For consistency and to demonstrate soundness, it is therefore recommended that the policy wording is updated to the below or similar:

“A site-specific flood risk assessment must be undertaken where a development proposal is in Flood Zone 2 or 3, or is in Flood Zone 1 and one is triggered for reasons set out in national policy and guidance. The Flood Risk Assessment should address the below as applicable”.

In its comments relating to Regulation 18 Policy SCC4 (‘Flood Risk’), Vulcan emphasised the importance of the wording being clear on what basis the proposed distance limitations on development that is proximate to an ordinary watercourse are derived. The representations also highlighted a requirement for detailed justification for the proposed limitations, and how the policy text as drafted relates to any local byelaws set under the Land Drainage Act 1991.

In its response to Vulcan’s representations, the Council advised:

“The policy wording was included in the Black Country Plan, from which this policy is taken. It was suggested by consultants undertaking the SFRA for the BCP, who were asked to provide an update to the original Black Country Core Strategy policy on flooding and water. the suggested policy wording as proposed by the consultants can be found in the SFRA included on the BCP evidence base webpage.”

The Council also outlined its intention to introduce flexibility through reference to the Environment Agency / Lead Local Flood Authority. This has been fulfilled in the proposed wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC5 (‘Flood Risk’) which is updated to the following:

“Not allowing built development within five metres of an ordinary watercourse and within ten metres of the top of the bank of a main river unless a different appropriate width is agreed by either the Environment Agency or Lead Local
Flood Authority.”

The Regulation 19 wording of Policy PCC5 states “All developments are required to undertake a site-specific flood risk assessment” with criteria to satisfy. This is inconsistent with the Framework and PPG where a site-specific flood risk assessment is triggered for all development in Flood Zones 2 and 3, and in Flood Zone 1 where an application site measures 1 hectare or more, or comprises land which has been identified by the Environment Agency as having critical drainage problems, or is land identified in a strategic flood risk assessment as being at increased flood risk in future, or is land that may be subject to other sources of flooding, where its development would introduce a more vulnerable use. For consistency and to demonstrate soundness, it is therefore recommended that the policy wording is updated to the below or similar:

“A site-specific flood risk assessment must be undertaken where a development proposal is in Flood Zone 2 or 3, or is in Flood Zone 1 and one is triggered for reasons set out in national policy and guidance. The Flood Risk Assessment should address the below as applicable”.

Vulcan supports the overall intention of the policy in reflecting national requirements for the completion of flood risk assessments.

SCC5.6a.iii The word easement is being misused. The word refers to a right over another person’s ground for a way, to lay a pipe, etc. What seems to be intended is that there should be a suitable margin alongside the culvert. The subject matter seems to be culverted natural watercourse which run as a matter of right, not by virtue of any person having an easement.

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.

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.