Not Applicable - Vulcan maintains that Policy SHO1 needs to be clear on the approach to meeting the housing requirement and it is accepted that this text supports the policy approach to housing trajectory. Therefore Vulcan raises no further comment in respect of the supporting text clarification of the policy wording.

In its representations to the Regulation 18 Local Plan, Vulcan recommended that draft Policy SHO1 (‘Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth’) confirms how the quoted requirement of net additional homes was calculated. In its associated response, the Council confirmed those comments were noted.

The draft wording of Policy SHO1 (‘Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth’) as contained in the Regulation 19 Local Plan is closely similar to the previous draft wording. In the Regulation 18 policy it reads “Sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net homes over the period 2022-2041.” In the Regulation 19 version, it reads “Sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 10,434 net new homes over the period 2024-2041.” There is a reduction to the number of homes (a reduction of 733 from 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 to 2041, to 10,434 net new homes over the period 2024-2041). Across the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 iterations, Tables 5 and 7 respectively set out the ‘Housing Land Supply’ – the total of which is 11,167 for Regulation 18 and 10,434 for Regulation 19. The updated requirement reflects what the Council considers can be realistically delivered having regard to sites under construction, sites with planning permission, and proposed allocations. Representations by other parties to the Regulation 18 consultation raised concerns of the supply, with one respondent stating, ‘that the Local Plan only proposes to deliver 11,167 homes between 2022 – 2041 against an identified need of 29,773 homes, representing a shortfall of 18,606 homes, over 60%’ (Gladman Developments Ltd).

As part of the Justification text supporting both the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 Policy SH01, the following is included:

“The Plan period has been divided into four phases, covering every five years from 2024. Housing targets for each phase are provided in Table 5. These are based on the housing trajectory set out in Appendix I, with further detail provided in the SHLAA. The trajectory demonstrates a steady supply of housing completions over the Plan period, justifying consistent housing targets throughout the Plan period. As set out in the NPPF (paragraph 76), the Council is seeking to confirm through the SLP the existence of a five - year housing land supply from the year of adoption (2025). For this purpose, the buffer applied to housing supply (as set out in the housing trajectory) will be 20%, in line with the most recent Housing Delivery Test results (2023).”

Vulcan acknowledges the above extract of Justification which informs Policy SHO1. While Vulcan maintains that Policy SHO1 needs to be clear on the approach to meeting the housing requirement, it is accepted that this text supports the policy approach to housing trajectory and therefore Vulcan raises no further comment in respect of the supporting text clarification of the policy wording.

The comments submitted below were framed in relation to the existing National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), we have however referred to potential implications of the proposed NPPF changes in a section on the transitional arrangements.

Housing – Policy SHO1

The overspill requirement of 15,916 dwellings identified in the draft plan is a significant contribution to the total Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area shortfall. SSC will continue to work closely with Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) alongside the other relevant partners to address this overspill requirement through the relevant working groups and duty to cooperate arrangements.

SSC has recently completed a consultation on an updated Publication Plan (Regulation 19). It should be noted that SSCs preferred strategy in its April 2024 Regulation 19 consultation is to meet the housing needs of our communities by focus growth primarily on the districts most sustainable Tier 1 settlements including some Green Belt release at these settlements on sites assessed as suitable through our site assessment process. This does result in a potential 640 home surplus based on our current standard method requirement that potentially could be attributed to unmet needs of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA).

Whilst we appreciate the land use constraints within which the Sandwell Plan is operating, we would support a commitment to continued attempts at increasing the supply of dwellings identified within the borough. Specifically, attention should focus on examining the scope for increased densities particularly in the larger urban centres, reallocation of sites from other uses were this doesn’t conflict with other plan objectives, housing area renewal proposals and exploring the potential release of Green Belt sites. Such contributions will assist in reducing the total overspill requirement to be addressed by neighbouring authorities and therefore contribute to directly addressing the total housing market shortfall.

Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople – Policy SH09

SSC published an updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment in 2024 which has identified a need within the district for 162 pitches during the plan period.

SSC wrote to SMBC (and other GBBCHMA and neighbouring authorities) in August 2022, October 2023 and subsequently in March 2024, where we set out that we had only identified a supply of 37 pitches this is set against a revised 5-year requirement of 92 pitches, and therefore confirming we had a significant unmet need for pitches. In the letters we set out the steps we had taken to explore supply options including exploring options in the Green Belt, options on publicly owned land, and options for new pitches as part of proposed housing allocations.

SSC are seeking to ensure that neighbouring and GBBCHMA authorities undertake the same steps that SSC have taken in exploring pitch options so we can have confidence that our Duty to Cooperate partners have taken a consistent approach when considering if they can assist with SSCs unmet needs for pitches. We therefore request that through your plan preparation you continue to explore, and evidence, the following options:

- Intensifying supply on existing sites
- Expanding all suitable existing sites
- Exploring all public land options in the city for new public sites

- Approaching sites proposed for general housing allocation to identify if the landowner would be willing to set aside part of the site for pitch needs
It is noted that the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) 2022 identified a need for an additional 8 permanent pitches in Sandwell over the period up to 2031 with a further six pitches required from 2031-2041. The plan has identified sufficient supply to meet the requirement to 2031 and envisages that small windfall sites will meet the remaining need over the Plan period. It is not clear that in addressing Gypsy and Traveller needs that all the options identified above have been explored to determine if additional capacity could be available. SSC would welcome an indication that all such options have been explored and we look forward to continuing to engage with SMBC on this issue.

Employment – Policy SEC1

SMBC has identified a significant shortfall of 169 hectares in the supply of employment land to meet the needs of the Borough during the plan period. SSC has identified a potential surplus of 45.2 Ha. of employment land, which includes a new proposed allocation at Junction 13 of the M6. This land has been identified as being available to contribute towards addressing the employment land shortfall within South Staffordshire Functional Economic Market Area. Given the close association of Sandwell with the other Black Country authorities this offer has been extended to include SMBC even though the authority lies outside the South Staffordshire FEMA. As stated in our signed Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) with SMBC, the role this surplus land will play in helping to address employment land shortfalls will be the subject of two separate SOCG covering the entire South Staffordshire FEMA and also the Black Country FEMA.

