We commented on the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan consultation in January 2024. Subsequently, we issued comments on the Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment draft version of June 2024 on 16 August 2024. The Council's Phase 2 Water Cycle Study dated September 2024 has been reviewed during this current consultation.

Enclosed with this letter are our six representations on the Publication Plan. We would be grateful if you could acknowledge the receipt of our representations. These are listed as follows with our overall position in brackets:
• EA1 - Sequential Test (Unsound)
• EA2 - L2SFRA (Unsound)
• EA3 - SCC5 FloodRisk (Unsound)
• EA4 - SNE2 Habitats (Unsound)
• EA5 - SH09 (Sound)
• EA6 - SDS8 (Sound)

We found the Phase 2 Water Cycle Study acceptable. Much more could have been made to promote water quality using the recommendations from this study, however, on balance, there are a range of policies which will help address water quality (policies SDS8, SDS2, SCC5 and SCC6). We are also generally supportive of policies SCC1, SCC6 and SDM2 for their policy requirements for climate change and achieving water efficiency and reducing mains water consumption.

The lack of evidence demonstrating the flood risk sequential test and the absence of a level 2 SFRA to support sites proposed in areas at risk of flooding has resulted in us finding the publication plan (and sustainability appraisal) unsound on these elements. The removal of text from policy SCC5 since the last consultation has resulted in a soundness objection. To clarify, in the absence of the relevant tick box on the representation form, we are willing to attend the examination on these representations. We are happy to meet with you to discuss these representations in more detail and agree a way forward. Please note this may be subject to our cost recovery planning advice service.

The evidence base including Sustainability Appraisal has not demonstrated how the Council has applied the flood risk Sequential Test as outlined in National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 167-171. Nor has it confirmed that the sites proposed with zones of medium or high fluvial flood risk (and other sources) have passed the Sequential Test.

Therefore, in the absence of evidence demonstrating the strategic application of the Sequential Test, the Local Plan is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy (paragraphs 167-171). The absence of evidence of application of Sequential Test casts doubt on whether it is 'justified' i.e. an appropriate strategy based on proportionate evidence.

We outlined this in our comments to the regulation 18 consultation. We advised this could either be an update to the Sustainability Appraisal or as a standalone document. However, we can't find reference to the Sequential Test (or Exceptions Test) within the Sustainability Appraisal and no other standalone document appears to be available. There are various places within the Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices where commentary on the application of the Sequential Test could have featured e.g. Paragraphs 9.2.6-9.2.10 (Chapter 9 Climatic Factors), Box 9.1 Summary of Identified Impacts on Climate Factors, Box 9.2 Summary of Mitigating Effects, Box 9.3 Summary of Residual Effects and Appendix C and Appendix E.

Page C3 of SA Appendix C states in response to our regulation 18 comments that 'Regulation 19 will refer to the latest evidence, including any updated Sequential Test information.' The Sequential Test information is not demonstrated. The L1 SFRA 2024 provides the high-level flood risk information. However, the Sequential Test as a planning decision making tool can only be undertaken by the Council's Policy Team, based on the SFRA mapping.

Appendix E of the Sustainability Appraisal, has appraised the site allocations against SA Objective 5 'Climate Change Adaptation.' It summarises that most sites are in Flood Zone 1, 9 are in Flood Zone 3, 2 are in Flood Zone 2 and 5 have indicative Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain). This has relied on the Black Country SFRA to identify the flood zones. Although various parts of the SA main report and appendices refer to the 2024 SFRA, the data from this SFRA hasn't been used to inform the SA, e.g. the SFRA maps (3a and 3b) or Appendix M L1 Site Screening Results. Appendix E could have confirmed the outcome of the Sequential Test and where applicable Exceptions Test.

