In its representations to the Regulation 18 consultation and the proposed wording of Policy SDS2 (‘Regeneration in Sandwell), Vulcan set out that higher density residential development on brownfield land included in the identified Regeneration Areas may significantly assist the local authority in meeting its housing shortfall.

In its response to the Vulcan representations, the Council emphasised that Policy SHO3 sets out minimum density standards for new development and that “the Council will encourage proposals to exceed the minimum requirement where appropriate and the scheme is designed well.” The Council also referred to its statutory duty to prepare a Design Code and that this “will provide design guidance for housing developments and explain how high density residential development can be designed well.”

Vulcan is encouraged that the Council considers the stated density figures as being minimums, and the support for regeneration areas being critical to the delivery of new homes.

The policy reference is now Policy SDS3 (formerly SDS2) but the wording as drafted in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is largely consistent with the wording in the Regulation 18 version. Vulcan is broadly supportive of the wording, although remains of the view that it could be stronger to confirm densities are a minimum and higher density development should be considered where appropriate and where design allows. Whilst densities can be read as minimum densities, they can inadvertently set the context for particular areas / sites and so where there is potential for higher density it is helpful if this is acknowledged. Every opportunity needs to be taken for high density development, particularly in sustainable brownfield locations.

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.

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.

Dudley MBC considers the policy to be sound. Dudley MBC supports the Local Plan approach of focusing new development and regeneration within the identified Regeneration Areas and West Bromwich strategic centre.

The Regeneration Area of Dudley Port and Tipton relates to the Regulation 19 Dudley Local Plan (October 2024) Dudley-Coseley Regeneration Corridor 5 (and the Wednesbury Regeneration Area is also of relevance in relation to the Metro corridor). Dudley MBC supports references to the new public transport hub to be developed around the interchange of the Midland Metro Extension and Dudley Port railway station. Combined with the Metro extension from Dudley town centre to Dudley Port, this will provide Dudley borough residents with enhanced access to the national railway network.

The justification to the policy references the opportunities to build upon the existing infrastructure, making the canals and greenspace a destination, linking to wider attractions such as the Dudley Canal Trust, Black Country Museum and Dudley Zoo. Recognition of these attractions and potential opportunities to enhance linkages to them is supported.

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?

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

The CHT request further consideration into the Local Employment Area designation and that the policy designation be removed in this location (area outlined in red in Figure 1 below). It is instead recommended that this is replaced with a bespoke site-specific allocation for mixed-use development. This will allow for greater flexibility of the Site use, enabling different uses and options to be explored, and in-turn ensure the future and protection of these highly significant heritage assets, as outlined below.

Policy SEC3 – Local Employment Areas

The Site forms part of the Foundry Lane (south) SEC3 Local Employment Area Allocation. Accordingly, under this proposed policy, only industrial uses (B2, B8 and E (g)(iii)), and some ancillary employment-generating uses including childcare facilities and food and drink outlets that are demonstrated to support the LEA’s function.

The rationale for this policy is stated in the supporting text. It notes that LEAs play an important role in the local economy as they offer a source of mainly low-cost industrial units that provide local jobs. The supporting text notes that one of the key characteristics of LEAs is “a critical mass of active industrial and service uses and premises that are fit for purpose”. Other characteristics are:
• Good access to local-markets suppliers and employees;
• The existing or potential use and/ or traffic generated by the use does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses or the highway network; and
• Good public transport accessibility.

The financial feasibility of restoring the heritage assets on the Site is significantly compromised within the framework of this allocation. The allocation is tailored for generic industrial spaces, trade, haulage or logistics related uses, which is unlikely to generate the significant financial investment required for CHT and/or others to support and deliver the successful restoration of this site. Currently, the heritage assets on the Site are not in active industrial use and the restoration of the assets for these uses is not the optimal viable use, nor are these uses suitable for the existing buildings and structures on the Site. The only hope for the restoration of this internationally recognised heritage asset undoubtedly relies on the support of the public sector.

In reference to the Soho Foundry, the Council’s own response to March 2023 representation (published September 2024) states “It is accepted that the future of the site is somewhat dependent on introducing a high quality, mixed use, heritage led, regeneration programme”. There is a clear acceptance from the local authority that the future of the Soho Foundry and its restoration is dependent on the Site being allocated for mixed-use. This is somewhat in conflict with the allocation and limitation of the Site for traditional industrial employment use and presents a significant policy hurdle and blocker to CHT’s aims and objectives of regenerating this site. Notwithstanding, the proposed sole employment use allocation is not considered to accord with Chapter 16 of the NPPF Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, and more specifically paragraph 196 which establishes that:

See attachment for table

CHT, a trust which is driven by the protection, restoration, and celebration of the Soho Foundry buildings, consider that the inclusion of the Site within the wider employment allocation will render it undeliverable, and provides a significant barrier to the restoration of the Ssite.

If the Site remains in a predominantly industrial allocation, CHT may have no choice but to abandon the Site, which begs the question as to whether a commercial developer or industrial business will be willing to take on this financial cost and afford equal priority to the history and celebration of these assets. CHT agree that some employment uses could form part of the mix of uses proposed, but if the policy position is overly restrictive, as currently set out in the Reg 19 Local Plan, then it is likely that funding availability to restore the site will be limited.