SSC will also allocate the consented strategic rail freight interchange (WMI). Though situated in South Staffordshire the WMI serves a wider market area (including Sandwell). Through our 2022 EDNA & 2024 update SSDC identified a requirement of 18.8 ha of the WMI land to meet our labour demand requirements up to 2041. SSDC has acknowledged that there is surplus employment land at WMI that is currently ‘unclaimed’ and that could be utilised to meet the unmet needs of the wider market area. Whilst we have taken a more in-depth approach to calculating our share of WMI (18.8ha) through our local evidence, we still consider that the 2021 Stantec report1, that considered potential apportionment across the sites market areas based upon population change within each LPA area, is a reasonable basis for determining wider authorities’ potential share of the site given its wider role and in the absence of sub-regional details of labour demand. The Stantec report apportions 18ha of the site towards the B8 employment land needs of Sandwell, and it is noted that this figure has been identified as a commitment in the Plan towards the employment land supply.

Transitional Arrangements

The proposed changes to the NPPF have recently been the subject of consultation and it is the Government’s intention to publish a finalised NPPF by the end of the year. Based on the transitional arrangement contained in the consultation NPPF it is our understanding that the Plan would need to be submitted on or before the publication of the revised NPPF (+ one month) if it is to be assessed against the current December 2023 NPPF. Should the Plan be submitted after NPPF publication date (+ one month) it would appear that the Plan would be considered in relation to the revised framework, as it doesn’t appear that any of point a-c in paragraph 226 of the draft NPPF would apply to SMBC. This would require SMBC to re-examine the current plan strategy particularly in light of the proposed introduction of a distinction between Green Belt and Grey Belt land and the role which the latter will play in increasing the supply of land for residential development. Therefore, whilst the plan is currently considered sound against the December 2023 NPPF, should the transitional arrangements in paragraph 226 of the consultation NPPF remain in the final version, and should SMBC be unable to meet any of points a-c in this paragraph, then the Publication Plan would not be sound and would need to be revisited.

SSC do not consider it necessary to take part in the hearing sessions for the examination, however equally would be happy to attend these sessions on request of the inspector.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dudley MBC considers the policy to be sound. Dudley MBC supports this policy, including the reference to ‘at least 10,434 new homes’ (our emphasis added). However, please also see our response to paragraphs 3.12/3.17 which seeks additional references to an ongoing review of the housing land supply position.

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 10,434 net new homes over the period 2024 – 2041 (or 614 dwellings per annum) and includes 6,243 homes from “Housing Allocations” that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period. A further 1,814 homes are anticipated from “commitment” sites including those under construction, those with planning permission or prior approval and “other commitments” as set out in the 2024 SHLAA. A further 2,100 home (or 20% of the minimum requirement) are from windfall sites (i.e. sites that are not yet known) with an additional 172 from “additional floorspace” within the West Bromwich town centre,
other Town Centres and District and Local Centres, and an additional 105 homes identified from “supply in Wednesbury Masterplan” (subject to lapse discounts as set out in the Policy).

The Policy refers to Appendix B of the draft Plan which sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations.

Appendix B includes Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B
sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2029-2032 (i.e. entirely within the emerging Plan period).
Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They have put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

Our client remains supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan, in principle – noting that this latest allocation follows its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan. It is also identified for residential development in the Grove Lane Masterplan prepared by Sandwell and Birmingham Council’s and adopted in February 2022. In short, the site has long been identified, and allocated, for residential use within Sandwell’s Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents. However, delivery of this site has been held up until the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital is complete (where part of the site has formed the neighbouring Hospital’s construction compound for example).

As such, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the emerging Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.

Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:

- The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority (84%) of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client has submitted (in 2022) an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of an ongoing pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market. As such, this level of development was considered by my client to have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation, at a density of 80 dph, is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development
density of 56dph – for example; similar to the density put forward by our client at SH55.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SDM1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the urban greening of Sandwell as a “fundamental element of site and building design” and “incorporating measures such as high-quality landscaping and tree planting, other soft landscaping…” (for example) and SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility) which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of
these draft policies on behalf of our client also – highlighting that they require greater flexibility to ensure that development is ultimately viable (and deliverable).

As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are “indicative” but they should nonetheless be amended to reflect more realistically a proposal that is deliverable to avoid delivery from this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

- Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s requirement for proposals, where adjacent to the canal to pay “full regard” to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in the context that those documents were prepared in the context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.86 years’ worth of housing land (as of April 2022) and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period.

The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory indicates that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32 (albeit this assumes some substantial annual delivery of over 1,000 dpa in 2030/31 and over 1,200 dpa in 2031/2032 for example – which would appear unrealistic given delivery has averaged 687dpa in the current Plan period to date, i.e. 2011 to 2022 (as shown in Table 9 of the Council’s latest AMR)), and this is compounded by the Council’s continued heavy reliance on windfall sites (with Policy SH01 showing that 20% of the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period will come from sites that are not yet known). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects
the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on unrealistic delivery at undeliverable densities from its allocated brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

As such, our client requests that a more realistic, and deliverable, development density is indicated for Allocation SH55, more reflective of the development that it has put forward through its pre-application submission to the Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously Developed Land

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Needs & Density

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the attachment for table

50. According to WMP, the proposed numbers of new homes (10,434) would represent an 8% increase in the number of households within Sandwell. If the same percentage increase is applied to the actual incident and crime statistics for the area, the predicted proportional additional and total incidents / crimes likely to occur within a calendar year is likely to be in the order of 7,000 additional calls for service and 3,000 additional offences.”

Notwithstanding the above, PCCWM objects to the lack of reference to preventing crime and disorder in the draft Local Plan’s Challenges and Issues. These are clearly set out in the Arup ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment Reference: v2.0 dated 2nd November 2023’ (section 4.4.3: Infrastructure Implications of Future Growth - Policing’): -
• Sandwell has seen a 25% increase in recorded crime since 2020;
• The demands placed on the police service can increase as the local population increases;
• The demands on the police are exacerbated by the major changes in the nature of crime and methods needed to deal with it, particularly regarding cybercrime, child sex exploitation and terrorism;
• Based on analysis of West Midlands Police’s (WMP) crime statistics (2022), it is predicted that the rising population would require the recruitment of c120 extra staff members;
• As Sandwell’s population increases, there is a greater need to ensure new development is supported by adequate policing infrastructure in the interest of
creating sustainable communities;
• This highlights the importance of new developments employing Secured by Design principles to reduce the amount of additional crime generated as the population grows in certain areas;
• As only 20% of their funding is received from Council Tax precept, WMP have stressed that increases in local population does not directly lead to an increase in funding for the Police Service from Government; and • WMP consider the consequence of no additional funding will lead to existing infrastructure becoming severely stretched and thereby have a severe adverse impact on the quality of the service that could be delivered.

As Sandwell’s population increases, there is a greater need to ensure new development is supported by adequate policing infrastructure in the interest of creating sustainable communities. With the predicted increase in crime in the Borough as a result of the proposed growth and the implications thereof as set out in the Spatial Portrait and the Part 1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment, it is inconsistent for this not to be referenced in the Challenges and Issues.

