The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 introduces a requirement for all major residential development to complete the CIBSE TM59 overheating assessment on the route to compliance with Building Regulations Part O. It confirms “The simplified Part O route is not considered acceptable.” It confirms that all major non-residential development should compete the CIBSE TM52 overheating assessment.

Any overheating prevention strategy can fundamentally influence design and can often conflict with natural daylighting via large window opening which then requires compensatory measures including air-cooling strategies which can conflict with Part L requirements. For this reason, Vulcan objects to the proposed wording of Policy CCC3 and proposes it is updated to require any overheating assessment to take account of Part L requirements for natural ventilation. The policy should not refer to overheating assessments in isolation, but instead acknowledge that these could be one of a number of assessments undertaken to promote appropriate design within a development. The policy should also enable a judgement on a site by site basis. Certain assessments pertaining to particular solutions may be appropriate in some instances, but not others.

Vulcan raised objection to the wording of Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’) as it was drafted to apply to all forms of development with no distinction. Vulcan accepted that all development proposals could be subject to design materials choices in the context of managing heat risk but this would be more pertinent to larger scale development. Similarly, Vulcan and its advisors noted that the cooling hierarchy set out in the draft policy was not necessarily appropriate or applicable to all development proposals.

Vulcan and its advisors set out that draft Policy SCC3 should be revised such that it is clear for which size/scale of development the draft policy can be reasonably applied and include a clear indication of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that expectations cannot be viably or reasonably met, including in context with the cooling hierarchy. The Regulation 18 submission outlined that added clarification is necessary to ensure that the draft policy is sound in the context of it being clear, positively prepared and fit for purpose in seeking to manage in the most effective way heat risk from new development.

The Council response to Vulcan’s comments is:
- To amend the wording to establish that the policy will apply to new buildings used for residential, employment or educational purposes. In terms of residential properties, this will apply to all schemes where there is the potential to address issues around orientation in a positive way.
- That it disagreed that only larger sites will need to address heat risk – all sites will potentially be able to manage the orientation and design used for most forms of development occupied by people.
- That the requirement is for developers to demonstrate there is a clear and robust reason not to address the requirements of the policy ‐ this is for the developer to identify, not for the LPA to suggest.
- That Part O of the amended building regulations addresses the need to promote passive ventilation over mechanical ventilation policy based on one in the London Plan (Policy 5.9 heating and cooling)

The Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’) is now reworked into Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 (‘Climate-adapted Design and Construction’).

Vulcan and its advisors acknowledge the Council’s position as outlined in the response to Regulation 18 consultation. It is accepted that with regards to managing heat risk (and the intentions of Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’)), the policy wording outlines principles which should be considered as part of a development design evolution. These are, however, not prescriptive requirements.

The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 introduces a requirement for all major residential development to complete the CIBSE TM59 overheating assessment on the route to compliance with Building Regulations Part O. It confirms “The simplified Part O route is not considered acceptable.” It confirms that all major non-residential development should compete the CIBSE TM52 overheating assessment.

Any overheating prevention strategy can fundamentally influence design and can often conflict with natural daylighting via large window opening which then requires compensatory measures including air-cooling strategies which can conflict with Part L requirements. For this reason, Vulcan objects to the proposed wording of Policy CCC3 and proposes it is updated to require any overheating assessment to take account of Part L requirements for natural ventilation. The policy should not refer to overheating assessments in isolation, but instead acknowledge that these could be one of a number of assessments undertaken to promote appropriate design within a development. The policy should also enable a judgement on a site by site basis. Certain assessments pertaining to particular solutions may be appropriate in some instances, but not others.

In addition to the above, Vulcan set out its reasons for objecting to wording in the supporting text for Regulation 18 Policy SCC6 (‘Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards’) which sought to promote renewable energy generation of more than 20% within a new development.

The Council has advised in its response to Vulcan’s comment that the “20% refers to 20% of the kwh energy used by the building (heating and appliances) – which is not the same thing as carbon emissions.”

Notwithstanding the Council’s response, that specific paragraph of the supporting text is no longer included in association with Regulation 19 policy, the most relevant policies now comprising Policy SCC1 (‘Energy Infrastructure’) and Policy SCC3 (‘Climate-adapted Design and Construction) of the latest version of the Local Plan.