Actions the Council has already undertaken could have contributed to the application of the Sequential Test. For example, the Site Screening process may have helped achieve the aim of the Sequential Test in directing most of the Councils development to Flood Zone 1 and sites of lowest flood risk from other sources, but this is not explained in the Sustainability Appraisal. Statements made within the Sustainability Appraisal imply a sequential approach has been applied but this needs to be obvious and explicit in order to demonstrate a sound plan.

Prior to the submission of the plan we invite the Council to outline how they intend to address this. This could be amendments to the Sustainability Appraisal or a standalone document. This could be agreed within a Statement of Common Ground.

Actions the Council has already undertaken could have contributed to the application of the Sequential Test. For example, the Site Screening process may have helped achieve the aim of the Sequential Test in directing most of the Councils development to Flood Zone 1 and sites of lowest flood risk from other sources, but this is not explained in the Sustainability Appraisal. Statements made within the Sustainability Appraisal imply a sequential approach has been applied but this needs to be obvious and explicit in order to demonstrate a sound plan.

Prior to the submission of the plan we invite the Council to outline how they intend to address this. This could be amendments to the Sustainability Appraisal or a standalone document. This could be agreed within a Statement of Common Ground.

A Level 2 SFRA has not assessed the sites proposed in areas of medium to highest flood risk from rivers (Flood Zone 2 and 3a/3b and other flood risk sources) to check feasibility of allocating site. Flood depths, duration, rate of inundation and extent including climate change can impact on deliverability and capacity of site for the type of development, potential number of dwellings and density.

If following the application of the flood risk Sequential Test, it has not been possible to locate all development to areas with a lower risk of flooding, the Exception Test is applied. Paragraphs 169-171 of the NPPF set out the policy for strategic allocations. Diagram 1 'Taking flood risk into account in the preparation of strategic policies' (Paragraph: 007) sets out the steps and when a L2 SFRA is required.

Sandwell according to the Sustainabilty Appraisal have some sites in areas of Flood Zone 2, Flood Zone 3 and Flood Zone 3b. When compared against the L1 SFRA 2024 mapping, the following sites proposed for housing fall into this category (note that this excludes any employment allocations affected by functional floodplain and flood zone 3a/2):

*SH59 Beever Road
*SH5 Mill Street, Great Bridge
*SH36 Land between Addington Way and River Tame
*SH35 Rattlechain Site Land to the North of Temple Way
*SM2 Lion Farm, Oldbury
* SH16 Cradley Heath Factory Centre, Woods Lane, Cradley
*SH2 Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton

We recommend the inclusion of other strategically important sites such as SH18 Friar Park, Wednesbury which are close to or on the edge of the floodplain to check for the impact of climate change and other sources of flood risk.

Please note the L1 SFRA 2024 by JBA has provided a Site Screening Results in Appendix M.

The presence of functional floodplain (3b) can significantly restrict a site's capacity to deliver development as only water compatible or essential infrastructure are permissible in this zone.This is reinforced by your local plan policy SCC5 Flood Risk.

Flood Zone 3a (and including climate change) can also be restrictive if the extents limit available space for flood mitigation including floodplain compensation and safe access and egress. A Level 2 SFRA will assess in more detail the flood risk characteristics of a site and as stated above should inform the Council of the overall deliverability of the site allocation.

Paragraph 171 states both elements of the exception test should be satisfied for development to be allocated or permitted.

In the absence of a L2 SFRA we consider the Local Plan including Sustainabilty Appraisal is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy (paragraph 169-171). It is also not meeting the justified test of soundness, as without a complete evidence base to support the relevant site allocations, it's not an appropriate strategy based on a proportionate evidence base.

Although we were supportive of this policy at the regulation 18 stage (draft policy SCC4 now SCC5) a section of the policy has been removed which we considered to be an essential component. The following section of the policy appears to have been removed:

"15. All developments should seek to provide wider betterment by demonstrating in site-specific flood risk assessments and surface water drainage strategies (where required) what measures can be put in place to contribute to a reduction in overall flood risk downstream. This may be by:
a) provision of additional storage on site e.g., through oversized SuDS, natural flood management techniques, green infrastructure and green-blue corridors; and / or
b) by providing a partnership funding contribution towards wider community schemes (both within and beyond the Black Country, in shared catchments with Southern Staffordshire and Birmingham).