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

“Ambition 5
Our communities are built on mutual respect and taking care of each other, supported by all the agencies that ensure we feel safe and protected in our homes and local SLP relevance:
• promoting the development and improvement of attractive, safe and accessible public realm, support services and community infrastructure as part of new development and project delivery.”

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

In accordance with national planning policy, the theme of community safety and crime prevention should be given greater prominence in the ‘Spatial Portrait’, ‘Challenges and Issues’ and Chapter 1 – Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives of the draft Reg 19 Sandwell Local Plan consultation, to promote improvements in community safety, reducing crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, which are vital objectives in the
context of creating sustainable communities.

Chapter 3 – Framework Policies

Policy SDS1 ‘Spatial Strategy for Sandwell’

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

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

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

Policy SDS5 ‘Achieving Well-designed Places’

The PCCWM supports Policy SDS5 which states at 9 that “To support the development of safe neighbourhoods, ensure quality of life and community cohesion are not undermined and minimise the fear of crime, the design of new development should create secure and accessible environments where opportunities for crime and disorder are reduced or designed out.” This policy recognises the importance of safety in terms of environmental,
economic and social benefits - at 3.70 “The importance of high-quality design in creating places where people want to live, work and invest with renewed confidence is a fundamental aspect of both national and local policy. Designing high quality places will result in environmental, economic and social benefits, including inter alia a) community safety…” – but this recognition is missing from the overarching policies and vision, as set out above.

Policy SDS6 ‘Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy’

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

Chapter 4 – Sandwell’s Nature and Historic Environment

Policy SNE6 – Canals

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

Chapter 6 – Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell

Policy SHW1 – Health Impact Assessments and Policy SHW2 Healthcare Infrastructure

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

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

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

‘Policy SHW2 – Healthcare, wellbeing and safety infrastructure…

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

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

Policy SHW4 – Open Space and Recreation

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

Chapter 7 – Sandwell’s Housing

Policy SH01 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

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

See attachment for table

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

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

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

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

2) Oldbury Police Station, Oldbury Ringway, Oldbury

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

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

See attachment

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

However, the Policy SHO1 makes no reference of the requirement that in order to sustain the level of growth proposed in the draft Sandwell Local Plan consultation and to meet the national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services to create environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do
not undermine the quality of life or social cohesion.

Accordingly, the PCCWM objects to Policy SHO1 as it should include reference for the need for contributions for all social, environmental and physical infrastructure to support sustainable housing growth in accordance with the aspirations of the policy and the plan. Therefore, new development, including all housing sites/ housing allocations, should be subject to CIL/ S.106 agreements as appropriate to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services, and the requirement for this infrastructure should be enshrined in the wording of Policy SHO1.

Policy SH02 – Windfall Developments

The PCCWM objects to Policy SHO2, as it should include reference for the need for contributions for social, environmental and physical infrastructure to support windfall development. Windfall development, as well as development on larger sites/ allocations, should be subject to CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services, and the requirement for this infrastructure should be enshrined in the wording of Policy SHO2.

Policy SH07 - Houses in Multiple Occupation

The PCCWM supports the wording of the policy and justification to Policy SHO7, which reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Regulation 18 consultation.

The PCCWM supports the specific reference within the policy itself, point 3(e) as follows: - ‘3. Once the current level of HMO provision has been established in a relevant area, the following criteria will be applied to a new proposal: …

e) the development would not give rise to unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on amenity, character, appearance, security, crime, anti-social behaviour or the fear of crime.’

The PCCWM also fully supports the footnote to this policy (174) which recommends that pre-application and planning application advice is sought for HMO proposals from the West Midlands Police Design Out Crime Officers.

In addition, the PCCWM supports the reference in point 6 of the Policy that states that the policy criteria will also apply to the intensification or expansion of an existing HMO.

The justification to Policy SHO7, paragraph 7.54(g) is also supported by the PCCWM. It explains that harmful impacts associated with high numbers of HMOs can include: ‘…g) increased anti-social behaviour and fear of crime resulting from the lifestyles of some HMO occupants, the transient nature of the accommodation and inadequately designed / maintained properties;’

However, in addition to the support for Policy SHO7, it is noted that the Council acknowledge (para 7.57) that: ‘Whilst this type of accommodation [HMO] can address certain housing needs, HMOs tend to be grouped together in parts of the urban area, becoming the dominant type of housing, which can lead to social and environmental problems for local communities. Alongside this, an over-concentration of HMO properties can lead to a loss of family-sized units. This in turn can lead to a consequential increase in the overall number of units unsuited to family occupation. This can pose a serious issue for
maintaining a mixed sustainable housing offer across the Black Country.’ In light of these concerns, the PCCWM recommends a Borough wide Article 4 Direction be introduced to seek to remove the permitted development right to convert a residential dwelling to a small HMO (providing living accommodation for 3 to 6 unrelated persons), such that planning permission would be required for any proposals, alongside the proposed policy against which all HMO applications, as well as planning applications for large HMO (for which there are no permitted development rights and thereby planning permission is required) will be assessed. This is an approach taken elsewhere, including in neighbouring Birmingham.

An Article 4 Direction regarding permitted development for HMOs, alongside the proposed policies of the Reg 19 draft Sandwell Local Plan would manage the distribution and delivery of HMOs, to reduce the potential harm that arises from the over-concentration and poor quality of HMOs, and the consequential impact this has on crime and disorder and to community safety, and the increased pressure this places on Police resources.

Policy SH09 - Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Show people

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

Chapter 9 – Sandwell’s Centres

Policy SCE1 - Sandwell Centres

The PCCWM supports the wording in Policy SCE1 ‘Sandwell’s Centres’ at 6(d), as this reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Reg 18 consultation. ‘6. A land use approach will be adopted to encourage regeneration and to meet the challenges facing Sandwell's centres, particularly as little retail capacity has been identified to support additional floorspace, through supporting:

“…d. a variety of facilities, appealing to a wide range of age and social groups, provided in such a way to ensure a safe, accessible and inclusive environment and any anti-social behaviour is discouraged, for example through management, improved lighting and CCTV coverage where appropriate.’

Policy SCE2 - Non-E Class Uses in Town Centres

The PCCWM supports the wording in Policy SCE2 as this reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Reg 18 consultation, specifically the addition to the policy of clause 5: ‘5. In all areas of Town Centres, it is important that a variety of facilities, appealing to a wide range of age and social groups, are offered and that these are provided in such a way to ensure a safe, accessible and inclusive environment and any anti-social behaviour is discouraged, for example through management, improved lighting and CCTV coverage where appropriate.’

