sustainable modes of transport; would deliver much needed new housing, whilst also protecting and enhancing the quality of this area of Dudley Road. It therefore meets the soundness tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF as it is both consistent with national policy and is justified as it is an appropriate strategy.

Delivering as much new development as possible on previously developed land will continue to be a key part of Sandwell’s spatial strategy and we fully support the emerging new Policies SDS 1 and SHO1. Those components of the Development Strategy identified in the draft Local Plan which could help to increase the supply of land for housing in Sandwell, include amongst other things, mixed land uses and increasing housing densities. In this respect, the site represents an opportunity to satisfy both of these aspirations within the emerging Local Plan.

The use of brownfield land is a priority for both local and national government and has been a key part of Sandwell’s development strategy for many years. The site represents available and developable previously developed site in a highly accessible and connected location, identified for sustainable growth over the plan period to 2041.

At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: Economic, Social and Environment. The allocation of this site would deliver substantial social, economic and environmental benefits and therefore represents highly sustainable development. Given the site’s accessibility, excellent connectivity and the number of residential properties in the near vicinity, the site is suitable, available and appropriate for high density flatted development. We therefore consider the identification of Site SH63 for medium density development of 41 dwellings per hectare to not make the most effective use of the site and therefore unsound and inconsistent with the advice in paragraph 129 of the NPPF. The site should therefore be identified for a high density development of over 100+ dwellings per hectare.

On land ownership point of view, our clients control the land the subject of this representation, which is considered suitable, available, achievable and appropriate for high density flatted development. The site would assist meeting an immediate need for providing local housing as well as meeting the district wide need. Given that the site has no statutory restrictive designations, allocating this land would make effective use of previously developed land. It provides for a sustainable approach to the planning of the settlement. The allocation of this site achieves all three sustainable dimensions as mentioned above.

There are no restrictive covenants or other obstructions to development and the development would be able to proceed within 0-5-year framework given the immediate availability of the subject site. The site represents a significant development opportunity to deliver a mixed-use development in a sustainable location that is suitable and available for delivery in the short-medium term. The redevelopment of the site would significantly enhance the character and appearance of the area.

The subject site should be continued as an allocated site for residential led mixed use development in the next stage in the plan-making process.

Sandwell Spatial Portrait – paragraphs 47-50, Challenges and Issues – paragraph 89, and Chapter 1 – Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives

The PCCWM supports the inclusion of detailed crime statistics and the predicted increase in crime with the additional growth proposed but has updated statistics available and therefore request that those paragraphs be amended as set out below to reflect up to date figures. Paragraphs 47 and 48 appear to quote crime statistic figures from a source other than West Midlands Police, and it is respectfully suggested that a consistency of figures, and their
source, should be used to ensure that future comparisons are consistent and accurate.

Since the submission of previous representations on behalf of the PCCWM, and in particular our response to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan dated 26 September 2023 (see Appendix 3) we have been provided with updated figures which reflect the full 2023 calendar year. These are provided at Appendix 4, but for the purposes of the table at Paragraph 49 and the subsequent Paragraph 50, the following amendments should be made in order to update the figures to reflect the most up to date full year statistics:

“49. West Midlands Police (WMP) have also identified an indicative level of crime in Sandwell, taken from the ONS and their own crime figures (offences / incidents /calls) for 2023:

See the attachment for table

50. According to WMP, the proposed numbers of new homes (10,434) would represent an 8% increase in the number of households within Sandwell. If the same percentage increase is 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 is likely to be in the order of 7,000 additional calls for service and 3,000 additional offences.”

Notwithstanding the above, PCCWM objects to the lack of reference to preventing crime and disorder in the draft Local Plan’s Challenges and Issues. These are clearly set out in the Arup ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment Reference: v2.0 dated 2nd November 2023’ (section 4.4.3: Infrastructure Implications of Future Growth - Policing’): -
• 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 West Midlands Police’s (WMP) 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;
• As only 20% of their funding is received from Council Tax precept, WMP have stressed that increases in local population does not directly lead to an increase in funding for the Police Service from Government; and • WMP consider the consequence of no additional funding will lead to existing infrastructure becoming severely stretched and thereby have a severe adverse impact on the quality of the service that could be delivered.

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. With the predicted increase in crime in the Borough as a result of the proposed growth and the implications thereof as set out in the Spatial Portrait and the Part 1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment, it is inconsistent for this not to be referenced in the Challenges and Issues.

The PCCWM objects to bullet 89f) ‘Providing infrastructure to support growth’, which should be more explicit to include emergency services infrastructure particularly as Ambition 5 of Chapter 1 – ‘Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives’ states: –

“Ambition 5
Our communities are built on mutual respect and taking care of each other, supported by all the agencies that ensure we feel safe and protected in our homes and local SLP relevance:
• 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.”

This ambition should be linked to a ‘Challenge and Issue’ as other ‘Ambitions’ are.

In accordance with national planning policy, the theme of community safety and crime prevention should be given greater prominence in the ‘Spatial Portrait’, ‘Challenges and Issues’ and Chapter 1 – Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives of the draft Reg 19 Sandwell Local Plan consultation, 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.

Chapter 3 – Framework Policies

Policy SDS1 ‘Spatial Strategy for Sandwell’

The PCCWM objects to Spatial Strategy (Policy SDS1), which provides the overarching strategy for Sandwell and sets out the broad scale and distribution of new development for the Plan period to 2041, because it fails to clearly specify what is meant by sufficient infrastructure to be delivered to meet identified requirements to ensure that the required levels of development are sustainable and it makes no reference to the requirement for planning proposals to address crime and safety.

The PCCWM works in the community and is a key Council partner and a key stakeholder in the Borough. As the overarching policy, it is of vital importance that Policy SDS1 specifies that development should provide the necessary emergency services infrastructure, and maximise safety, crime prevention and reducing fear of crime.

The PCCWM requests that the policy be amended at 1c) by adding ‘…including police and emergency infrastructure’ and in Part 2 by a new point ‘…ensuring all new development maximises safety, reduces crime and the fear of crime’.

Policy SDS5 ‘Achieving Well-designed Places’

The PCCWM supports Policy SDS5 which states at 9 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.” This policy recognises the importance of safety in terms of environmental,
economic and social benefits - at 3.70 “The importance of high-quality design in creating places where people want to live, work and invest with renewed confidence is a fundamental aspect of both national and local policy. Designing high quality places will result in environmental, economic and social benefits, including inter alia a) community safety…” – but this recognition is missing from the overarching policies and vision, as set out above.

Policy SDS6 ‘Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy’

The PCCWM supports the wording of the policy and justification to Policy SDS6 - Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy, which reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Regulation 18 consultation.

Chapter 4 – Sandwell’s Nature and Historic Environment

Policy SNE6 – Canals

The PCCWM supports the inclusion of subclauses 3e. and 3f, further to earlier representations where the PCCWM requested reference to the need to consider crime, antisocial behaviour, and the fear of crime when considering development proposals on the canal network. The success of the policy will to some extent be dependent upon people being and feeling safe and therefore the additional clauses are supported.

Chapter 6 – Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell

Policy SHW1 – Health Impact Assessments and Policy SHW2 Healthcare Infrastructure

The PCCWM supports Policy SHW1 and its objectives, noting the Council’s acknowledgement (in the preamble to polices on health and wellbeing, e.g. paragraph 6.6) of “Providing an environment that contributes to people’s health and wellbeing is a key objective of the Council and its partners in the health, voluntary and related sectors.” and that the proposed Health Impact Assessments (HIA) should address, where relevant, how the proposed development: a) is inclusive, safe, and attractive, with a strong sense of place, encourages social interaction and provides for all age groups and abilities’ (paragraph 6.14).

However, whilst it is also noted that Policy SHW2 – Healthcare Infrastructure requires an assessment of proposals for major residential developments of ten units or more to be assessed against the capacity of existing healthcare facilities and / or services to support that development, the PCCWM objects to the omission of a similar policy requirement for developer contributions to police and emergency infrastructure which is acknowledged in the draft Local Plan has additional demands placed upon it from residential and other development.

Policy SHW2 (and its justification) could be expanded to include the need for other social infrastructure in such instances, for example

‘Policy SHW2 – Healthcare, wellbeing and safety infrastructure…

3. Proposals for major residential developments of ten units or more must be assessed against the capacity of existing healthcare facilities and other services that contribute to community wellbeing and safety such as police and emergency services infrastructure as set out in local development documents. Where the demand generated by the residents of the new development would have unacceptable impacts upon the capacity of these
facilities, developers will be required to contribute to the provision or improvement of such services, in line with the requirements and calculation methods set out in local development documents…

5. In the first instance, infrastructure contributions will be sought to deal with relevant issues on the site or in its immediate vicinity. Where this is not possible, however, any contribution will be used to support offsite provision of healthcare infrastructure and other services that contribute to community wellbeing and safety.’

Policy SHW4 – Open Space and Recreation

The PCCWM supports this policy which requires development proposals to focus on supporting / delivering the following functions of open space in Sandwell, which includes at 8e. increasing surveillance and enhancing public perceptions of safety.

Chapter 7 – Sandwell’s Housing

Policy SH01 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

The PCCWM objects to this policy. In terms of the Housing Allocations referred to in point 2 (and as set out in Appendix B Sandwell Site Allocations – table of ‘Housing Allocations’), while the PCCWM supports the following housing allocations –

See attachment for table

However, whilst both of these sites are marked for housing development on the Reg 19 Sandwell Local Plan Policies Map, neither are indicated for housing development on the Council’s ‘Interactive Map’. The PCCWM objects to these apparent omissions. Furthermore, the anticipated delivery timescales set out in Appendix B ‘Housing Allocations’ table are considered to be too long. Both sites are currently on the market, and it is envisaged that would be able to be completed within 5 years.

The PCCWM objects to the omission of 2no. sites that were submitted through the Council’s Call for Sites at the same time as those that have been allocated and requests their inclusion in the Housing Allocations, particularly considering the Council’s shortfall in housing land.
These are as follows: -
1) Smethwick Police Station, Piddock Road, Smethwick

This site is identified as Site SH65 in Appendices E and H of the Reg 19 Sustainability Appraisal of the draft Sandwell Local Plan. In Appendix H (as shown below), the site is marked as ‘Selected for Housing’ –

In addition, the site is marked for housing development on the Reg 19 Sandwell Local Plan Policies Map (although not on the Council’s ‘Interactive Map’).
Although this omission would appear to be a minor error, and the PCCWM objects to it. Therefore, the PCCWM requests that this site be shown to be allocated for housing development under Policy SHO1and Appendix B to the Reg 19 draft Sandwell Local Plan.