We cannot consider this omission to be sound in terms of being 'justified' or 'consistent with national policy.' It is not consistent with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 158 and 166 as follows:

158. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating from rising temperatures. Policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts, such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure.

166. Strategic policies should be informed by a strategic flood risk assessment, and should manage flood risk from all sources. They should consider cumulative impacts in, or affecting, local areas susceptible to flooding, and take account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood risk management authorities, such as lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards.

The NPPF paragraph 20 also indicates 'flood risk' as a strategic policy issue.

This is now unsound as the policy does not include strategic flood risk measures based on a cross-boundary study via the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) and the conclusions and recommendations by both the Black Country SFRA 2020 and the L1 SFRA 2024 by JBA.
The 2024 L1 SFRA section 7.3 explains that the Cumulative Impact Assessment is being undertaken with Wolverhampton and Dudley Councils. The results summarise a number of catchments rated as high-risk or medium-risk for cumulative impacts from historic flood risk, surface water flood risk, potential development, predicted flood risk from increased runoff upstream and sewer flooding. Strategic solutions are listed in section 7.4 of the SFRA including seeking opportunities to deliver flood risk benefits through development, promoting natural flood management, and contributions towards flood risk management measures that benefit the wider community.

10.3 has policy recommendations from the cumulative impact assessment, stating:

The cumulative impact assessment for the Black Country has highlighted that the potential
for development to have a cumulative impact on flood risk is relatively high across the
authorities. Many of the catchments are red and amber rated and those that are yellow still
have levels of flood risk higher than many of the rural catchments in surrounding local
authority areas in Southern Staffordshire. This supports the need for incremental action and betterment in flood risk terms across all four Black Country Authority areas.

Section 15 directly addresses this recommendation by requiring developments to seek to provide 'wider betterment' and measures to contribute to a reduction in overall flood risk downstream. Plus contributing to wider community schemes is likely to become more important in the coming years. This allows the policy to compliment the policies of neighbouring authorities such as Dudley and Wolverhampton, help to alleviate flood risk strategically across the Black Country and demonstrate cross-boundary co-operation.

We don't know if section 15 of the draft SCC4 policy was removed in error, or removed to reduce the length of the policy. There are other sections of the policy that could be withdrawn if the concern is the length of the policy e.g. the requirements for site-specific FRAs are already set out in the NPPF, the PPG and other web sources such as https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-for-planning-applications. To overcome this we request the Council re-insert section 15 on achieving wider flood risk betterment.

Other parts of the policy are welcome, in particular, section 6 on watercourses and flood mitigation. We strongly support the requirement in part iv for a ten metre easement alongside main rivers.

Policy SNE2 is comprehensive and sets out the requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain. At the regulation 18 consultation, although we welcomed the policy, we recommended that the policy acknowledge the role BNG will have for the water environment, with reference to the Humber and Severn River Basin Management Plans. The RBMPs are a key evidence base for applicants to consider when a watercourse metric is required, as the objective of achieving good status for waterbodies will also contribute towards nature recovery. Achieving the objectives of the RBMPs by restoring and renaturalising watercourses and/or creating wildlife rich river corridors can contribute to an applicants biodiversity credits and gain plan. Watercourse enhancement as part of developments will play a key role in delivery of BNG across Sandwell in addition to other types of habitat creation or enhancement.

Unfortunately, our advice has not been taken on board or incorporated within policy SNE2 or the justification text.

The West Midlands Combined Authority Local Nature Recovery Strategy may not be published for some time yet, and it's important that other strategies and plans such as RBMPs are referenced.

Without an appropriate reference to RBMPs and the water environment in relation to this policy, we would consider it inconsistent with paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and therefore unsound.