Policies SCE3, SCE4 and SCE5

The PCCWM supports the inclusion of the following wording in each of these policies – namely ‘In determining planning applications for new development or changes of use in local centres, the Council will consider any issues concerning community safety, crime, and disorder and will, where necessary, seek advice from the police and other safety organisations.’

Comments on Chapter 10 – West Bromwich

Policy SWB2 - Development in West Bromwich

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

Comments on Chapter 15 – Development Management

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

The PCCWM supports the wording in Policy SDM1 as it reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation and the Reg 18 consultation and now includes the requirement that the need for new development must not cause an adverse impact on the living environment of occupiers of existing residential properties, or unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers of new residential properties, in terms of crime and safety., and at 2d. that “Development proposals must demonstrate that the following guidance has been considered and where appropriate used to inform design and access statements that reflect their Sandwell-specific context:… d. compliance with crime prevention measures, such as Secured by Design and / or Park Mark principles;”

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

The PCCWM acknowledges the wording in Policy SDM6 – Hot Food Takeaways. However, whilst associated Policy SDM7 ‘Management of Hot Food Takeaways’ has been amended as requested in the PCCWM’s Regulation 18 consultation response (new clause 9) However, the PCCWM remains of the view that Policies SDM6 and SDM7 should be amalgamated into one policy as the inference is that if a proposal complies with the prescriptive and numerical thresholds under Policy SDM6 it will be acceptable, even though it at may not meet the criteria set out in Policy SDM7 – Management of Hot Food Takeaways – and vice versa. Accordingly, the PCCWM objects on the basis that Policies SDM6 and SDM7 should be amalgamated since it is considered that the criteria in Policy SDM7 to be equally important in the consideration of a planning application for a hot food takeaway, particularly as hot food takeaways are often a flashpoint for violence after pubs and clubs close.

Policy SDM8 - Gambling Activities and Alternative Financial Services

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

Policy SDM9 – Community Facilities

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

Comments on Chapter 12 - Infrastructure and Delivery

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

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

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

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

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

It is accepted and clear that growth during the plan period will inevitably have implications for the maintenance of safety and security in the Borough and there will clearly be a need for additional and/or enhanced Police infrastructure.

Policy SDS1 ‘Development Strategy’ which provides the overarching spatial strategy for Sandwell, sets out the scale and distribution of new development for the Plan period to 2041 and confirms at point (1) ‘To support the attainment of the Sandwell SLP Vision, drive sustainable and strategic economic and housing growth and meet local aspirations, Sandwell, working with local communities, partners and key stakeholders, will make sure that decisions on planning proposals:…c. ensure that sufficient physical, social, and environmental infrastructure is delivered to meet identified requirements’.

The inclusion of the police and emergency services provision as infrastructure required to support development is compatible with legislation and national planning policy, as follows:

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states, ‘Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area’. The PCCWM therefore has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for the area. Sandwell Council is also statutorily required to consider crime and disorder and community safety in the exercise of its duties with the aim of achieving a reduction in crime.

The NPPF, December 2023, Paragraph 2 states that the NPPF must be taken into account in preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory requirements.

Paragraph 7 of the NPPF explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and Paragraph 8 confirms that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives: an economic, a social and an environmental objective. These objectives include supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of
homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment.

Paragraph 20 of the NPPF includes, inter alia, a requirement for policies to deliver sufficient provision for infrastructure, including those related to security, with paragraphs 16 and 26 indicating that this could be delivered through joint working with all partners concerned with new development proposals.
Section 8 of the NPPF ‘Promoting health and safe communities’, Paragraph 96, identifies that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

Paragraph 135 (f) of the NPPF calls for the creation of safe places where, inter alia, crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Annex 2 (NPPF) identifies the police as ‘Essential local workers’, defined as ‘Public sector employees who provide frontline services in areas including health, education and community safety – such as NHS staff, teachers, police, firefighters and military personnel, social care and childcare workers.

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

It should also be noted that it is the case that increases in local population and the number of households do not directly lead to an increase in funding for WMP from Central Government. It is therefore necessary to secure CIL and/or S.106 contributions for infrastructure due to the direct link between the increased demand for police services and changes in the physical environment due to new housing and economic growth, which have permanent impacts on future policing and demands upon WMP. Securing contributions towards policing enables the same level of service to be provided to residents of new developments, without compromising the existing level of service for existing communities and frontline services. Put simply, the consequence of no additional funding is that existing infrastructure will become severely stretched and thereby have a severe adverse impact on
the quality of the service that WMP are able to deliver.

The High Court judgement of Mr Justice Foskett in The Queen and Blaby DC and Others [2014] EWHC 1719 (Admin) at Appendix 1 is a clear example of the case for S106/CIL contributions towards Police infrastructure. In that case, a development of 4,250 dwellings, community and retail development, schools and leisure facilities was proposed, the judgement reads:

‘It is obvious that a development of the nature described would place additional and increased burdens on local health, education and other services including the police force.’ (Para 11).

The judgement goes on to comment that:

‘Those who, in due course, purchase properties on this development, who bring up children there and who wish to go about their daily life in a safe environment, will want to know that the police service can operate efficiently and effectively in the area. That would plainly be the “consumer view” of the issue.’ (Para 61).

‘I am inclined to the view that if a survey of local opinion was taken, concerns would be expressed if it were thought that the developers were not going to provide the police with a sufficient contribution to its funding requirements to meet the demands of policing the new area.’ (Para 62).

To ensure that levels of service can be maintained for both existing and future residents in the wider Sandwell Borough area, developer contributions through the mechanism of CIL and/or S.106 Obligations for Police infrastructure are considered essential.

It is the case that, Planning and S78 Appeal decisions (Appendix 2) have long recognised that the infrastructure requirements of the Police are perfectly eligible for consideration and can be allocated financial contributions through S106 Obligations which accompany qualifying planning permissions for major development (residential and commercial alike), with the Planning Inspector in PINS appeal reference APP/X2410/A12/2173673) stating that:

‘Adequate policing is so fundamental to the concept of sustainable communities that I can see no reason, in principle, why it should be excluded from purview of S106 financial contributions…’

To achieve sustainable development, as required by the NPPF and PPG, the necessary supporting infrastructure must be identified through proactive engagement between the Council and the infrastructure providers, including the WMP. Infrastructure needs and costs arising as a result of the proposed growth in the draft Sandwell Local Plan should be included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – and representations have already been
made by the PCCWM in this regard - and Viability and Delivery Study and specific 20/22 requirements should be clearly set out in the individual site allocation policies and/or accompanying masterplans, Area Action Plans (AAPs) or Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), to ensure that developers are aware of their obligations at the outset. In addition, as the primary document for planning decisions, the draft Sandwell Local Plan must also address the need for sustainable safe developments supported by essential infrastructure including Police infrastructure.