2) Oldbury Police Station, Oldbury Ringway, Oldbury

This 1,000sqm site was submitted to the Council through the Call for Sites process but is not included in the Reg 19 draft Sandwell Local Plan or the Reg 19 Sustainability Appraisal of the draft Sandwell Local Plan. The PCCWM objects to the omission of consideration of this sustainably located, brownfield site is an error that should be corrected.

The details of the site are set out again below: -

See attachment

In terms of the wording of Policy SHO1, whilst point 4 to the policy states that ‘The development of sites for housing should demonstrate a comprehensive approach, making best use of available land and infrastructure and not prejudicing neighbouring uses’ ; and at point 5 that ‘Ancillary uses appropriate for residential areas, such as health facilities, community facilities and local shops, may be acceptable where there is a gap in service provision and where they can be integrated successfully into the residential environment. Other uses will not be acceptable on these sites.’

However, the Policy SHO1 makes no reference of the requirement that 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.

Accordingly, the PCCWM objects to Policy SHO1 as it should include reference for the need for contributions for all social, environmental and physical infrastructure to support sustainable housing growth in accordance with the aspirations of the policy and the plan. Therefore, new development, including all 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.

Policy SH02 – Windfall Developments

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.

Policy SH07 - Houses in Multiple Occupation

The PCCWM supports the wording of the policy and justification to Policy SHO7, which reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Regulation 18 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 (174) 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 SHO7, 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 SHO7, it is noted that the Council acknowledge (para 7.57) that: ‘Whilst this type of accommodation [HMO] can address certain housing needs, HMOs tend to be grouped together in parts of the urban area, becoming the dominant type of housing, which can lead to social and environmental problems for local communities. Alongside this, an over-concentration of HMO properties can lead to a loss of family-sized units. This in turn can lead to a consequential increase in the overall number of units unsuited to family occupation. This can pose a serious issue for
maintaining a mixed sustainable housing offer across the Black Country.’ In light of these concerns, the PCCWM recommends a Borough wide Article 4 Direction be 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 elsewhere, including in neighbouring Birmingham.

An Article 4 Direction regarding permitted development for HMOs, alongside the proposed policies of the Reg 19 draft Sandwell Local Plan would 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 SH09 - Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Show people

The PCCWM supports the wording of the policy and justification to Policy SHO9, which reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Reg 18 consultation

Chapter 9 – Sandwell’s Centres

Policy SCE1 - Sandwell Centres

The PCCWM supports the wording in Policy SCE1 ‘Sandwell’s Centres’ at 6(d), as this reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Reg 18 consultation. ‘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 supports the wording in Policy SCE2 as this reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Reg 18 consultation, specifically the addition to the policy of clause 5: ‘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

The PCCWM supports the inclusion of the following wording in each of these policies – namely ‘In determining planning applications for new development or changes of use in local centres, 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.’

Comments on Chapter 10 – West Bromwich

Policy SWB2 - Development in West Bromwich

The PCCWM supports the proposed changes to this policy as it does now cross references other relevant policies of note, including those relating to town centres, e.g. Policy SCE1 ‘Sandwell Centres’, and point 4 references the amended Policy SDS5 ‘Achieving Welldesigned Places’

Comments on Chapter 15 – Development Management

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

The PCCWM supports the wording in Policy SDM1 as it reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Reg 18 consultation and now includes the requirement that the need for new 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, in terms of crime and safety., and at 2d. that “Development proposals must demonstrate that the following guidance has been considered and where appropriate used to inform design and access statements that reflect their Sandwell-specific context:… d. compliance with crime prevention measures, such as Secured by Design and / or Park Mark principles;”

Policy SDM6 – Hot Food Takeaways and SDM7 - Management of Hot Food Takeaways

The PCCWM acknowledges the wording in Policy SDM6 – Hot Food Takeaways. However, whilst associated Policy SDM7 ‘Management of Hot Food Takeaways’ has been amended as requested in the PCCWM’s Regulation 18 consultation response (new clause 9) However, the PCCWM remains of the view 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. Accordingly, the PCCWM objects on the basis that Policies SDM6 and SDM7 should be amalgamated since it is considered that 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 SDM8 - Gambling Activities and Alternative Financial Services

The PCCWM supports Policy SDM8 Gambling Activities and Alternative Financial Services and particularly Point 6 referring to community safety, crime and disorder etc.

Policy SDM9 – Community Facilities

The PCCWM supports the wording in Policy SDM9 ‘Community Facilities’ as new point 7 of the policy reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Reg 18 consultation and footnote 281 correctly refers to the definition of community facilities in the NPPF (December 2023) paragraph 97a.

Comments on Chapter 12 - Infrastructure and Delivery

The PCCWM objects to Chapter 12 of the draft Reg 19 Sandwell Local Plan, and specifically Policy SID1 – Infrastructure Provision and Viability Assessments.

This chapter sets out the infrastructure the Council consider is needed to ensure the effective delivery of the proposed scale of the development envisaged. Paragraph 12.1 acknowledges that ‘Ensuring effective delivery of this amount of development [10,434 new houses and 1,221ha of employment land up to 2041] will require strong collaborative working with public, private and third sector partners, involving a robust process of
infrastructure planning and delivery’. However, as with the Reg 18 draft Local Plan, the policies in the Reg 19 draft Local Plan do not reflect police and emergency services provision as infrastructure investment required to support that development.

On behalf of the PCCWM, repeated submissions have been made, setting out in full, the evidenced case for new development to contribute to police infrastructure, in our written submissions to:
• Issues and Options Consultation – letter dated 17 March 2023.
• Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – letter dated 26 September 2023.
• Preferred Options Consultation – letter dated 15 December 2023.

It is especially disappointing that having been invited to engage fully with ARUP, who assisted the Council in preparing Part 1 of the IDP, which included a meeting with ARUP on 1 September 2023, we were not invited to engage further and not afforded the opportunity to represent the PCCWM in the preparation of Part 2 of the IDP (i.e. the Infrastructure Schedule), within which the only commentary made regarding West Midlands Police reads:
“The response from West Midlands Police to the Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation reiterated many of the sentiments expressed during engagement from Part 1 of the IDP – highlighting an apparent need for more policing resources and suggesting a formula for calculating developer contributions. However, no specific physical infrastructure has been specified.”

This approach is wholly unsatisfactory and simply ignores the fully evidenced justification provided. Put simply, new development will place a greater strain on the Police and therefore the suggested mitigation is entirely justified.

It is accepted and clear that growth 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 and confirms 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’.

The inclusion of the police and emergency services provision as infrastructure required to support development 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, December 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 and 26 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 96, 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 135 (f) of the NPPF calls for the creation of safe places where, inter alia, 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 in areas including health, education and community safety – such as NHS staff, teachers, police, firefighters and military personnel, social care and childcare workers.

It is also especially noteworthy that Part 10A Infrastructure Levy: England of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) confirms at Section 204N (3) relating to Infrastructure Levy regulations that ‘infrastructure’ includes ‘(h) facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services. Whilst the LURA appears unlikely to advance in the same manner as was envisaged by the previous Government, there is a clear recognition that infrastructure
for the emergency services, which would obviously include Police, should be recognised. It is also particularly noteworthy that given the comments made by ARUP at Part 2 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (as referred to above), such infrastructure would include both facilities AND equipment.

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…’

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 20/22 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.

The accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plan (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 (Appendix 3), as reported in the Sandwell Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part

1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment, November 2023. These funding requirements have since been updated to reflect the latest full year (2023) statistics (Appendix 4). It should be noted that these latest figures supersede all previous versions, including the aforementioned indicative contribution provided during the Black Country Plan Consultation.

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 the Regulation 19 draft Sandwell 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.

Comments on the Glossary

The PCCWM supports the inclusion of a definition of Secured by Design and Park Mark in the Glossary.

The PCCWM would be grateful if you could reflect on the objections set out in these representations prior to submission of the local plan. Without their inclusion the PCCWM considers the plan would not be sound nor fully reflect national planning policy.

It is noted that Sandwell Council needs to identify land for 26,350 homes by 2041. However, the supply of suitable residential land identified by Sandwell Council stands at 10,434 homes, leaving an unmet need for 15,916 homes in the Plan period. The draft plan recognises that there is a finite supply of land readily available for development and it is very likely that it would not currently be possible to meet the full extent of Sandwell’s housing need within Sandwell itself.
The Edwin Richards Quarry site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver a significant amount of housing development on a brownfield site in Sandwell, within the Plan period and into the subsequent plan period. The western section of the site already benefits from planning permission for 278 dwellings (reserved matters planning permission ref. DC/23/67924).
Since its closure as a quarry in 2008, the Edwin Richards Quarry site has operated as the only non-hazardous landfill site in Sandwell. It now only accepts non-putrescible materials such as soil, excavation and demolition waste. While this is an important waste facility for the area, it is a finite resource. When the infilling of the quarry is completed the remainder of the site will be brought forward to create a sustainably located community, complementing the residential development that will have been delivered in the western section of the site.

These representations are submitted by Wain Estates in response to the Sandwell Local Plan (SLP) Publication Version (Regulation 19) consultation, running between 23rd September and 11th November 2024.

Wain Estates has an extensive track record of promoting land in close partnership with stakeholders and local planning authorities, with over 2,000 acres of land currently being promoted.

Wain Estates have been actively promoting land to the north of Wilderness Lane, Great Barr for a sustainable residential development with associated infrastructure. The site has previously been referred to as “land at Birmingham Road” in previous representations, it also fell under site ref: SA-003-SAN in the Black Country Plan (BCP). Wain Estates are the single landowner for the entire site.

It is a statutory requirement that every development plan document must be submitted for independent examination to assess when it is “sound”, as well as whether other statutory requirements have been satisfied (s.20(5) of the 2004 Act). By s.19 of the 2004 Act, in preparing a development plan document a local planning authority must have regard to a number of matters including national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Such guidance currently exists in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework [the NPPF].

There is no statutory definition of “soundness”. However, the NPPF (§35) states that to be sound a Local Plan should be:

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

In addition, the Framework (§11) states that:

Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

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 areas6, 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 area7; or

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.

This report demonstrates that a number of policies within the Local Plan require amendments in the context of the tests of soundness established by the Framework. Wain Estates has serious concerns with this version of the Sandwell Local Plan, and that to be sound, the issues can be addressed through amendments to the policies, interventions and the introduction of additional sustainable allocations in the Green Belt to ensure the housing requirements are met and the Green Belt boundaries endure beyond the Plan period.