Although we would have preferred amendments to the policy text, we think this can be overcome with a minor amendment to the Justification text, paragraph 4.16, as follows:

4.16 Development should also contribute to wildlife and habitat connectivity in the wider area, in line with the Biodiversity Action Plan, River Basin Management Plans and the Black Country and West Midlands Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

A reference to paragraph 4.16 to the RBMP will help secure this important evidence base as part of a number of strategies applicants should consider when designing for BNG and achieving wider biodiveristy benefits as it relates to the water environment. Councils have a duty to have regard to RBMPs in plan-making and decision taking (Water Environment Regulations 2017) and the inclusion of this minor change will help towards meeting that duty.

We support part 4 (g) of the policy, which states:

the site should not be at risk of flooding and proposals must not increase flood risk for others, in accordance with Policy SCC5.

This has taken on board our previous comments at the regulation 18 stage and we welcome the inclusion to ensure the safety of occupiers and residents at these sites.

Whilst we would have expected more strengthening of the policy in terms of blue infrastucture, such as emphasis on restoring and enhancing the river network, we are overall in support of Policy SDS8. In particular, part 2 which states:

Sandwell's green and blue infrastructure networks, including open spaces, green spaces, nature conservation sites, parks and gardens (including registered parks and gardens), habitats, rivers, canals, other waterways, trees and green features, should be enhanced where possible (Policies SNE1 - SNE6, SHE1 – SHE4).

And also part 4 which requires major developments to be planned, designed and managed in an integrated way so that they deliver multiple climate change and environmental benefits over the liftime fo the development, making reference to flood risk policy SCC5.

Sport England notes and supports the amendment made to part 3 of the policy to provide a specific cross reference to the health and wellbeing policies in the proposed plan (Policies SHW1-SHW6), which appropriately addresses Sport England's representation at Reg 18 stage.

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.

Policy SNE1 - Nature Conservation
Points 3 & 4 suggested change: For soundness for points 3 and 4, it should be clarified that “Development will be refused where it will negatively impact or contribute to the decline of protected species, habitats or geological features. Any impacts must follow the principles of mitigation hierarchy.” Additionally, “Development that will negatively impact any areas of principal biodiversity importance (in line with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy) will be rejected. Where there is evidence that a site or area could be of significant potential importance, relevant assessments must be conducted prior to a landuse change/land allocation decision.

- Point 5 suggested change: “The movement of wildlife within Sandwell and into / out of adjoining areas, through both linear habitats (e.g., wildlife corridors) and the wider urban matrix (e.g., stepping-stone sites) must not be impeded by development. Developers must take account of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (Policy SNE2) when preparing their schemes and must plan for the maintenance and where possible enhancement of such linkages.”

Point 6 ggested change: Adequate information must be submitted with applications for proposals that may affect any designated site or important habitat, species, or geological feature, to ensure that the likely impacts of the proposal can be fully assessed. Where the necessary information is not made available, there will be a presumption against granting planning permission. Proposals that affect designated site or important habitat will be rejected except under extraordinary circumstances."

Justification:
4.3 “Development in Sandwell must contribute positively to the protection, enhancement and expansion of the natural environment across the wider Black Country by…”

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

In order to be legally compliant with existing relevant policies (e.g. UK Environment Act 2021, the Biodiversity Net Gain law 2024, the National Planning Policy Framework, the Sandwell Local Plan goals for green and blue infrastructure, and the 2023 Natural England Green Infrastructure Framework on the delivery and enhancement of green infrastructure) and in order to meet the required criteria for soundness, several suggestions are made below for this section of the local plan.

5. All public authorities have a duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity and must “have regard” to relevant local nature recovery strategies in the process.

6. It should be made clear here that proposals that affect designated site or important habitat will be rejected.

1. Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives

The Trust has no further additions to make to its Regulation 18 observations.