There also needs to be wording in relevant policies to require this, to ensure that developers are aware of the importance attached to issues of crime and
safety by Sandwell MBC, as well as the need to maintain an appropriate level of community infrastructure and Emergency Services infrastructure.
The definition and support for infrastructure should be explicitly set out in the draft Local Plan, to meet national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, and it should be clearly set out that contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of facilities and equipment for Police services, in order to sustain the level of growth proposed in the draft Local Plan.

There are numerous examples of adopted planning policies in Local Plans which have been found sound after examination, which specifically refer to police infrastructure provision and contributions.

At the time of the Police’s representations to the Draft Black Country Plan Consultation (Regulation 18), it was noted that there was inclusion in the Viability and Delivery Study of an indicative contribution of £43.00 per dwelling towards the funding gap in Police infrastructure from the need for additional services arising directly from the proposed scale of growth. This was welcomed and the need for financial contributions in the form of
CIL/S106 needs to be taken forward into policy, as well as the contribution figure needing to be increased/ linked to inflation.

Harm will result if West Midlands Police do not have the necessary funding to maintain an appropriate level of service for existing and for future residents, work and visitors within Sandwell (and surrounding areas) and therefore it is imperative that the draft Sandwell Local Plan addresses the need for sustainable safe developments supported by essential infrastructure.

The accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) should be regarded as integral to the local plan process with a commitment given to ensuring that it is maintained as a ‘live document’ throughout the plan period.

As with many publicly funded services, Police forces within England have seen significant reductions in resources since 2010 due to reduced budgets. During this period, WMP has seen real terms funding reductions of in excess around 22% before taking into account the police officer uplift programme. As a result, the PCCWM has adopted a continuing programme of budgetary reductions, which in turn has had implications for operational pressures, against a backdrop of continued development (and in particular housing) growth within the WMP Force area.

Changes in general population do not increase the overall funding made available to WMP through Central Government grant. Even if there were to be an increase in funding because of development growth, such funding would be fully utilised in contributing to additional salary, revenue and maintenance costs (i.e. not capital costs). That being the case, such funding would not be available to fund the infrastructure costs that are essential to support
significant new development growth during the Plan Period.

Full details of Police funding requirements are set out in the previous PCCWM representations (Appendix 3), as reported in the Sandwell Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part

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

In order to meet the national policy objectives of ensuring safety, reducing crime and the fear of crime, it is vital that the Police are not under-resourced or deprived of legitimate sources of funding. The aim is to deploy additional staffing and additional infrastructure to cover the demand from new development at the same level as the policing delivered to existing households. Hence, additional development would generate a requirement for additional staff and additional personal equipment (such as workstations, radios, protective clothing, uniforms and bespoke training), police vehicles of varying types and functions.

If additional policing infrastructure is not provided, future growth in Sandwell will seriously impact on the ability of the Police to provide a safe and appropriate level of service and to respond to the needs of the local community. That outcome would be contrary to national policy.

Without this, the PCCWM objects to the Regulation 19 draft Sandwell Local Plan. As the statutory Development Plan, it is the purpose of the draft Sandwell Local Plan to confirm the types of infrastructure which will be required to provide sustainable development in the Borough during the plan period and a new policy should be drafted accordingly.

Comments on the Glossary

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

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

It is noted that Sandwell Council needs to identify land for 26,350 homes by 2041. However, as set out in Policy SHO1 the supply of suitable residential land identified by Sandwell Council stands at 10,434 homes, leaving an unmet need for 15,916 homes in the Plan period.

However, the draft plan recognises that there is a finite supply of land readily available for development in Sandwell Borough and it is very likely that it would not currently be possible to meet the full extent of the Sandwell Borough housing need within the Sandwell Council administrative area. In light of this it is essential that Sandwell Council makes the best use of the land which is available in the Borough. The Edwin Richards Quarry (ERQ) site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver a significant amount of housing, within the next Local Plan period and into the subsequent Local Plan period.

In relation to the housing allocations proposed, the inclusion of ERQ (site ref. SH37) is strongly supported. The proposed allocation suggests a capacity of c.526 dwellings in the Plan period; with a further c.100 dwellings in the post-Plan period (total site capacity c.626 dwellings). It is noted that this quantum includes the reserved matters planning permission (ref. DC/23/67924) for 278 dwellings in the western area of the ERQ site.

This proposed quantum of development at ERQ set out in the draft allocation is considered to be sensible, conservative and achievable at this time. There is also the potential for further housing, over and above the 626 dwelling figure to come forward on site during and / or beyond the Plan period. The final capacity of the site will be dependent on the restoration programme for the site, the speed of infilling and detailed masterplanning.

It is also noted that a battery energy storage system facility is proposed on site, with installation expected in 2025 (see screening opinion DC/23/68263). This is likely to be operational on site until circa 2055. The presence of the battery energy storage system is not anticipated to preclude the delivery of the identified c. 526 dwellings during the Local Plan period. The location of the battery energy storage system will be taken into account as part of the planning and delivery of the final phases of residential development.

The current quarry void has approximately 5.1 million metres cubed of capacity until it is filled with soils and similar non-putrescible materials. Using a cubed density of 1.5 results in a remaining infill tonnage of 7.65 million tonnes of material (soil). Over past years the infill rates have varied as would be expected for a commercial operation of this type not backed by long term guaranteed contacts. As such the annual quantum of fill may vary but realistically the quarry could be filled within 12.75 years subject to annual inputs of circa 600,000te. This represents a reasonable assumption, but it should however be noted that this cannot be guaranteed and the landfill completion, may ultimately take longer if less materials is available than currently expected.

On the basis that FCC Environment cannot guarantee the rate of material to be deposited on site each year, two trajectories are provided to show potential build out rates on site based on differing rates of landfill.

Trajectory v3.1 predicts the landfill operations ceasing by 2033, assuming c.800,000 tonnes entering site on average a year. While a fill rate of c.1 million tonnes has been achieved in a year previously it is at the higher level of fill expected, 800,000 tonnes is considered a more realistic rate. This would thus allow residential development to commence on phases 7-9 in 9.6 years equating to 2034 (assuming that the necessary planning permission is secured during the early 2030s). While this level of fill is unlikely over a sustained number of years. the trajectory shows how on this basis the site could potentially be built out during the Plan period.