Vulcan agrees with the approach to remove the wording as was included in the Regulation 18 Local Plan.

The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 introduces a requirement for all major residential development to complete the CIBSE TM59 overheating assessment on the route to compliance with Building Regulations Part O. It confirms “The simplified Part O route is not considered acceptable.” It confirms that all major non-residential development should compete the CIBSE TM52 overheating assessment.

Any overheating prevention strategy can fundamentally influence design and can often conflict with natural daylighting via large window opening which then requires compensatory measures including air-cooling strategies which can conflict with Part L requirements. For this reason, Vulcan objects to the proposed wording.

Vulcan raised objection to the wording of Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’) as it was drafted to apply to all forms of development with no distinction. Vulcan accepted that all development proposals could be subject to design materials choices in the context of managing heat risk but this would be more pertinent to larger scale development. Similarly, Vulcan and its advisors noted that the cooling hierarchy set out in the draft policy was not necessarily appropriate or applicable to all development proposals.

Vulcan and its advisors set out that draft Policy SCC3 should be revised such that it is clear for which size/scale of development the draft policy can be reasonably applied and include a clear indication of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that expectations cannot be viably or reasonably met, including in context with the cooling hierarchy. The Regulation 18 submission outlined that added clarification is necessary to ensure that the draft policy is sound in the context of it being clear, positively prepared and fit for purpose in seeking to manage in the most effective way heat risk from new development.

The Council response to Vulcan’s comments is:
- To amend the wording to establish that the policy will apply to new buildings used for residential, employment or educational purposes. In terms of residential properties, this will apply to all schemes where there is the potential to address issues around orientation in a positive way.
- That it disagreed that only larger sites will need to address heat risk – all sites will potentially be able to manage the orientation and design used for most forms of development occupied by people.
- That the requirement is for developers to demonstrate there is a clear and robust reason not to address the requirements of the policy ‐ this is for the developer to identify, not for the LPA to suggest.
- That Part O of the amended building regulations addresses the need to promote passive ventilation over mechanical ventilation policy based on one in the London Plan (Policy 5.9 heating and cooling)

The Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’) is now reworked into Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 (‘Climate-adapted Design and Construction’).

Vulcan and its advisors acknowledge the Council’s position as outlined in the response to Regulation 18 consultation. It is accepted that with regards to managing heat risk (and the intentions of Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’)), the policy wording outlines principles which should be considered as part of a development design evolution. These are, however, not prescriptive requirements.

The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 introduces a requirement for all major residential development to complete the CIBSE TM59 overheating assessment on the route to compliance with Building Regulations Part O. It confirms “The simplified Part O route is not considered acceptable.” It confirms that all major non-residential development should compete the CIBSE TM52 overheating assessment.

Any overheating prevention strategy can fundamentally influence design and can often conflict with natural daylighting via large window opening which then requires compensatory measures including air-cooling strategies which can conflict with Part L requirements. For this reason, Vulcan objects to the proposed wording of Policy CCC3 and proposes it is updated to require any overheating assessment to take account of Part L requirements for natural ventilation. The policy should not refer to overheating assessments in isolation, but instead acknowledge that these could be one of a number of assessments undertaken to promote appropriate design within a development. The policy should also enable a judgement on a site by site basis. Certain assessments pertaining to particular solutions may be appropriate in some instances, but not others.

This policy specifies that the national building regulations Part O simplified method is not considered acceptable, and requires additional CIBSE TM59 thermal modelling. There is no clear justification or viability assessment in the Evidence Base Report for why the nationally-accepted method is considered unacceptable in all cases for major development. TM59 thermal modelling is a more onerous exercise. As part of the FHS consultation referenced above, the government has also requested comments on the existing Part O methods ahead of a potential revision to Part O. As such it is not considered justified for the policy to exceed the national requirement in this case, particularly as the national requirement is under revision.

Policy SSC3(4) is not considered to be sound because its requirements are not justified by appropriate evidence.

This policy specifies that the national building regulations Part O simplified method is not considered acceptable, and requires additional CIBSE TM59 thermal modelling. There is no clear justification or viability assessment in the Evidence Base Report for why the nationally-accepted method is considered unacceptable in all cases for major development. TM59 thermal modelling is a more onerous exercise. As part of the FHS consultation referenced above, the government has also requested comments on the existing Part O methods ahead of a potential revision to Part O. As such it is not considered justified for the policy to exceed the national requirement in this case, particularly as the national requirement is under revision.