2. Spatial Strategy

The Trust maintains its endorsement of the ‘key issues addressed in the SLP’ but repeats its request that our canal network be included within Figure 2 - Sandwell Spatial Map so that the contribution our network makes towards the delivery of Sandwell’s Spatial Strategy and overall Sandwell Local Plan Vision 2041 can be fully appreciated and realised by citizens and developers alike.

3. Development Strategy

The Trust continues to welcome the retention and enhancement of a canal-specific policy (Policy SNE6) within the Regulation 19 Sandwell Local Plan and as such does not seek the addition of replica canal-specific wording within every other relevant policy wording within the Plan. Cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 however is encouraged where applicable.

We note the inclusion of ‘blue-green infrastructure’ within Policy SDS1 (e) – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell and welcome the retention of canal-related content within the now renumbered Policy SDS3 – Regeneration in Sandwell.

We also maintain our commitment to continued engagement with the Council and partner stakeholders in the delivery of regeneration initiatives within Sandwell which interface with our network, such as those for the Smethwick-Birmingham Corridor Framework and Rolfe Street Masterplans and related SPD’s, as they progress.

Placemaking – achieving well-designed places

The Trust continues to encourage incorporation of cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the justification text to now renumbered Policy SDS5 - Achieving Well-designed Places, as well as consultation on any future Local Design Codes.

Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy

The Trust welcomes inclusion of the canals within both renumbered Policy SDS6 (point 9) - Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy and its justification text, and has no further comments to make on this matter.

Green and Blue Infrastructure

The Trust welcomes inclusion of the canals within now renumbered Policy SDS8 - Green and Blue Infrastructure in Sandwell and its introductory and justification texts, and has no further comments to make on this matter.

4. Sandwell's Natural and Historic Environment

Nature Conservation

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

We continue to seek on-going engagement in the evolution of BNG-related policy wording throughout the plan preparation stages over 2024/5, including at Examination stages and in the correct application of the BNG metric in the assessment of current and future planning applications which suitably interface with our network.

Canals in Sandwell – Policy SNE6

The Trust gratefully notes that all our requested changes to this policy wording have been incorporated with the Regulation 19 version of this policy, and we therefore have no additional comments to make.

The Historic Environment

The Trust continues to welcome mention of ‘the canal network and its associated infrastructure, surviving canalside pre-1939 buildings and structures, and archaeological evidence of the development of canal-side industries and former canal routes’ within Policy SHE2 5(e) – Development in the Historic Environment.

5. Climate Change

The Trust notes that this section of the Regulation 19 version of the Sandwell Local Plan has been substantially rewritten.

Paragraphs 5.13 and 5.61: We welcome the addition of these paragraphs in relation the potential of our network to provide for the heating and cooling needs of forthcoming adjacent development.

The Regulation 18 version and paragraph 5.15 (in relation to retrofitting) appears to have been removed from this section of the Regulation 19 version and therefore our comments on the need to assess development impacts of this in terms of canal setting, historical significance and amenity value are absent. The Trust requests reinstatement of this section and incorporation of this advice, where applicable.

Para 5.71: The Trust welcomes the addition of the canal network within this paragraph in support of Policy SCC5 – Flood Risk.

Para 5.83 Canals and SuDS: The Trust welcomes the addition of the canal network within this paragraph in support of Policy SCC6 - Sustainable Drainage.

6. Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell

The Trust notes that para 6.14 (h) includes reference to blue and green infrastructure, which by Glossary definition includes the canal network. Para 6.46 also adds reference to the canal network, and reference within para 6.50 to the use of planning conditions and obligations to support the work of agencies such as ourselves is further beneficially added.

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

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-wereinterested-in/pre-application-advice

See also comments on Appendix B below.

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

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

We maintain this previous advice and reiterate the importance of fully assessing development proposals under the requirements of Policy SNE6 – Canals.

8. Sandwell’s Economy

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

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

See also comments on Appendix C below.”