Trajectory v3.2 demonstrates the implications of a reduced rate of fill (c.600,000 tonnes per year for 12.75 years) and shows that it would still be possible to achieve 526 dwellings in the Plan period whilst retaining a reasonable and deliverable assumption of 40-45 dwellings completed per year. We would highlight that in Savills experience, in recent years some developers have been achieving 50+ completions per year on a single site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For plan-making this means that:

a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects;

b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas6, unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area7; or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

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

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

These representations are structured as follows:

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

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

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

Land at Wilderness Lane, Great Barr

Historic Site Promotion

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

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

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

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

Site Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

Designations

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

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

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

The site lies fully within the West Midlands Green Belt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SDS1 – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell

Introduction

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

Housing Requirement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tests of Soundness

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Change

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

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

Policy SHO1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Introduction

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

Housing Delivery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exceptional Circumstances for Green Belt Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tests of Soundness

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

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

Recommended Change

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

Policy SDS7 – Sandwell’s Green Belt

Introduction

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

Consideration of Policy

Criterion 2 of the policy notes that:

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

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

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

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

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

Criterion 3 of the policy states that:

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

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

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

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

Tests of Soundness

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

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

Recommended Change

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

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

Policy SHO3 – Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

Introduction

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

Consideration of Policy

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

Tests of Soundness

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

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

Recommended Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duty to Co-operate

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

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

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

Problems with the Shropshire Local Plan EIP

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

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

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

13. HBF’s main concerns around Duty to Cooperate continue to relate to ensuring that Sandwell’s required amount of housing is delivered in reality. This is particularly important because the current Plan the indicates a significant amount of unmet need. The issue of fully meeting housing needs within Sandwell remains. Our more detailed comments on this issue can be found in response to Policy SDS1.

Vision for Sandwell

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

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

15. Although HBF support has supports the need for the Vision for Sandwell to include reference to the need for new homes to meet housing need, as included within Ambition 7 we suggest this should be amended to be more explicit about the requirement to meet the development needs of the area. HBF would suggest that both the Vision and Objective Six should be more explicit about the need to plan for both open market and affordable housing to meet housing needs and support the Council’s growth aspirations.

Planning for Sustainable Development

Policy SD1: Overall Development Strategy

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

Housing Requirement- dpa and total

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

17. It is noted that paragraph 2.6 explains that “There is still, despite the number of housing sites that have been identified and allocated, a shortfall in the numbers of houses that need to be built to meet identified needs. Housing need is calculated using the Government’s standard method based on household growth projections.

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

18. This means that the council is planning only to meet 40% of their proposed housing number, with 60% not being planned for. HBF believe the housing requirement should be higher to start with and so the percentage of unmet need would be even higher. Even, setting this aside for now, HBF is very concerned about this proposed shortfall. Failure to meet the housing needs of Sandwell will inhibit growth and do nothing to address the current housing crisis, with implications for the economy and population of wider region. It will be important for the Council to clearly show how the unmet need will be met, and what they will do to ensure that it is. However, the Council needs to first establish the appropriate housing requirement for Sandwell before considering if and how this could be met.

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

“Employment land need is based on economic forecasts in the EDNA up to 2041.
• Sandwell is subject to a demand for 212ha of employment land.
• The current supply of land available and suitable for employment use is 42ha (after completions between 2020 – 2022 are considered). This includes windfall supply, generated through intensification / recycling, and also includes a vacant land supply of 28ha (sites identified under
Policy SEC1).
• Based on the amount of land required to grow the economy, there is a shortfall of around 170ha.
• In addition, the plan allocates / retains 1,193ha of existing occupied employment as strategic, local or other employment land.

20. HBF notes that the Plan therefore proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This would further constrain the ambitions for Growth in Sandwell, and the wider region. HBF suggest these circumstances warrant a full Green Belt review and the allocation of sites to meet the housing and employment requirements of the Borough even if these are within the current Green Belt.
21. With regards the housing requirement itself, HBF strongly support the need for more housing in the Sandwell Local Plan for a variety of reasons including addressing the current housing crisis, meeting housing need, providing affordable housing and supporting employment growth. HBF would request that the Council considers the annual LHN as only the minimum starting point and fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing.

22. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF requires that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption. HBF note that the current plan period is to 2041 but would still question if the plan period is long enough to cover this requirement. This Reg 18 consultation closes at the end of 2023 and then the representations need to be considered an analysed, a submission plan prepared and consulted, examination, main modifications consultation, inspectors report and adoption by the Council.

23. HBF suggest that the plan-making process may take some time, especially if additional Green Belt release is needed, and suggest that the plan period could be extended now, especially as this would require an update to the evidence base as is important for the evidence base to be consistent with the Plan Period. Extending the plan period would also require an increase to the housing requirement to cover the additional years, and consequential additional housing supply.


24. The Government’s commitment to 1.5 million homes over the next five years has seen ambitions to plan for 370,00 per year in order to deliver the national target of 300,000 new homes per year. HBF note that the standard method housing requirement has always been the minimum starting point for setting the housing requirement, and HBF support more housing than the standard method housing requirement in order to support economic growth, provide a range and type of sites and to support small and medium house builders.

25. HBF suggest that each of these reasons on its own could justify an increase in the housing requirement for Sandwell and the Council should consider planning for an additional amount of housing to address each reason in turn. However, as previously mentioned it is important that the housing requirement is established, before any consideration is given to any issues around housing land supply, or lack thereof.

26. The plan-led system requires Council to proactively plan to meet the needs of their community. This means that there is a need to provide a range and choice of sites, a need for flexibility and viability considerations to be taken into account, and a need for the Council to consider whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure the delivery of affordable housing and/or support economic growth.

27. Once the housing requirement has been set, the next phase is to consider housing land supply. It is important to both minimise the amount of any unmet needs that cannot be accommodated within the Borough and clearly set out how any unmet need will be addressed elsewhere. HBF recognise the constrained nature of the Borough and the size of the shortfall in Housing and Employment land being proposed in this plan. However, it is important that the housing needs of Sandwell are met in full.

28. Although HBF is pleased to see the Council commit to ongoing working with neighbouring authorities to try an address this matter under the Duty to Cooperate the fact remains that the Local Plan’s policies should ensure the availability of a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to deliver Sandwell’s housing requirement. If it is not possible to do this within the Council’s boundary then Green Belt should be considered.