Duty to Cooperate

WMRTAB is pleased to confirm that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is an active member of WMRTAB and an officer from the Council regularly attends the group’s meeting and contributes to its work. WMRTAB has therefore facilitated discussion between Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and other neighbouring waste planning authorities to assist with meeting its Duty to Cooperate (DtC) on matters pertaining to the planning for waste management. Furthermore Sandwell Council is a signatory to the WMRTAB Statement of Common Ground.

Planning for Waste Management

WMRTAB is pleased to see that the important matter of waste management has been planned for in the Local Plan and considers that the Vision and Objectives broadly address issues associated with waste management which will arise during the SLP period. WMRTAB also supports the inclusion of a chapter dedicated to waste (and minerals) (Chapter 13). WMRTAB welcomes the fact the SLP addresses the management of all forms of waste (paragraph 13.6).

WMRTAB notes and broadly welcomes policy which:
• Encourages development to utilise heat and energy generated from energy from waste facilities (Policy SCC2);
• encourages reduction of waste from construction (Policy SCC3 and Policy SWA1);
• encourages design of buildings to ensure ease of end of life disassembly and material reuse (policy SCC4);
• requires all new development to consider in detail how waste will be minimised, managed and utilised in construction e.g. recycled materials
(Policy SWA5);
• requires Local Employment Areas to be safeguarded for various uses which includes waste collection, transfer and recycling uses (Policy SEC3);
• sets out the overall strategy for waste management and identifies how much new waste management capacity is likely to be needed (Policy SWA1);
• expects waste to be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle (Policy SWA1);
• allows for capacity to be developed which will ensure waste can be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and will reduce reliance on other authority areas (Policy SWA1);
• encourages collaborative working with neighbouring authorities ‘who import waste into, or export waste out of, Sandwell, to ensure a cooperative cross boundary approach to waste management is maintained’ (Policy SWA1);
• gives priority to the safeguarding of existing and allocated sites for their continued use and the retention of the local employment areas in which they occur (Policy SEC3 and Policy SWA2);
• protects existing sites from encroachment by other forms of development and requires a ‘Waste Site Impact Assessment’ for development proposals which might impact on the effective operation of existing waste sites (Policy SWA2). WMRTAB notes that the addition of a reference to the ‘agent of change’ principle, mentioned in the NPPF, in paragraph 13.41, might provide further clarification/support for this approach. WMRTAB considers that to ensure the effectiveness of this policy, this requirement should be extended to development proposed proximate to preferred locations allocated for waste management use in the Local Plan.

WMRTAB makes the following further comments which are intended to help ensure the effectiveness of the Plan:
• The term ‘Major’ should be defined in clause 1. c. of Policy SHW1 It is recommended that such a definition considers site area and waste
throughput;
• to avoid ambiguity and ensure the objectives of the Plan are met, WMRTAB suggests that the term ‘maximum’ replaces ‘existing’ in clause 1 of Policy SWA2 to read:
‘Sandwell will safeguard all existing strategic and other waste management facilities from inappropriate development, to maintain existing maximum
levels of waste management capacity and meet Strategic Objective 17, unless it can be demonstrated that:…..’
It is considered that this change will improve the effectiveness of the policy by clarifying that the maximum throughput of a facility should be safeguarded;
• WMRTAB notes that paragraph 3.53 of the Plan suggests that ‘negative environmental impacts’ ‘generally accompany’ waste management
operations. WMRTAB does not agree with this statement as, while waste management operations are generally industrial in their appearance, modern waste management facilities do not ‘generally’ result in ‘negative environmental impacts’. WMRTAB request that this statement be modified
as, without modification, this may make it unduly challenging for proposals for waste management facilities to be granted planning permission in
accordance with the policies of the SLP.

WMRTAB has the following additional comments:
• WMRTAB notes and broadly supports the manner in which waste management capacity gaps have been identified. This includes the fact that
waste management capacity requirements have been assessed with the objective of achieving net self-sufficiency;
• WMRTAB notes and supports:
o the separate consideration of waste imports and exports at paragraphs 13.25 to 13.28;
o clarification of the contents of, a Waste Site Impact Assessments in paragraph 13.42.