We maintain this previous advice and restate the importance of fully assessing development proposals under the requirements of Policy SNE6 – Canals.

9. Sandwell's Centres and 10. West Bromwich

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

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

See also comments on Appendix D below.”

We note that in places the canal network is now identified within ‘Areas of High Historic Townscape Value’ designations, and on this basis have no further comments to make on this matter.

11. Transport

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

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

We gratefully note that our network is now added into Figure 14 – Existing Transport Network and Figure 15 - Transport Improvements Plan and have no further comments to make on this matter.

12. Infrastructure and Delivery

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

We welcome the retention of wording relating to the potential of our network to provide these opportunities within now renumbered Policy SID2 – Digital Infrastructure and paragraph 12.33, albeit without mechanisms for delivery being specified. We therefore repeat our previous advice.

13. Minerals and Waste

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

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

See also comments on Appendix E and Appendix F below.”

We maintain this previous advice and restate the importance of fully assessing development proposals under the requirements of Policy SNE6 – Canals.

14. Development Constraints and Industrial Legacy

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

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

We note that paragraph 14.18 is added which reflects impacts to our network specifically, and therefore have no further comments to make on this matter.

15. Development Management

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

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

In relation to tall buildings and gateway sites the Trust requests that Policy SDM3 – Tall Buildings and Gateway Sites sub-heading 5(c) specify that this relates to both designated and non-designated heritage assets (ACTION REQUEST).

The associated justification text should also contain reference to the need for impact of tall buildings within typically lower height profile canal environments to be a material consideration, to enable assessment of impact on the prevailing visual environment and character of the canal network (ACTION REQUEST).”

We note that reference to our network is added into Policy SDM1 (h) – Design Quality and paragraph 15.17 and into Policy SDM3 (c) – Tall Buildings and Gateway Sites, and therefore have no further comments to make on this matter.

Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

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

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

The Trust reiterates this previous advice.

Errata Sheet

The Trust has no comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX A – Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

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

The Trust maintains this previous advice, on an on-going basis through the Development Management process.

APPENDIX B - Sandwell Site Allocations

SH7 - The Boat Gauging House and adjoining land, Factory Road, Tipton – development proposals should have particular regard to the heritage assets on site in scale, form and impact on character. The Trust requests clarification of the continued inclusion or deletion of this allocation. We note the additional of our requested wording to all other allocations, and therefore have no further comments to raise to those other allocations.

APPENDIX C – Employment Allocations – vacant land

SEC1-10 - Brandon Way/ Albion Road - development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the land stability issues of the canal. The Trust requests clarification of the continued inclusion or deletion of this allocation.

APPENDIX D – West Bromwich Masterplan and Carter's Green Framework Plan (now Masterplans)

The Trust welcomes substantial reference to the canal network now within this Appendix, and seeks continued engagement through the Development Management process to ensure effective delivery.

APPENDIX E – Strategic Waste Sites

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

APPENDIX F – Minerals

We previously advised, “The Trust notes the identification of existing Key Mineral Infrastructure sites and raises no additional comments subject to statutory consultation on any forthcoming planning applications on any of these sites within our notified areas, and assessment in line with the emerging Policy SNE6 – Canals, for sites within Sandwell, if applicable.“

The Trust maintains this previous advice.

APPENDIX G – Site allocations - changes

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

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

The Trust maintains this previous advice.

APPENDIX H – Rowley Hills

The Trust has no additional comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX I – Sandwell Local Plan Housing Trajectory

The Trust has no additional comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX J – Sandwell Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy (extract) (now Open space and play provision standards for development)

The Trust has no additional comments to make

APPENDIX K – Transportation Policy

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

APPENDIX L – Transport Proposals

The Trust has no additional comments to make subject to assessment in line with Policy SNE6 – Canals.

APPENDIX M – Sandwell’s Historic Environment Designations

The Trust has no comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX N – Superseded Policies and Plans

The Trust has no comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX O – Glossary

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

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?