29. Criteria 3 of the policy sets out that “Appendices B and C show how the housing and employment land ambitions for Sandwell will be met. Those development needs that cannot be accommodated within the borough will be exported to sustainable locations in neighbouring local authority areas, following consultation.” HBF suggest this should be set out as an integral part of the policy and not deferred to Appendix B and C.

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

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

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

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

32. HBF continune to strongly disagree with the conclusion in para 3.99 which says:

“It is the Council’s view that there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development. While there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of the rest of the borough.”
33. HBF are strongly of the view that planning to meet less than half of your identified housing need is clearly evidence of the exceptional circumstances required to justify releasing areas of green belt land.

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

35. NPPF (para 20) is clear that “Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development”. Para 11 of the NPPF states that “all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects”.

36. HBF cannot see how a plan that provides for less than half of its housing requirement standard method baseline (and HBF argue the housing requirement itself should be higher) can meet the requirements to be positively prepared and setting out a clear long term vision for the area which is the purpose of plan-making. NPPF para 60 clearly states that “to support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.”

37. HBF believes the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing consider is a factor that constitutes the exception circumstances that justify green belt release.

38. HBF support ambitious growth aspirations in Sandwell. HBF highlight the need to consider the interaction between employment and housing. An increase in the number of jobs can it itself generate a requirement for additional housing, and failure to provide housing can have negative impacts on the economic and social wellbeing of the area.

39. The Plan need to ensure there is a sufficiency of Housing Land Supply (HLS) to meet the housing requirement, ensure the maintenance of a 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT) performance measurements. HBF cannot see how achieving these aims is possible without Green Belt release. It is noted that this may in turn also effect the spatial strategy for the Local Plan.

40. HBF also suggest the Council should give explicit consideration to whether BNG development is acceptable within the Green Belt and/or if green belt boundaries need to be revised accommodate schemes that deliver off-site, and possibly even on-site biodiversity gains.

Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

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

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

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

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

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

45. Any requirements to go beyond 10% BNG needs to be clearly demonstrated with evidence including considering the implications of the policy approach as part of the whole plan viability appraisal. In particular, HBF would question how the viability of more than 10% BNG can be established when the market for off-site credits, and therefore the costs of delivering the 10% mandatory BNG system are still emerging.

46. HBF notes that the proposed policy wording and supporting text will need to reflect both that the Environment Act which requires 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, and the emerging policy, guidance and best practice on how Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain will be implemented. There is an important policy distinction to made between the national mandatory requirements and any optional further requests from LPAs to go further and faster. In particular the 10% national target is non-negotiable from a viability perspective, but policies seeking over 10% can be challenged on viability grounds. This distinction needs to be recognised within the Local Plan.

47. HBF suggest particular care is needed in terminology to ensure the Sandwell policy reflects the national policy and guidance. For example, on site and off-site biodiversity is referred to as units, and the statutory national credit system of last resort is referred to as credit. It is important for the wording of the policy to accurately reflect the legalisation and guidance.

48. HBF question the wording of criteria five, as it should be for the BNG plan to set out what happens if monitoring shows any BNG measure are ineffective. For large and complex sites where the development is phased, the guidance is clear that the 10% must be delivered at the end of the development, and this may not result in 10% BNG on each phase.

49. It is also important to note that for large and complex sites where the development is phased, the guidance is clear that the 10% must be delivered at the end of the development, and this may not result in 10% BNG on each phase. Additional advice on phased development has been provided in the new BNG PPG.

50. The costs of BNG must also be considered as part of the whole plan viability assessment and should be specified as a single specific item, and not combined into a generic s106 costs item. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity net gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment, some of which remain unknown at this time. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery. The costs relate both the financial costs and also land take- which will impact on densities achievable if BNG is provided on site.

51. As this is still a new policy area and the market for off-site provision, and statutory credits are not yet known, any figure used for BNG costs will need to be kept under review as BNG implementation progresses and a greater understanding of actual costs become available. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment must clearly set out how it considered the implications of mandatory BNG and how it as arrived at using the most up to date BNG costs information available. There may need to be further additional flexibility in policies elsewhere in the Plan to reflect the non-negotiable nature of 10% BNG costs.

52. HBF suggest that there is also a need for this policy and supporting text to say more about how BNG will be considered in relation to applications in advance of the Local Nature Recovery Strategies. As the LNRS emerges it will be important for this Local Plan to be kept under review and further public consultation on the interaction between the two documents and/or changes to Local Plan policy and/or its implementation, to reflect the LNRS may be needed.

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

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

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

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

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

56. HBF continue to question how the Council arrived at the requirement for 3 replacement trees for everyone lost and what (if any) assumptions have been relation to the size and standard of trees. HBF considers that a three for one replacement policy could impact on the land uptake for any development and may have implications for the density of developments, which in turn has the potential to have an impact on the viability of developments.

57. HBF suggest further flexibility is needed in the policy, for example hedgerow removal may be an essential to gain access to a site, but BNG policies which require 10% net gain from the pre-development baseline so any loss would already have to be compensated. HBF suggest the Council should give more thought to how the suite of environmental policies are intended to work together so that developers are completely clear what is expected of them, and to ensure that the policies do not serve to make development undeliverable.

Policy SCC1 – Energy Infrastructure

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

58. HBF supports the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers. The Councils do not need to set local energy efficiency standards in a Local Plan policy because of the higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard. There is no need for a Local Plan policies on matters already addressed in Building Regulations.

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

Policy SCC4 - Embodied carbon and waste

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

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

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

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

61. In relation to criteria one, HBF’s detailed comments in relation to the amount of housing needed in Sandwell can be found in our response to policy SD1: Development Strategy. In summary, HBF request that the standard method LHN should be the minimum starting point for establishing the housing requirement and the Council should then fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing. HBF suggests that these considerations should result in a higher housing requirement for Sandwell which set be set out in the Local Plan. Only then should consideration around deliverability and housing land supply come into play, the housing requirement should be established first.

62. In relation to criteria two, HBF note that the council is looking to phase the plan and delivery of the housing requirement. For the plan to be effective and justified, a clear explanation of this approach and the reasoning behind for it is needed. As HBF is of the view that the overall housing requirement for Sandwell should be higher, it follows that our view is that the numbers in each phase should be higher too.

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

64. HBF supports the principal of discounted the housing land supply to take account of non-implementation rates. We note that site with planning permission include a lapse rate of 5% other commitments are SHLAA are discounted by 10% and occupied employment land discounted by 15%, but These figures should be clearly evidenced. HBF also notes that no allowance is made for non-delivery of windfall sites and we believe one is needed. HBF would question if the discount rates should in fact be higher especially for sites that are currently occupied in employment use. The anticipated loss of current employment sites to housing further underlines the need for housing and employment to be considered together, and implications of not meeting with the housing and employment need of the borough present the exceptional circumstances required to justify Green Belt release.