In this context, it is important to note that the Minster of State, Matthew Pennycook MP recently wrote to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate1 to outline that the examination process is not the right place for ‘deficient plans’ to be ‘fixed’ at examination. The hardline taken by Pennycook has been reflected by Inspectors imposing deadlines for Local Authorities to provide additional evidence and some plans being withdrawn such as Solihull Local Plan Review withdrawn on 9th October 2024. In the absence of the fundamental reconsideration of the SLP Wain Estates consider that submitted in its current form the Plan would have to be withdrawn or for the Planning Inspectorate to recommend that the Plan is not adopted. This would result in a substantial amount of abortive work, wasted resource and significant delays to the Plan.
Structure

These representations are structured as follows:

• Background to Land at Wilderness Lane, Great Barr
• Consideration of the relevant Local Plan matters and policies

Representations to the following Local Plan matters and policies are provided in this report:

1. Policy SDS1 – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell
2. Policy SHO1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
3. Policy SDS7 – Sandwell’s Green Belt
4. Policy SHO3 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
Appendices are also enclosed with these representations, for completeness and ease of reference.

Land at Wilderness Lane, Great Barr

Historic Site Promotion

Wain Estates (then named HIMOR) first made representations promoting the site to the BCP to the scope, issues, and options consultation (including a call for sites submission) in September 2017.

Since then, we have made a further call for sites submission for the BCP in September 2020, which included a new Vision Document prepared by FPCR. The submission listed the site as 27ha in size and capable of accommodating 300-355 new homes and new open space. The site was not considered by the Council to be suitable for release from the Green Belt at this time and was not included as an allocation in the draft version of the Black Country Plan.

Further representations were submitted to the BCP Regulation 18 consultations in October 2021 and September 2022. The proposed development quantum has been substantially reduced since this time, work on the preparation of the Black Country Plan has also since ceased in Autumn 2022 and the Black Country authorities are now preparing individual development plans.

Representations were prepared to the Sandwell Local Plan Regulation 18 Issues and Options and further call for sites consultation in March 2023. Further representations were submitted to the Regulation 18 Preferred Options Consultation in December 2023 which are enclosed at Appendix 1.

Site Context

The site comprises 27ha of low-grade agricultural land to the north and west of Great Barr. The site is made up of field compartments which are generally irregular in shape and comprise outgrown hedges with some hedgerow trees. There is no woodland on site.

Land north of the site comprises Aston University sports facilities and some areas of scrub and woodland accessed from the A34. There are also a range of buildings and built sports facilities, and the area has a very managed character.

Land east and south of the site comprises residential development, with mainly semi-detached and short terraced properties, mostly with sizable gardens. Properties on Peak House Road back onto the site and properties on the southern side of Wilderness Lane, front onto the site.
The Q3 Academy, with a range of academic buildings and sports facilities/ external space lies immediately to the south.

There are no Public Rights of Way (PROW) within the site, although an existing footpath runs past the southern boundary near the Q3 Academy school, and the Beacon Way Long Distance Footpath, runs along the western boundary, within a constrained and unattractive corridor.

In the immediate area is St. Margaret’s C of E Primary School, a petrol filling station, two hotels, a restaurant, the Q3 Academy, and a community hall. There are two bus stops directly adjacent to the site, on Birmingham Road. These stops are served by high frequency bus services, including the 51 route (Walsall to Birmingham via Great Barr and Aston) which has a high frequency of every 10 minutes in the morning and daytime Monday to Friday, and Saturday and Sunday daytime, and a frequency of every 20 minutes on evenings and Saturday morning.

The Site generally descends from approximately 165m in the north east corner, to 130m in the west. A localised valley runs from the south west to north east within the site.

Designations

The site does not include any designated heritage assets or any part of such assets. However, there are a number (including several listed buildings) within the site’s wider surroundings. The site also includes several features identified in the local archaeological database, holding the potential to meet the definition of “non-designated” heritage assets, as detailed in the Planning Practice Guidance(PPG).

The site is not covered by any designation relating to its landscape character or quality, such as AONB.

The site lies fully within Flood zone 1 (lowest level of risk).

The site lies fully within the West Midlands Green Belt.

An area within the western part of the site falls within a Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA).

The site does not fall within the designation of any site of international nature conservation importance or site within the national site network.
The site does appear to fall within the Peak House Farm Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), this represents an ‘upgrade and extension’ of the previous partial Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) designation endorsed by Sandwell’s Cabinet on 7 August 2019. This local designation was historically made based on the hedgerow network but through the previous Local Plan process, the scope was expanded to cover the grassland and increasing the designation from a SLINC to a SINC.

As the development plan remains to identify the site as only partially being covered by the SLINC designation, there is some uncertainty as to the status of the SINC designation, although the emerging Sandwell Local Plan does indicate the site will be wholly designated as a SINC. It is assumed the SINC designation is being implemented across the entire site.

None of the above designations are considered to preclude the development of the site, especially with the inclusion of mitigation measures where required.

The site was subject to an outline planning application and subsequent planning appeal for residential development with associated open space in the form of a countryside park. Wain Estates fundamentally disagrees with the overall conclusions reached by the Inspector in dismissing the appeal and the site is considered to be suitable for development for the reasons set out in our appeal submissions. However, we note the following from the Inspector’s decision and based on the responses of the Council’s representatives under cross-examination.

• The Council is only able to demonstrate a 1.4 year supply of deliverable housing sites currently. This is a significant shortfall and reflects persistent underdelivery over an extended period. It also has yet to be successfully addressed by actions identified by the Council. It is therefore a pressing matter which the Council will need to address within its emerging Plan.
• There is a current shortage of identified sites outside the Green Belt.
• Whether or not some release of Green Belt land may be justified to accommodate future growth remains a matter for the emerging Plan.
• Based on the most recent evidence at the time (the SHMA 2021), 6,517 affordable dwellings are required within the Borough during the period 2020-2039 (343 dwellings per annum). The level of need has increased over time and is reflected in a high number of entries on the Council’s register. Delivery has again generally been below target, with the stock of affordable housing also suffering continued erosion as a result of right to buy.
• Occupants of development on the site would have good access to services and facilities.
• The Council agreed that impact on the SINC was capable of resolution through improvements in biodiversity.
• The Council agreed that the site could be enhanced by the proposed development to an extent where it could become recognised as a valued landscape.
Wain Estates therefore consider that the site is suitable for allocation for residential development and for the reasons set out in these representations it is considered that exceptional circumstances exist for the release of Green Belt land through the SLP.

Policy SDS1 – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell

Introduction

Policy SDS1 provides the overarching strategy for Sandwell, setting out the broad scale and distribution of new development for the Plan period 2024 to 2041. The policy proposes to deliver at least 10,434 net new homes and create sustainable mixed communities including a range and choice of new homes supported by adequate infrastructure and maintain the ongoing provision of around 1,221ha of allocated employment land (of which 28ha is currently vacant).

Housing Requirement

Wain Estates has serous concerns with the proposed housing deliver in the SLP. Policy SDS1 fails significantly to meet the basic housing needs of Sandwell, as established via their own objectively assessed needs (OAN). Whilst the SLP aims to allocate sites for 10,434 new homes in Sandwell over the period 2024-41, this compares to an identified local housing need of 26,350 homes; and the SLP itself (§3.13) recognises that there is a shortfall of 15,916 homes.

As a percentage, the proposed supply in the draft plan represents just 40% (rounded) of the borough’s total housing needs. This is unacceptable, in both the immediate context and historic undersupply, but also when looking at the wider national level and Government objectives enshrined within the NPPF, particularly §60 which requires the supply of homes to be “significantly boosted” and importantly that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to ensure the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed. Due to this, difficult decisions need to be made with regards to the proposed spatial strategy, including consideration of Green Belt land release, without which is artificially restricting the development potential within Sandwell.

In this regard, we note the new Labour Government’s intentions to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years and provide greater flexibility for the release of Green Belt to help achieve this aim. The SLP may benefit from the transitional arrangements proposed in the new NPPF. However, given that the proposed housing requirement is more than 200 dwellings lower than the relevant published Local Housing Need figure, the Council will likely need to commence a review of the plan at the earliest opportunity to align with the new national policy. Similarly, if is found to be unsound, any new Plan proposed would also need to be considered under the new NPPF.

The starting point of a new Local Plan cannot be the continued chronic under-provision of housing, such that the existing delivery issues will be further exacerbated. As evidenced by the latest Housing Delivery Test Result (2022 measurement) – being just 47%, one of the lowest in the county and automatically evoking the “presumption in favour” and “titled planning balance” when it comes to determining applications.
This coupled with the latest Five-Year Housing Land Supply Figures released in May 2024, which have only worsened since the previous year, dropping from 1.57 years to 1.4 years supply, provides clear evidence that the current spatial strategy is not fit for purpose. This historic underperformance in meeting housing needs, also needs to be viewed within the context of the NPPF’s emphasis on needing to boost the supply of housing, and the clear upward direction of travel of national policy in this respect.

To help address this shortfall, emerging Policy SH03 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility seeks to provide substantial uplifts to minimum density requirements to maximise the most efficient use of land. This has resulted in a range from 40dph, to 45dph to 100dph in West Bromwich. These densities are much higher than the typical 25-30dph figures. The policy notes that further detailed design requirements will come forward in relation to these densities as part of future Sandwell Design Codes. However, with the growing pressures on development to provide more than just housing, such as the 10% BNG (with onsite provision as a preference), accessibility requirements such as the provision of part M4(2) dwellings for all developments (emerging Policy SH05), the need for sites of 2ha or larger to provide new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.26 hectares of space per 1,000 population on site (emerging Policy SHW4) all place additional demand for space on site, which may mean that the high minimum density standards cannot be met, resulting in an even lower number of housing units being capable of being provided within Sandwell.

To further help to address the shortfall, Sandwell are proposing to utilise the Duty-to-Cooperate (DtC) with neighbouring authorities within the same Housing Market Area, or with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. This is despite the fact that Birmingham City Council has already said that it does not have enough space to meet its own housing need.

Table 1 of the SLP sets out potential DtC contributions to date. The table is also replicated in Sandwell’s September 2024 Duty to Co-operate Statement. The table shows that whilst there are some ‘offers’ from neighbouring LPAs to meet wider-than-local housing needs, there is no confirmed apportionment of Sandwell’s housing need to other local authority areas. The September 2024 Duty to Co-operate Statement also notes (§32) that some of this contribution would need to be attributed to meeting the needs of Birmingham, due to their physical and functional relationship, and given the known gap between need and supply.