Policy SEC3 Response – Site specific allocation

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

There is a clear policy rationale at the national level for a new approach to be considered in the next Local Plan. Paragraph 126 of the NPPF emphasises the need for planning policies to reflect changes in demand for land. Given the prolonged lack of progress under the existing policy, it is prudent to reassess and reallocate the land for a more deliverable use. The proposed draft policy hinders the ability of the site to be restored and fulfil alternative needs, including the restoration and celebration of unique heritage assets of national value.

The rationale for a bespoke application is also supported by NPPF Paragraph 212, which outlines the importance of seeking opportunities for new a heritage asset is indisputable, and therefore supports the Council’s rationale to explore opportunities that can increase their significance.
The Soho Foundry buildings, being part of a Conservation Area, require a nuanced strategy that goes beyond a generic allocation for industrial redevelopment. A bespoke allocation would allow for careful consideration of the heritage significance and a tailored approach to development, ensuring that the setting is preserved and, where possible, improved to better reveal the historical importance of the site. Moreover, unlike industrial uses, the alternative uses proposed in this representation would make the buildings open to the public which would promote their significance.

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

Policy SHE1 – Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Policy SHE1 outlines several key aims and objectives in preserving listed buildings and conservations areas as detailed below:

1. Impact of development proposals on the significance of Sandwell’s heritage assets and their setting will be considered with case law, legislation and the NPPF
2. Proposals should protect the significance of heritage assets and conserve and enhance local character and aspects of heritage assets together with their settings. The general presumption will be retaining and protecting assets from adverse impacts
3. Proposals should demonstrate how they respond to the significance of heritage assets
4. Council will conserve and enhance the settings on listed buildings through exercising appropriate control over development
5. Proposals must respect the historic character and architectural style, considering building scale, grouping, materials and fenestration
6. The loss of any historic asset/ historic feature will be resisted, and every attempt should be made to secure the asset in as complete form as possible.

It is clear that the policy aims to take every measure in the protection of Sandwell’s heritage assets. This is significantly outlined in art 6 of Policy SHE1, which notes that “every attempt should be made to secure the asset”. This indicates that the alternative uses proposed in this representation could be supported by the Council, however, as the site is designated under Policy SEC3, development of the site is restricted to industrial uses indicating that there is an inherent policy conflict for the site. For the reasons outlined in the previous section, CHT consider that the existing allocation on the site fails to recognise the unique circumstances of the site. To reflect the aspirations of Policy SHE1, a bespoke allocation should be provided in the emerging Local Plan to enable adaptive reuse options to be explored so that the historic asset can be preserved whilst remaining financially viable.

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

Policy SDS2 – Regeneration in Sandwell

Another Policy potentially at odds with Policy SEC3 is Policy SDS2, which also covers the Site. Policy SDS2 designates Regeneration Areas as the primary focus for new development, regeneration, and investment. Specifically focusing on Smethwick, part g of policy SEC3 establishes that the regeneration of Smethwick should be largely driven by the desire to “accommodate new green neighbourhoods on re-purposed employment land” and provide new active travel routes. As noted in part i) of the policy, Rolfe Street is specifically identified as an area to accommodate new residential development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. In the case of the Soho Foundry buildings, their status as community. As noted within the supporting text, paragraph 3.38, funding has recently been granted from the Towns Fund to bring forward residential development at Grove Lane and Rolfe Street. Collectively Rolfe Street Masterplan (approved June 2023) and Grove Land Masterplan were (approved January 2022) will deliver approx. 1,200 dwellings. This represents 46% of the total 2,581 dwelling target set out in SDS2.

Given the emerging residential context, CHT are of the view that the Site should be considered within the wider context, with the Site presenting a valuable opportunity to provide crucial amenity and uses that are compatible with the wider area and residential development.

Notwithstanding, paragraph 3.40 recognises Soho Foundry as playing an important role in the delivery of this aim, noting the “opportunities exist to invest in Soho Foundry and surrounding area, creating mixed-use facility that will attract visitors and revitalise this part of the borough”. The Site is located along the Canal Corridor and contains exceptionally significant buildings which are capable of promoting the area’s unique history and provide significant community facilities for the public. The Site could also be safely accessed by pedestrians from the canal, promoting active travel along this route. Despite this, the inclusion of the Site within Policy SEC3 is in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy SD2 and supporting text. Policy SEC3 will instead mean that the restoration of the Site would be restricted to industrial uses, which would work against the aspiration to create green neighbourhoods using re-purposed employment land and therefore strongly hinder the public enjoyment of these assets. Therefore, the Site should be removed from Policy Allocation SEC3 and a bespoke allocation which supports flexible uses included within the emerging Local Plan if the regeneration aims of Policy SDS2 are to be achieved.

Policy SWA2 – Waste sites and adjoining Employment Land

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

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

Rather than perpetuate the historical ineffectiveness of the prior allocation, a fresh approach is needed to realise the restoration of the Site, in accordance with Paragraph 126 of the NPPF. The Site has significant potential not only to meet the Council’s heritage aims (under Policy SHE1), but also create a substantial regeneration opportunity (in accordance with Policy SDS2). However, without the removal of the Site from allocation SEC3 and the granting of a bespoke site specific and flexible allocation which reflects the unique circumstances of the site, this will never be achieved.

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

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