Sandwell note in the SLP (§3.17) that this approach may only address a small proportion of the identified housing shortfall and therefore if this position remains then further work will be undertaken as appropriate to identify how this shortfall can be addressed. This position is reflected in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal (SA) §5.3.9 which concludes that,

“On balance, Option E is identified as the best performing option, assuming that a large proportion of growth under this option would be on previously developed land and within the existing centres, with the benefits in terms of regeneration meaning this option slightly out-performs Option D, although neither option would deliver sufficient housing to satisfy the identified need.”

As part of a wider consortium, Wain Estates instructed the “Falling Even Shorter: an updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area” report (copy enclosed at Appendix 1). This report finds that the wider HMA has a shortfall of between 34,742 and 40,676 homes up to 2031, 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040 based on each Council’s supply evidence at that time. This shortfall will only be exacerbated by Sandwell’s approach, with other HMA authorities likely to be able to make a very limited contribution to Sandwell’s shortfall.

It therefore is clear that the additional work identified in the SA will be required to meet the housing shortfall, the historic approach to the spatial strategy is being undertaken as part of the emerging local plan, a strategy which was in place for the currently adopted Local Plan, which has resulted in the chronic under delivery of both market and affordable housing.

Wain Estates are of the view that the scale of Sandwell’s own shortfall alone, beyond considering the unmet needs of the wider HMA, amount to exceptional circumstances for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. This additional work should therefore begin now, prior to the submission of the SLP for examination and a fresh approach to assessing the capacity for housing within the borough should be undertaken, which includes an assessment of Green Belt sites for potential release.

The site on land north of Wilderness Lane is a clear example of the availability of such sites, which are not technically constrained, are in an accessible location, provide the ability to offer enhanced access to the open countryside for recreation purposes and also provide housing in the least sensitive areas of the Green Belt (whilst retaining the majority of it), adjacent to existing built form.
A further review of the Green Belt is therefore necessary in order to assess how the boundaries should be amended to maximise the potential for the most sustainable sites.

The evidence provided in Appendix 1 of these representations demonstrates that the release of land north of Wilderness Lane would result in minimal harm to the Green Belt when judged in isolation and with regard to the development options identified.

Tests of Soundness

Wain Estates consider that Policy SDS1 fails to meet the tests of soundness because:

1. It is not positively prepared – The NPPF requires local plans to provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development. The Council by their own admission have submitted a strategy which falls substantially short of providing a strategy which meets their OAN, which should be seen as a minimum requirement within the extract above. Even in meeting the substantially short figures there is a reliance on maximising out housing densities, in an era where development pressures to deliver supporting features beyond just housing – BNG, sustainability measures etc often restrict this capability.

The duty-to-cooperate is also proposed to be utilised to account for this unmet need, but there is no clear strategy or commitment from neighbouring authorities that this would be achievable in part or as a whole. This is therefore not a sustainable approach to development and will inevitably result in the very purpose of the SLP – being to promote growth in planned manner, falling away, likely resulting in mass speculative development, in order for housing needs to be met.

2. It is not justified – It is not an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, including the release of Green Belt land to help meet housing need.

3. It is not consistent with national policy – it will fail to create a sufficient range and choice of new homes to enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF.

Recommended Change

Wain Estates are of the view that there are exceptional circumstances for reviewing Sandwell’s Green Belt boundaries. A further review of the Green Belt is therefore necessary in order to assess how the boundaries should be amended to maximise the potential for the most sustainable sites. An example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site.

This additional work should begin now, prior to the submission of the SLP for examination to avoid an inevitable recommendation from the examining Inspector’s to withdraw the Plan in line with Matthew Pennycook’s direction.

Policy SHO1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Introduction

Policy SHO1 states that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 10,434 net new homes over the period 2024 – 2041. The key sources of housing land supply are summarised in Table 5, of the SLP which also provides an indicative number of homes to be delivered in the following timeframes: 2024 – 2029, 2029 – 2034, 2034 – 2039 and 2039 – 2041. Housing allocations are set out in Appendix B of the SLP.

Housing Delivery

Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and the elements which make up the proposed housing supply of 10,434 new homes, Wain Estates have significant concerns regarding the sources which make up this already insufficient number of homes.

Within Table 5 of the above emerging policy, the first source of the housing land supply is made up of sites currently under construction (889 homes), with planning permission or prior approval (884 homes) and sites with other commitments (41 homes). Therefore, 1,814 homes included within the figures, are made up of the current supply.

The second source is made up of housing allocations, comprising occupied employment land (2,243 homes), other non-occupied employment land (2,304 homes), sites with planning permission (1,620 homes) and sites under construction (76 homes). Therefore, 1,696 homes included within the housing allocations are made up of current / existing supply (calculated by adding together sites with existing planning permission and sites under construction).

Of the remaining allocations, despite the occupied employment land (2,243 homes) having a 15% discount figure applied, in recognition of the fact that there can be multiple delivery constraints, this in itself does not mean that there is capability of the full 2,243 homes to be delivered given that these sites are in active use for employment.

It has also been demonstrated through the previous Black Country Plan that such approaches are not effective for delivering housing. As part of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) a total of 16,182 homes were allocated on occupied employment land. According to §2.1.29 of the Black Country Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

Furthermore, as recognised in our previous representations, not only is the delivery of housing on such sites questionable, but it also reduces the ability for the Council to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, of which the Council recognise there are also not enough being provided for as part of the emerging SLP. Paragraph 8.14 of the SLP notes that 170ha of the employment land need arising in Sandwell cannot be met solely within the Borough, and that the unmet need is to be exported to neighbouring authorities, as part of ongoing duty-to-cooperate work, which is yet to be secured.

It is good practice to ensure that any elements of housing supply included in a council’s figures, are suitable, available, and achievable of being viably developed. Wain Estates are of the view that there has not been enough evidence provided for the proposed allocations on occupied employment land, as a robust element of the housing supply.

Taking the above into account, only 2,304 homes (see Table 5 Housing Land Supply Sources within emerging Policy SH01) are allocated which are not made up of existing commitments or situated on occupied employment land, this is a very minor figure when compared to both the proposed delivery of 10,434 net new homes over the plan period and even more so when compared to the actual housing need of 26,350 new homes.
Looking into more detail at some of the proposed allocations, as recognised by the Council when looking at Appendix B of the SLP, they are also not without their constraints and limitations, further demonstrating that the indicative capacity could be further reduced, resulting in an even lower number of housing allocations. For example:

• SH2 (SA 12) Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury is proposed for 62 homes, but it has access issues which need to be overcome in order to be deliverable, questioning the suitability of this allocation.
• SH26 (66) Lower City Road, Oldbury is proposed for 73 homes but has constraints including land remediation and site assembly issues, there also only appears to be interest from some land owners looking to bring the site forward, so also potential ownership issues to overcome, questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SH25 (SA 65) Bradleys Lane / High Street, Tipton proposed for 189 homes however, this site also has site assembly and land contamination issues to be overcome, it also requires the current owners to find a place to relocate their business before development can come forwards, again questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SM2 SA199 Lion Farm Oldbury, is proposed for a mix of uses, including the provision of 200 homes. However, it relies on relocation of 6 sports pitches to the south of borough, which is arguably not a minor feat. This brings into question the availability and achievability of the land to support an allocation.
• SM1 SA 91 Chances Glass Works, is proposed for a mix of uses including 276 homes, this is a heritage led regeneration project given its recognised constraints which are a Grade II listed building, Scheduled Ancient Monument and Galton Valley Conservation Area, the complexity of such a project brings into question the timescales and the potential delivery of the proposed housing numbers, given the statutory protections given to these heritage constraints, again questioning the suitability and achievability of this site to support an allocation.

The third part of the housing supply is made up of windfall units, a total of 2,100 are being proposed. However, the delivery of this level of homes is questioned when the restrictive nature of windfall provision within the SLP is assessed. Often and as recognised within the NPPF, the provision of windfall units can help contribute to meeting anticipated housing supply needs, where this aligns with compelling evidence, they can provide a reliable source of supply (§72).

Wain Estates consider that the delivery of such windfall units will be highly restricted given the limitations placed within emerging Policy SH02 – Windfall Developments. The policy allows for windfall development on previously developed land without exception, but for greenfield sites, windfall development is only allowed subject to certain conditions. These conditions are:

• That the site is not protected as community open space or
• The site is council owned land surplus to requirements or

• The development of the site will bring an under-used piece of land back into beneficial use and will not harm the environmental, ecological, or historic value of the site and the wider area, in accordance with other relevant policies in the SLP

The justification text to the policy notes that windfall sites are likely to include surplus public land, small non-conforming employment uses and some residential intensification sites where appropriate. However, greenfield sites are only permitted where they conform with the bulleted list above. Such restrictions are overly onerous and severely limit the capability for windfall sites on greenfield land to come forwards. This is also not in conformity with the definition of windfall development contained within the NPPF (Annex 2 – Glossary), which simply states that windfall sites are sites not specifically identified in the development plan. Again, placing unnecessary restrictions on the delivery of housing, for a number that is already significantly below the required capacity.

The fourth part of the housing supply is made up of additional floorspace in centres (172 homes). This element makes up a very small part of the overall proposed supply figures. It demonstrates the limitations that emerge from seeking to maximise land on brownfield sites, and the misconception that such spaces are often not being utilised to the best of their ability.

Overall, the elements which make up the already under-delivering housing land supply as part of the emerging SLP are seen to be questionable.
• Firstly, there is a large reliance on existing commitments, as sites with planning permission or already under construction are included to make up the housing numbers.

• Secondly, the level of allocations which are included on occupied employment sites is high and such sites are known to be slow at delivering and riddled with issues which slow down or prevent the development for more vulnerable residential uses, in addition to the fact they will result in a loss of employment floorspace, for which there is a recognised need within the borough.
• Thirdly, the proposed allocations themselves are not without issues to overcome – such as access, site assembly, land ownership and remediation – which are not insubstantial.
• Finally, the overly restrictive nature of the windfall housing policy means there is a severe limit as to where such sites can come forward and on what type of land, despite the NPPF not stipulating such limitations exist.

In light of the above, Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances exist in terms of both the scale of unmet need and the likely under delivery of the proposed supply. It is therefore essential that Sandwell reviews its Green Belt boundaries, to ensure it meets its housing needs in the least sensitive locations. As noted above, in the absence of the fundamental reconsideration of the SLP we consider that submitted in its current form the Plan would have to be withdrawn or for the Planning Inspectorate to recommend that the Plan is not adopted. This would result in a substantial amount of abortive work, wasted resource and significant delays to the Plan.

It is well evidenced that greenfield land will deliver much quicker than brownfield land, where issues of land assembly and remediation severely delay the delivery of housing. It should also be acknowledged that removing land from the Green Belt can also be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and the accessibility of remaining

Green Belt land as well as providing improvements to Green Infrastructure (GI) provision. Overall, the Council must “turn on all taps of supply” if it is to meet its housing needs.

As emphasised throughout this representation, an example of this is the land North of Wilderness Lane site.

Turning to affordable housing, the Sandwell Housing Market Assessment Update (August 2024) indicates that the total annual affordable housing need in Sandwell now stands at 365 dwellings per annum (dpa) over the plan period. This is a key issue in terms of the housing supply within the borough, whereby a chronic shortfall has been identified and has historically only worsened. The 25% requirement figure contained within emerging Policy SH04 represents a 5% increase on the existing requirement, which has not been delivering to the levels expected. This demonstrates that the Council must increase its overall supply, in order to increase the supply of affordable housing.

On brownfield sites where additional remediation costs are to be factored into viability considerations, meeting increased and even the basic affordable housing requirements is challenging, demonstrating why Green Belt release of greenfield sites would further assist in meeting the chronic shortfall in both market and specifically affordable housing needs within Sandwell.

The explanatory text for the policy (§7.25) also notes the aspiration of providing affordable housing through a range of schemes delivering up to 100% funding through grant and other financial sources. However, as reflected in the wording of the policy, this is just that – aspirational. It is likely to be particularly difficult given the already stretched nature of government funding and the lengthy process of applying for such funding.

Wain Estates suggest that further evidence of the delivery of such schemes coming forward or having funding secured needs to be included within the evidence base to support this policy, in order to make it more robust and increase the chances of such developments coming forward.

Exceptional Circumstances for Green Belt Release

The purpose of plan-making is to be positively prepared and set out a long term vision for the area, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable (§16 of the NPPF). A plan that only provides for around 40% of its housing requirement, using the standard method baseline, cannot possibly meet these purposes or deliver the minimum requirement for housing. This is simply not acceptable and does not represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
Wain Estates consider that the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing crisis, is an important factor that constitutes the exceptional circumstances that justify Green Belt release. As this is a housing focused representation, employment needs are not explored in detail, however it is clear from reviewing the proposed plan that it proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This will only be exacerbated by the anticipated loss of current employment sites for housing, as identified within emerging Policy SH01 and the 2,243 homes proposed to come forward as allocations on occupied employment land. The adverse consequences of not meeting the basic housing or employment needs, demonstrate the exceptional circumstances which are required to justify Green Belt release.

The approach to Green Belt boundary reviews is set out in the NPPF at paragraphs 145 and 146. Paragraph 146 states that the policy making authority need to “examine fully all other

reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” before concluding if exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. It then goes on to state account needs to be taken for whether the strategy:

“(a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised
land;
(b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
(c)has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”

As discussed previously, all three of these elements have been included within the proposed spatial strategy, however, are not without their own constraints and when combined, still fall woefully short of meeting the minimum requirements of the identified OAN for Sandwell. This alone demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist for Sandwell to review its Green Belt boundaries. The release of land within the Green Belt needs to be further explored, to allow for plan-led development in the future, particularly when also coupled with the inability to also meet required employment land needs. For this reason, Wain Estates suggest a further review of the Green Belt is undertaken, to identify the most sustainably located sites, in line with §146 of the NPPF.

A clear example of such a site is land North of Wilderness Lane, Great Barr. As noted above, the evidence provided in Appendix 1 of these representations demonstrates that the release of land north of Wilderness Lane would result in minimal harm to the Green Belt when judged in isolation and with regard to the development options identified.

Tests of Soundness

Wain Estates consider that Policy SHO1 fails to meet the tests of soundness because:

1. It is not positively prepared – Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should be positively prepared and set out a long term vision for the area, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable. The SLP only provides for around 40% of its housing requirement, using the standard method baseline, and cannot possibly meet these purposes or deliver the minimum requirement for housing. This is simply not acceptable and does not represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
2. It is not justified – The proposed approach in the SLP is not an appropriate strategy, the Council needs to consider the release of Green Belt land to help accommodate the massive shortfall in the provision of new homes when assessed against the LHN.
3. It is not effective – The proposed approach in the SLP relies on the development of land on which delivery is hugely uncertain, including occupied employment sites, sites with unresolved technical, site assembly, land ownership and remediation issues, and an overly restrictive windfall policy which will impact the delivery of windfall sites.
4. It is not consistent with national policy – The NPPF (§145) states that authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. For the reasons set out above, exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release are considered to exist in Sandwell.

Recommended Change

To address the conflict above and ensure the Local Plan is sound, it is requested that the Council:
1. A further review of the Green Belt should be undertaken, to identify the most sustainably located sites, in line with §147 of the NPPF.
2. Following this review, Green Belt land should be released and allocated for residential development.
3. Land North of Wilderness Lane should be allocated for new homes on this basis.

Policy SDS7 – Sandwell’s Green Belt

Introduction

Policy SDS7 provides guidance for the approach to Sandwell’s Green Belt, which will be applied to any development proposed in the Green Belt once the plan is adopted.

Consideration of Policy

Criterion 2 of the policy notes that:

“Sandwell green belt’s nature conservation, landscape, heritage and agricultural value will be protected and enhanced.”

Wain Estates have concerns with the wording of Criterion 2, as it implies that the Green Belt is a designation of both environmental and heritage value, this is not the case, it is a spatial designation for which there can also be both environmental and heritage features and designations within it.

This type of wording adds confusion to the purposes of the Green Belt and the value placed upon its protection. This is recognised in the supporting text to the policy at §3.98 which states that:

“While green belt is not itself a reflection of landscape quality or value, large parts of the local green belt are also identified as being of significant historic, environmental and landscape importance”.

Wain Estates suggest that the policy wording is amended to make clearer the difference between the spatial designation and the purposes of the Green Belt and the distinction between this and environmental and heritage designations.

Criterion 3 of the policy states that:

Opportunities will be taken to improve the value and recreational role of the green belt in Sandwell Valley:

a. through improving safe accessibility for all users;
b. by providing facilities for active and passive recreation (if this preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it);
c. by protecting tranquil areas and locations with ecological and historic value.

It must be recognised that in order to improve the value and recreational role of the Green Belt in Sandwell, development will likely need to occur. Land within private ownership is not accessible to the public for these purposes, enhancing access will only come as a compensatory improvement as part of future development proposals through planning applications.

Providing such improvements would form part of a two-way process of negotiation as part of future planning applications, with the provision of housing potentially acting as an enabler, to allow the council to meet the enhanced recreational role of the Green Belt. This also supports Sandwell’s wider vision, which seeks to increase accessible open spaces, such spaces need to come from somewhere, the Green Belt is a key facilitator for this, however it will not come forward of its own accord.

Tests of Soundness

Wain Estates consider that Policy SHO1 fails to meet the tests of soundness because:

1. It is not consistent with national policy – Criterion 2 of the policy creates confusion on the purposes of the Green Belt and the value placed upon its protection. The NPPF (§142) is clear that Green Belt is a spatial designation and not a reflection of landscape and historic quality or value.
Criterion 3 does not currently recognise §147 of the NPPF which advises that compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land ban be secured to offset the impact of removing land from the Green Belt.

Recommended Change

To address the conflicts above and ensure the Local Plan is sound, it is requested that the Council:

1. Modify the policy to clarify that Green Belt is a spatial designation and not a reflection of landscape and historic quality or value.
2. Amend Criterion 3 to recognise that opportunities to improve the value and recreational role of the Green Belt can be achieved through compensatory improvements, in accordance with the NPPF (§147)

Policy SHO3 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

Introduction

Policy SHO3 states that all developments of ten homes or more should achieve the minimum net densities identified in Criterion 3.

Consideration of Policy

Criterion 3 of the policy seeks to provide substantial uplifts to minimum density requirements to maximise the most efficient use of land. This has resulted in a range from 40dph, to 45dph to 100dph in West Bromwich. These densities are much higher than the typical 25-30dph figures.
The policy notes that further detailed design requirements will come forward in relation to these densities as part of future Sandwell Design Codes. However, with the growing pressures on development to provide more than just housing, such as the 10% BNG (with onsite provision as a preference), accessibility requirements such as the provision of part M4(2) dwellings for all developments (emerging Policy SH05), the need for sites of 2ha or larger to provide new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.26 hectares of space per 1,000 population on site (emerging Policy SHW4) all place additional demand for space on site, which may mean that the high minimum density standards cannot be met, resulting in an even lower number of housing units being capable of being provided within Sandwell.

Tests of Soundness

Wain Estates consider that Policy SHO3 fails to meet the tests of soundness because:

1. It is not justified – The proposed approach in the SLP is not an appropriate strategy in light of the above comments. The Council needs to consider the release of Green Belt land to help meet the need for new homes, rather than seeking to achieve unrealistically high densities which may not be attainable.

Recommended Change

To address the conflict above and ensure the Local Plan is sound, it is requested that the Council:

1. Review the densities identified in Criterion 3.
2. Use Green Belt release as a mechanism to deliver the significant shortfall in new homes which would fail to be delivered through the strategy currently proposed in the SLP.

The Plan is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

4. HBF welcomes the Council’s efforts to ensure that they have an up to Local Plan. Plan-making is a fundamental part of a Local Authority’s role and is essential to support the delivery new homes and jobs. HBF agree that there are many factors that support the need for a new Local Plan for Sandwell. However, HBF note that the Plan Period runs only to 2041. Para 22 of the NPPF requires that ‘strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption’.

5. Although we note that the Plan is now at Reg 19 submission stage, it can and does take time to proceed through the remaining stages of plan preparation- the examination process, main modification consultation, Inspector’s report and adoption of the Local Plan. HBF therefore question whether the plan period need extending. Extending the plan period by one or two years and rolling forward the housing requirement to these future years would seem a reasonable approach to address this issue. The supporting evidence would probably need to reflect this longer timeframe too.

6. HBF suggest that for this plan to be sound, the plan period needs extending. A plan period of less than 15 years on adoption fails to comply with the NPPF requirements for effective plan making.

Duty to Co-operate

7. HBF note that a Duty to Cooperate Statement dated Sept 2024 has been prepared, https://www.sandwell.gov.uk/downloads/file/3267/slp-reg-19-duty-to-co-operate-statement but that is not included on the Reg 19 consultation website https://sandwell.oc2.uk/ and has to be searched for separately on the Council’s website, as does the consultation statement and other supporting documentation.

8. Table 2 of the DTC statement sets out the Statements of Common Ground in relation to the apportionment of contributions between the four Black Country LPAs and the apportionment of contributions between the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area and an agreement to refresh the Housing Growth Study remain in discussion. As does the SoCG about Telford and Wrekin council making a housing land contribution.

9. HBF therefore remain unclear if the Duty to Cooperate has been met. Although we welcome the DTC Statement, which we requested in our Reg 18 response, the current position of nieghbouring authorities in relation to Sandwell’s Local Plan remains unclear. HBF agree that meeting unmet housing need was one of the main strategic matters being addressed through the Black Country Plan and as such continues to be one of the principal cross-boundary issues to be addressed in the preparation of the Sandwell Local Plan.

Problems with the Shropshire Local Plan EIP

10. Table 2 of the DTC statement states that a SoCG has been drafted and agreed with Shropshire Council. However, HBF note that Inspectors of the Shropshire Local Plan have recently written to Shropshire Council expressing significant concerns about the soundness of their Plan and the planned future EIP hearing sessions on the Shropshire Plan have been cancelled. See https://www.shropshire.gov.uk/planning-policy/local-planning/local-plan-review/draft-shropshire-local-plan-2016-2038-examination/examination-calendar/ and https://www.shropshire.gov.uk/media/29185/id46-stage-2-hearings-holding-letter.pdf

11. This would seem to raise questions around the soundness of the Sandwell Plan if this Plan is seeking to rely on Shropshire delivering housing to meet some of Sandwell’s unmet need.

12. HBF would be keen to understand the Council’s view on the implication of this latest development in the Shropshire Local Plan EIP on the Duty to Cooperate in relation to Sandwell’s Plan. What conversations have been undertaking during, and subsequent to, the Shropshire EIP soundness issues coming to light? At the very least the DTC statement will need updating to reflect the current position. Without this information being publicly available at this point in time HBF are unable to fully assess the impact of this issue on compliance with the Duty to Cooperate.

13. HBF’s main concerns around Duty to Cooperate continue to relate to ensuring that Sandwell’s required amount of housing is delivered in reality. This is particularly important because the current Plan the 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.

Vision for Sandwell

The Vision is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

14. The Vision is very long and imprecise, similarly the Plan’s objectives are very numerous. HBF question if this is effective.

15. Although HBF support has supports 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 we 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.

Planning for Sustainable Development

Policy SD1: Overall Development Strategy

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

Housing Requirement- dpa and total

16. The Reg 18 version of the Plan proposed at least 11,167 net new homes and at least 1,206ha of employment land (of which 29ha is currently vacant). The Reg 19 version of the Plan reduces the Housing Requirements to 10,434 net new homes.

17. 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 26,350 homes by 2041.
• The supply of suitable residential land based on the most recent evidence stands at 10,434 homes.
• There is an unmet need for 15,916 homes.!

18. This means that the council is planning only to meet 40% of their proposed housing number, with 60% not being planned for. HBF believe the housing requirement should be higher to start with and so the percentage of unmet need would be even higher. Even, setting this 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.

19. The Reg 18 version of the Plan sought to plan for 187 ha of employment, this need has increased in the Reg 19 version para 2.14, as amended by the errata document, now says:

“Employment land need is based on economic forecasts in the EDNA up to 2041.
• Sandwell is subject to a demand for 212ha of employment land.
• The current 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 also includes a vacant land supply of 28ha (sites identified under
Policy SEC1).
• Based on the amount of land required to grow the economy, there is a shortfall of around 170ha.
• In addition, the plan allocates / retains 1,193ha of existing occupied employment as strategic, local or other employment land.

20. 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.
21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.


24. The Government’s commitment to 1.5 million homes over the next five years has seen ambitions to plan for 370,00 per year in order to deliver the national target of 300,000 new homes per year. HBF note that 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 constrained nature of the Borough and the size of the shortfall in Housing and Employment land being proposed in this plan. However, it is important that the housing needs of Sandwell are met in full.

28. 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 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 Council’s boundary then Green Belt should be considered.

29. 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 suggest this should be set out as an integral part of the policy and not deferred to Appendix B and C.

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

31. As set out in our comments on the Duty to Cooperate above, HBF remains very concerned about the reliance of the Council on neighbouring authorities to deliver it’s unmet needs, especially in light of the issue the Shropshire Local Plan has recently encountered. These difficulties further underline the need for Sandwell to be doing more to meet its own needs including through a comprehensive Green Belt review and new allocations for housing.

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

32. HBF continune to strongly disagree with the conclusion in para 3.99 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 the rest of the borough.”
33. HBF are strongly of the view that planning to meet less than half of your identified housing need is clearly evidence of the exceptional circumstances required to justify releasing areas of green belt land.

34. HBF would argue that the current housing crisis and the inability of Sandwell meet its own needs provide the exceptional circumstances to necessitate a Green Belt review, which must include the consideration of both employment and housing sites.

35. 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”.

36. HBF cannot see how a plan that provides for less than half 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 setting 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.”

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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, and possibly even on-site biodiversity gains.

Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

41. HBF note that although mandatory national BNG was introduced in the Environment Act 2021 the introduction of Biodoversty Net Gain for planning application did not come for large sites until Feb 12th 2024, and for small sites on 2nd April 2024.

42. HBF has been involved in a significant amount of work, being led by the Future Homes Hub, on BNG preparedness for some time, including feeding into the BNG Planning Practice Guidance and the DEFRA BNG Guidance. It is important for this policy to fully reflect all the new legislation, national policy and MHCLG and DEFRA guidance.

43. HBF note that this represents a lot of new information that the Council will need work though and consider the implications of, in order to ensure that any policy on Biodiversity Net Gain policy complies with the latest policy and guidance now it has been published. It should also be noted that the PPG is clear that there is no need for individual Local Plans to repeat national BNG guidance.

44. It is the HBF’s opinion that the Council should not deviate from the Government’s requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain as set out in the Environment Act. The Plan should provide certainty for developers and a clear BNG policy with a fixed 10% figure, rather than the policy including the phrase “at least 10%” would help to provide this.

45. 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.

46. HBF notes that the proposed policy wording and supporting text 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.

47. 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.

48. HBF question the wording of criteria five, 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.

49. It is also important to note that 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. Additional advice on phased development has been provided in the new BNG PPG.

50. The costs of BNG must also be considered as part of the whole plan viability assessment and should be specified as a single specific item, and not combined into a generic s106 costs item. 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 remain unknown at this time. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery. The costs relate both the financial costs and also land take- which will impact on densities achievable if BNG is provided on site.

51. As this is still a new 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 must clearly set out how it considered the implications of mandatory BNG and how it as arrived at using the most up to date BNG costs information available. There may need to be further additional flexibility in policies elsewhere in the Plan to reflect the non-negotiable nature of 10% BNG costs.

52. HBF suggest that there is also a need for this policy and supporting text to say more about how BNG will be considered in relation to applications in advance of the Local Nature Recovery Strategies. 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 and/or its implementation, to reflect the LNRS may be needed.

53. HBF would also encourage the Council to ensure the Local Plan fully considers the new BNG requirements in relation to site allocations. This is likely to require undertaking an assessment of the baseline to support the allocation to enable an understanding the BNG requirements for a site to be allocated and the impact this may have on viability and other policy requirements and considerations. It will be important to understand the BNG costs of mandatory BNG as this is non-negotiable and as such may impact on the viability of the site and its ability to deliver against other policy requirements such as affordable housing or other s106 asks.

54. HBF also notes that there seems to be significant potential for confusion around environmental hierarchy, and suggest particular care is needed to avoid any confusion between the well-established mitigation hierarchy and the new BNG hierarchy. There is need for the policy wording and/or supporting text to be clearer about the differentiation between the mitigation hierarchy (which seeks to avoid harm in the first place, then mitigate and only then compensate it in relation to protected habitats) and the BNG delivery hierarchy (which prioritises on-site BNG delivery, then off-site units and finally allows for statutory credits). There seems to be significant potential for confusion between the two difference hierarchies. HBF therefore suggest that the Council should take particular care to explain how the requirements of the two-part BNG hierarchy work in different ways and that they seek to achieve different aims.

55. BNG will also impacts on the density of housing schemes that can be provided, as land used for on-site BNG is not available for housing. This may require larger and/or additional housing sites to be allocated.

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

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

56. HBF continue to 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.

57. 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.

Policy SCC1 – Energy Infrastructure

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

58. 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. There is no need for a Local Plan policies on matters already addressed in Building Regulations.

59. HBF question the realism of requiring post-occupancy evaluation as this will require consent of future homeowners and willingness to share their data. This cannot be assumed.

Policy SCC4 - Embodied carbon and waste

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

60. HBF are concerned about the effectiveness and justification of this policy, especially as the Council acknowledge in para 5.63 of the Plan that there is no reference to ‘embodied carbon’ in the NPPF.

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. HBF remain of the view that the allocation of site for housing should be undertaken in policy and no relegated to an Appendix.

64. HBF supports the principal of discounted the housing land supply 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 implications of not meeting with the housing and employment need of the borough present the exceptional circumstances required to justify Green Belt release.

65. 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.”

66. 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. The 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.

67. 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 once 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%.

68. 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 (possibly most importantly), be of a scale that can come forward and making a contribution to housing numbers earlier in the plan period.

69. 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.

70. 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.

71. 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).

Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

72. 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 of windfall should be considered on their planning merits and the contribution they can make to sustainable development, not who is the owner of the land.

73. 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 brough forward which could include allowing additional green field sites. The policy should be amended to account for this possibility.

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

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

75. The Regulation 19 policy continues to require densities 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.

76. 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.

77. 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 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 required for on-site BNG delivery may impact on the density that is delivered.

78. 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.

79. 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.

80. HBF also question why there is need for a specific mention of 4+ bedroom houses in Criteria 5 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.

81. There is also no need for Criterion 6, in this or any other policy, as the Plan should be read as a whole, and decisions made in accordance with the policies in the plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

82. 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 have concerned about some of the detail of 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.

83. Other factors that need to be taken into account include increasing 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, an realistic and evidenced allowance for mandatory BNG needs to be includes within the viability assessment of the Local Plan.

84. The costs of BNG should have been considered as part of the planning obligations and should be specified as a single specific item. 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.

85. 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.

86. 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.

87. 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).

88. 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.

Policy SHO5- Delivering Wheelchair Accessible and Self/custom build Housing

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

89. This policy still 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.

90. 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.

91. 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.

92. 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

93. 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.

94. 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 an proportionate marketing exercise the plot remains unsold, the requirements falls away.

95. 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.

96. 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.

97. 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.

Missing Policy- Previous Policy SH06

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

98. The Reg 18 version of the Sandwell Local Plan included a very important policy called “Financial Viability Assessments for Housing”. HBF made comments on this policy saying “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.”

99. The flexibility this policy offered is an important part of ensuring the Plan is effective and deliverability. A policy on this matter is needed for the Plan to be sound.

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

100. 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

The Policy is not considered to be sound as it is not justified or effective or in line with national policy.

Nationally Described Space Standard

101. 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 NPPF , which states that “policies may also make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”.

102. The NPPF 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.
• 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’.

103. 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.

104. 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.

105. 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.

106. 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.

107. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

108. 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.

109. The policy should be deleted.

Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

110. 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.

111. 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.

112. 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.

113. 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.

114. There remains a need to address issues that are wider-than-local matters in a joined-up manner under the Duty to Cooperate. HBF suggest that this means 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.

115. 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.

116. 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.

117. 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 consultation and examination to ensure the need for other authorities to meet their need is robustly supported in neighbouring Local Plans.

Appearance at the EIP and Future Engagement

118. HBF requests to participate in the Hearing Sessions for the Local Plan Examination, the HBF considers that their involvement is necessary to ensure that the home building industry is able to respond to any housing related issues raised during the hearing sessions.

- Policy SDS1 suggested change: Add additional bullet point: “protect and support Nature Recovery”. Or this can be included on bullet point “i” as: “protect habitats and areas of ecological value and protect and support Nature Recovery.”

Reiterating from our previous response submitted in December 2023 as our suggested changes have not been included yet.

Policy SDS1 - Spatial Strategy for Sandwell. In order to align with the National Planning Policy Framework, and the National Policy Framework and Guidance, reference to the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) should be made (this should be the case throughout the document to make it future proof given the expected publication of the LNRS in April 2025).

We are pleased that the Plan includes the natural environment in its long-term vision and objectives for the plan area. These are based on local characteristics and circumstances and include locally specific goals for nature recovery and enhancement, supported by policies and proposals in the plan.

We consider that as an overall strategy to guide development and allocate land the Plan should:
• Conserve and enhance the natural environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure (GI)
• make as much use as possible of previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land
• allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value.

Natural England strongly supports a number of your plans’ priorities, strategic objectives and policies including:

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.

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.
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 equitable access to interlinked green infrastructure.

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: To ensure new development and open spaces support health and wellbeing for all, reduce health inequalities and encourage active and healthy lifestyles.

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, low emission travel for all.
Objective 14: To encourage the effective and prudent use of previously developed land, including the efficient use of land and buildings and the use of sustainable and climate-aware construction techniques within new developments, as well as providing for waste management and disposal.

Objective 16: To prioritise sustainable and active travel and seek to improve transport infrastructure, to ensure efficient and sustainable accessibility within an integrated network.
Objective 18: To 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.

Spatial Strategy
We note that your authority has identified a need for 26,350 homes by 2041 and has a suitable supply of land for 10,434 with 15,916 homes unmet. We note your Duty to Co-Operate discussions have yielded an additional contribution to the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market of 4,240 of which none are currently apportioned to Sandwell. This leaves a significant remaining shortfall. There is the potential for this development to come forward in other authorities which may have knock effects on important environmental assets in those areas. As we previously

mentioned in relation to your HRA this could have impacts on sites such as Cannock Chase. A similar issue exists in relation to employment use.
Natural England is pleased to note that the Plan aims to address:
• 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
• green belt
Natural England supports the desire to prevent the loss of open and green spaces across the
district. We understand that will mean development elsewhere contributing to Sandwell’s needs but believe in the importance of access to green infrastructure and open space.
Natural England largely supports the Balanced Green Growth approach (2.29 and 2.30) Policy SDS1 – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell
Natural England supports the parts of this policy which requires new development to address access to green space including,

• increased access to green spaces;
• active and passive recreation;
• active travel; opportunities for people to make healthier choices.
• minimise and mitigate the likely effects of climate change, recognising the multifunctional benefits that open spaces, landscaping, trees, nature conservation habitats and both green and blue infrastructure can deliver in doing so;
• create new public open spaces to serve new housing developments
• protect and improve parks, woodland and tree planting, open spaces, landscapes and habitats across the borough;
• protect the openness, integrity and function of Sandwell's designated green belt by resisting inappropriate development in it;
• protect habitats and areas of ecological value;, and
• protect areas with geological and landscape value; Policy SDS2 – Increasing efficiency and resilience
Natural England supports this policy which should contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation

Policy SDS3 – Regeneration in Sandwell

Natural England supports the desire to provide new green links squares and parks as part of the West Bromwich regeneration and the use of Garden City principles for the regeneration of Dudley Port.

Policy SDS4 – Towns and Local Areas
Natural England strongly supports the desire for an integrated and where possible, an integrated continuous network of green infrastructure and walking and cycling routes.
Policy SDS5 - Achieving Well-designed Places – Natural England supports this policy, especially with regard to the integrated and well-connected multifunctional open space network will be pursued throughout Sandwell (linking to opportunities in the wider Black Country where possible), including through the design and layout of new developments. You may wish to consider the linkages beyond the wider Black Country and consider Birmingham, Staffordshire and the wider countryside

additionally.

Policy SDS8 - Green and Blue Infrastructure in Sandwell

Natural England strongly supports the desire to incorporate multi-functional green and blue and blue infrastructure. We are pleased to see that your authority has incorporated Natural England’s guidance on the delivery of green infrastructure.

Policy SNE1 Nature Conservation

4.1 The protection and improvement of Sandwell's biodiversity and geodiversity will safeguard and improve the environmental attractiveness and value of the borough for residents and visitors. At the same time, this approach will also enhance the physical and natural sustainability of communities within the conurbation in the face of climate change. Doing so will directly contribute to delivering Strategic Objective 11, which is also associated with supporting the physical and mental wellbeing of residents.

Policy SNE1 – Nature Conservation

Natural England supports all aspects of this policy. We are pleased to see the recognition of Sandwell as an important place within Britain and the Birmingham and Black Country conurbation for species movements.

We are pleased to see reference to Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS). Natural England is already working with your authority on an LNRS for the West Midlands and look forward to continuing to do so. We are also pleased to see the amount of work you have undertaken with regard to Biodiversity Net Gain including potential sites for habitat creation.

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

Natural England is pleased to see this policy incorporated into your plan. We welcome the element of habitat creation and the recognition that trees can have to climate change mitigation and air quality issues.

Policy SNE4 – Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark

Natural England is pleased to that your authority has recognised the importance of geodiversity and the Black Country’s important role in it

Policy SHW3 Air Quality

Natural England supports elements of this policy, especially with regard to the integration of walking, cycling and public transport provision and the provision and protection of green and open space and additional tree cover.

Policy SHW4 – Open Space and Recreation

Natural England strongly supports this policy.

Spatial Portrait - We welcome the many references to the history of Sandwell as a Borough and the local historic environment of the area.

Ambitions - We would have welcomed a reference to the historic environment within the ‘ambitions’ of the Plan.

Vision - We welcome the many references to the historic environment within the vision.
Strategic Objectives - We welcome the inclusion of Objective 4. It should reference the need to protect the significance of heritage assets to ensure that all typologies are accurately referenced and considered within the policy. Again, we welcome Objective 5 and this would benefit from referencing ‘heritage assets’ rather than ‘historic assets’.

Policy SDS1 clause j - We support the inclusion of a reference to heritage within this policy. We welcome the amendments from the previous version. The policy should relate to ‘heritage assets’ and would benefit from the removal of the term ‘designated’.

Policy SDS2 clause i - Remove ‘unacceptable level of’ from the policy text. We are supportive of energy efficiency measures for heritage assets; however, they must be appropriate and suitable to the context of the building they are being applied to and not cause harm to the significance of heritage assets. Further, the policy would benefit from some justification text setting out the specific considerations for energy efficiency measures and the historic environment to provide more certainty and reference the need for other measures such as listed building consent.
Clause j) - Re-word this clause. Harm to heritage should be wholly/ exceptional. The policy should reference the need to protect the significance of heritage assets, including their setting rather than only refer to setting. Harm should be avoided or minimised.

Policy SDS3 - We reiterate our previous comments that the policy would benefit from a reference to the historic environment and specifically the Wednesbury High Street Action Zone, as well as text about relevant heritage led regeneration programmes within Sandwell. We note a brief reference in paragraph 3.54.

Policy SDS4 clause 1, ai - See previous comments about the need to remove the reference to ‘call for sites’ as these sites ay be suggested but be inappropriate for development.

Green and Blue Infrastructure, including Policy SDS8 - We reiterate our comments as raised previously about the need to include the historic environment and heritage landscapes as a component of blue and green infrastructure, more far reaching than a reference to Registered Parks and Gardens.

Policy SNE4 - We continue to support the inclusion of this policy in the Plan. Our previous comment relating to the need include protection of the significance of the asset and its integrity, are still relevant here.

Policy SNE5 - We welcome the amendments to this policy for heritage.

Policy SNE6 - We continue to support the inclusion of this policy and the references to the historic environment.

Section Historic Environment - We welcome a specific section on the historic environment being incorporated into the Plan, and policies for the historic environment.

We are supportive of the introductory paragraphs which do a very good job of setting the scene for the historic environment of the area and are an interesting read.

Paragraph 4.108 - Should also refer to non designated heritage assets which also have protection, albeit to a lesser extent than designated heritage assets.

Paragraph 4.113 - Should be referred to as ‘heritage assets’ and elsewhere throughout the Plan.

Policy SHE1 - We welcome the amendments the Council has made to the policy since our previous comments, and this has been gratefully received. We would recommend that clause 4 is amended slightly to read ‘…seek to conserve and enhance the significance of listed buildings by exercising appropriate control in their setting, over the design of …’ to ensure that the policy relates to the significance (which is what is protected).

Policy SHE2 - We welcome the policy. We consider that it needs a clause akin to Policy SHE1 clause 2, that then relates to all other heritage assets aside from listed buildings and conservation areas. Insert the clause into this policy also to be compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 16.

Clause 3, consider a minor edit on this section to ensure that ‘all’ heritage assets are protected.

We welcome clause 5 and specific detail about the local character of Sandwell.

SHE3 - We welcome the amendments to this policy.

SHE4 - We welcome the amendments to this policy. Clause 3 amend ‘significant adverse effect’ with ‘harm’.

Policies SCC1-SCC6 - See previous comments at Regulation 18 stage, December 2023.

Policy SH02 clause 2, c. - We support this clause.

Policy SH09 - The policy would benefit from a clause relating to the need to protect the significance of heritage assets and their setting and any harm will be resisted.

Employment section - We consider within this section there could be a reference to the benefit of the historic environment; heritage led regeneration, heritage tourism, public realm, the economic benefit that heritage assets bring to an area including Conservation Areas, Wednesbury High Street Action Zone and the benefit of heritage assets in revitalising the town centre economy and relevant issues on shopfronts and design within heritage centres. See Regulation 18 comments.

Policy SCE1 - See previous comments to Regulation 18 consultation.

Paragraph 9.171 - Can the policy/ Plan do anything to overcome the vacancy rate and heritage at risk of these assets?

Page 306 - We welcome the reference to the Wednesbury High Street Action Zone and its success. Are there any lessons learned from this exercise that can be utilised in other retail areas across Sandwell, which could also benefit from heritage led regeneration? And can the Plan reference any hooks in the relevant sections to assist with future opportunities and delivery.

Policy SWB1 - The policy would benefit from a clause on the historic environment.

Policy STR1 - See comments to Regulation 18 Local Plan. How has the historic environment been considered when safeguarding land for future transport development? For example, do you have any information relating to clause 1?

Policy STR2 - See comments to Regulation 18 Local Plan. How has the historic environment been considered when safeguarding land for future transport development? For example, do you have any information relating to clause 2?

Policy STR5 - There may be opportunities to ‘better reveal the significance’ of heritage assets through proposed walking and cycling routes. It would be beneficial if the policy sought to utilise any of these opportunities if they arise.

Policy STR6 clause a - Is the policy identifying any strategic park and ride sites at this stage? If so, are there any considerations for the historic environment?

Policy SWA3 - What assessment has been undertaken to assess the preferred locations for waste sites and whether there are any implications for the historic environment? We note that no sites have been allocated at this stage but are keen to ensure all relevant heritage considerations and assessments are undertaken at the appropriate stage and that preferred locations for new development does not give any weight in the planning process to an allocation/ planning permission, without the appropriate assessment being undertaken.

Policy SWA4 clause d - The policy needs a clause relating to the historic environment within this section and the need to protect the significance of heritage assets, including their setting. Setting does not only relate to a visual relationship but can also relate to how you can experience a heritage asset and if this is affected through noise, smells and traffic for example.

Policy SMI1 - We cannot find any information relating to proposed mineral allocations at this time.

Policy SMI2 - We welcome a reference to heritage within clause 5, b) however, we consider that it should state should protect the significance of heritage assets, including their setting. The policy should also make provision for appropriate restoration principles, that consider the sensitivity of the historic environment and wider historic landscape, within which mineral sites may be located.

Paragraph 13.108 - We support the reference to cumulative impacts because often in minerals working, it is the cumulative impact of a number of minerals workings in one location that cause harm to the significance of heritage assets and the wider historic landscape.

It would be beneficial if the justification text referenced the need for appropriate restoration principles for minerals working sites.

Policy SDM4 - We welcome a reference to heritage within this policy.

Policy SDM3 - Clause 1 should reference the available historic environment townscape evidence base that Sandwell Council has and has been referenced elsewhere in the document. Any proposed tall building should take account of its context and other existing landmark sites, such as heritage assets, in gauging what height is appropriate. Referencing the existing evidence base can help inform development proposals. Where a heritage asset is currently a key landmark on the skyline such as a church spire, then this should remain as the principle landmark site on the skyline and other new development should respect its height and position on the skyline.

Clause 5 c) Re-word the policy clause so that ‘the proposal will not cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting’.

Clause 5 g) Consider re-wording this clause to ensure prominence of existing key landmarks remain and to avoid a homogenous skyline within the Borough.

Clause 6 a) how will this be achieved?

Add in a clause to ensure that any applications for tall buildings are accompanied by a Heritage Assessment, where relevant.

We are not aware of any locations that have been identified for tall buildings within this Plan. If the Council are considering locations, then we would welcome a meeting to discuss and ascertain what heritage assessment has been undertaken to date.

Policy SDM4 - The policy should include a clause of how to consider advertisements in relation to heritage assets including individual listed buildings and within Conservation Areas, to ensure that only appropriate advertisements are included and there is no harm to the significance of heritage assets. We usually see this in Local Plan Advertisements policies. Additional information in the justification text would be beneficial.

Policy SDM5 - The policy should include a clause on how to assess Shop Fronts where they are also heritage assets. Some of the clauses within the current policy wording would not be appropriate in the context of historic shop fronts. They are also likely to require listed building consent, and this would be worthwhile to include within the policy text. We usually see this contained within Local Plan Shopfront policies. Additional information in the justification text would be beneficial.

Appendices from Page 11 - Site Allocations

SH14 – How will the site consider the Grade II heritage asset, within its boundary? What harm may occur and can this be overcome. Cannot locate the specific heritage assessment for this site when searching under the site reference or address.

SH34 – The site includes Ridge and Furrow within the site. The site assessment states that mitigation is possible but there are no details about what the possible mitigation measures are and how this can be considered within the site. We would require the retention of ridge and furrow and appropriate design to consider this heritage asset. At present there is no reference of how to overcome the harm to this site. However, we note that this site is subject to planning approval and as such consider that these issues will have been addressed at planning application stage.

SH51 – The site would need to demonstrate that harm to Highfields, Grade II can be overcome and that suitable mitigation measures are available to avoid/ minimise the harm. There is no proposed mitigation measures within the further information relating to this site in the further information in the Plan, and so we remain concerned with regards to this development.

SM5 – we remain concerned about this site and how the development can come forward given the heritage assets on site and the lack of information surrounding the proposed development at this time. There is no information within the appendices relating to the site allocations for this site and whether there are any mitigation measures that are suitable to avoid/ minimise the harm to heritage assets.

Smethwick police station site – no site reference within the assessment - we remain concerned about this site and how the development can come forward given the heritage assets in close proximity to the site and the lack of information surrounding the proposed development at this time. The mitigation measures in the assessment are not suitable to assess whether any harm to heritage could be avoided. There is no information within the appendices relating to the site allocations for this site and whether there are any mitigation measures that are suitable to avoid/ minimise the harm to heritage assets.

SH66 – Wednesbury Police Station - no site reference within the assessment - we remain concerned about this site and how the development can come forward given the heritage assets in close proximity to the site and the lack of information surrounding the proposed development at this time. The mitigation measures in the assessment are not suitable to assess whether any harm to heritage could be avoided. There is no information within the appendices relating to the site allocations for this site and whether there are any mitigation measures that are suitable to avoid/ minimise the harm to heritage assets.

Former Corus Premises – unclear from information in the Plan – is no development proposed on this site? The heritage assessment states there are heritage assets to consider but no further development and no reference within the Plan to the potential for harm or appropriate mitigation measures.

British Gas – Land off Dudley Road – it is possible for harm to occur to the Canal Conservation Area and a mitigation measure could be included to ensure appropriate design and siting to ensure harm avoided to the canal and the potential for it to have an enhancement opportunity if appropriate development considerations were taken forward.

Roway Lane, Oldbury – what heritage asset is the heritage assessment referring to and how will development not harm any heritage asset on the site? Unclear on the evidence base relating to this site.

SH44 Wyndmill Farm – the assessment relates to Bustleholm Farm as a heritage asset. What type of heritage asset is this? We cannot find it located on the National List. The assessment states no further development on this site, is this correct?

SM2 – concerns relating to this site. There are a number of heritage assets listed in the site assessment as being in proximity to the site, including the presence of archaeology on the site. The assessment concludes no harm but we consider a more detailed heritage assessment is required for this site to understand what heritage may be impacted and whether there are any appropriate mitigation/ avoidance measures. There is nothing within the Local Plan appendices relating to heritage yet there is a need for a masterplan where issues could be considered.

SM3 – concerns relating to this site. There are a number of heritage assets that could be affected by proposed development and the heritage assessment concludes development should have regard to heritage assets. Further assessment is required. Additionally, there is no reference to heritage assets or potential mitigation measures within the Local Plan appendices.

SM4 - concerns relating to this site. There are a number of heritage assets that could be affected by proposed development and the heritage assessment concludes development should have regard to heritage assets. Further assessment is required. Additionally, there is no reference to heritage assets or potential mitigation measures within the Local Plan appendices.

SM6 - concerns relating to this site. There are a number of heritage assets that could be affected by proposed development and the heritage assessment concludes development should have regard to heritage assets. Further assessment is required. Additionally, there is no reference to heritage assets or potential mitigation measures within the Local Plan appendices.

SM1 Chances Glassworks – there is no heritage assessment for this site. There are a number of heritage assets within the site and within proximity to the site so a detailed heritage assessment for this site is essential to assess whether development can come forward and if appropriate avoidance/ mitigation measures exist to overcome the harm to heritage. We recognise that this could be a location for heritage led regeneration and a heritage assessment will provide a useful process to assess the harm and the potential to ensure that an appropriate policy can be included within the Local Plan, if relevant.

General point – any development being proposed which could have an impact on a Canal Conservation Area, should be fully considered at this stage and a mitigation measure included within the ‘further information’ section in the Local Plan appendices to ensure it is fully considered at planning application stage.

General point – we would welcome a meeting with the Council to discuss their Regulation 19 site allocations and to ensure that any site which could have the potential to harm heritage assets has been considered through the heritage assessment (where planning permission/ commencement has not occurred). It is, in cases a little unclear, as to whether all the relevant sites have been assessed. Where we have raised comments above, we would be grateful to discuss these specific sites in more detail and to assess whether there are appropriate mitigation measures that can be included within the Plan.

General point – white land – what is this policy criteria relating to? There is no policy within the Local Plan which relates to white land and how it should be considered? Are there any implications for the historic environment?