65. Para 7.4 of the Plan states that “A balanced range of sites has been provided, in terms of size, location and market attractiveness, which will help to maximise housing delivery over the Plan period. Across the borough, 10% of identified supply in the Plan and in the most recent Brownfield Register is on sites no larger than 1ha, which is in accordance with the requirement set out in the NPPF at paragraph 069.”

66. The NPPF requires Local Plans to identify land to accommodate at least 10% of the housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare, unless there are strong reasons why this cannot be achieved. The HBF has undertaken extensive consultation with its small developer members. One of the chief obstacles for small developers is that funding is extremely difficult to secure without a full, detailed, and implementable planning permission. Securing an implementable planning permission is extremely difficult if small sites are not allocated. Without implementable consents lenders are uneasy about making finance available or the repayment fees and interest rates they set will be very high. Small developers, consequently, need to invest a lot of money and time up-front in the risky business of trying to secure an allocation and a planning permission, and this is money that many small developers do not have.

67. HBF would therefore wish to see the 10% small sites allowance delivered through allocations. Indeed, we would advocate that a higher percentage of small sites are allocated if possible. Such sites are important for encouraging the growth in SME housebuilders who will tend to develop these sites but rarely see the benefits that arise from the allocation of sites in a local plan. Up until the 1980s, small developers once accounted for the construction of half of all homes built in this country resulting in greater variety of product, more competition, and faster build-out rates. Since then, the number of small companies has fallen by 80%.

68. HBF also note that support for small and medium builders need not be limited to only small sites of less than 1Ha. SMEs also deliver on other types of non-strategic sites (for example up to 100 units). The inclusion of additional non-strategic allocations would expand the range of choice in the market, and (possibly most importantly), be of a scale that can come forward and making a contribution to housing numbers earlier in the plan period.

69. In relation to criteria three, HBF notes that NPPF (para 71) only permits an allowance for windfall sites if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available and will continue to be a reliable source of supply. HBF are also of the view that any buffer provided by windfall sites should be in addition to the buffer added to the housing need figures derived from the Standard Method to provide choice and competition in the land market. However, by including windfalls within the Plan’s housing requirement supply, any opportunity for windfalls to provide some additional housing numbers and flexibility is removed. Windfalls do not provide the same choice and flexibility in the market as additional allocations.

70. Criteria 3 indicates that regular monitoring will be undertaken annually of housing delivery, but this does not tally with the Monitoring Framework at the end of the Plan.

71. It should also be possible to see from Housing Trajectory how much reliance is being made on windfalls, or from when. To be both justified and effective the Housing Trajectory should include break down the housing numbers into different sources of supply. HBF are of the view that any allowance for windfall should not be included until the fourth year of a housing trajectory, given the likelihood that dwellings being completed within the next three years will already be known about (as they are likely to need to have already received planning permission to be completed within that timeframe).

Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

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

72. As outlined above HBF are concerned about the Councils reliance on windfall in place of allocating housing sites. HBF also question whether it is appropriate to treat council owned land differently in policy terms from any other land. Consideration of who the applicant or landowner is, is not normally considered a to be a planning matter. The allocation of sites and the granting of permission of windfall should be considered on their planning merits and the contribution they can make to sustainable development, not who is the owner of the land.

73. HBF contend there is need for greenfield development in Sandwell to address the housing crisis and meet the housing requirement, some of these greenfield sites may need to be on Green Belt land. If monitoring showed underperformance of housing delivery additional housing will need to brough forward which could include allowing additional green field sites. The policy should be amended to account for this possibility.

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

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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

75. The Regulation 19 policy continues to require densities of 100 dwellings per hectare for areas of very high density housing areas, 45 dwellings in ‘high accessible areas’ and 40+ for moderate area. Although the Table Six uses 100+, 45+ and 40+, so there is a need for consistency between the two.

76. Is it unclear from the policy wording if this policy only applies to allocated sites, or all development over 10 units. It is also unclear how a developer would know which target applied to their development and which standard to apply on a site not allocated in the plan. The Plan needs to better explain and justify its approach.

77. HBF would also question how realistic such high densities are, noting that the setting of residential density standards should be undertaken in accordance with the NPPF (para 125). HBF would also question how this policy links into other policies including the policies that seek to protect family housing, resist HMOs, limit tall buildings, prevent intensification, resist windfalls, and require a range and mix of housing. All of these policies may prevent densification. Indeed even the amount of land required for on-site BNG delivery may impact on the density that is delivered.

78. HBF suggest that density needs to be considered on a site by site basis to ensure schemes are viable, deliverable and appropriate for the site, and policy needs to include some flexibility if needed to enable it to respond to site specific circumstances.

79. HBF would question of the density proposed are realistic deliverable and viable as the deliverability of high-density residential development in Sandwell will be dependent upon the viability of brownfield sites and the demand for high density city centre living post Covid-19. It is important that delivery of the housing requirement does not rely overly ambitious intensification of dwellings.

80. HBF also question why there is need for a specific mention of 4+ bedroom houses in Criteria 5 of the policy as the wording of the policy as this presupposes no need for four bed houses in the evidence which may not be the case. The plan should also be read as a whole and the matter of responding to housing need it terms of size and type of units is already covered elsewhere in the Plan.

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

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

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

82. HBF welcomes the recognition that the delivery of affordable housing in Sandwell may raise issues of viability. Viability must be an integral part of the plan-making process, and the findings of the viability appraisal should have helped inform and test policy development. HBF have concerned about some of the detail of the Viability Assessment as it has not considered a number of key costs and requirements. For example, HBF information suggests that complying with the current new part L is costing £3500 per plot. The Future Homes Standard Part L in 2025 is anticipated to cost up to £7500+ per plot. There will also be the addition of the Building Safety Levy that is coming in pay for cladding. This will be a per plot basis around the UK, and initial values are around £1500- £2500 per plot. These costs appear to have not been considered in the viability appraisal.

83. Other factors that need to be taken into account include increasing costs of materials and labour due to inflation and the costs of mandatory BNG, which are still emerging as the off-site market is yet to be established. Although the initial price of statutory credits is now known this national fallback option has been deliberately highly priced to discourage their use. Whilst this intention is understandable, at present the lack of functioning local markets for off-site credits causes viability problems because HBF members experience to date suggests that any scheme that needs to rely on statutory credits becomes unviable. HBF have numerous concerns about the whole plan viability study, including the omission of some key policy costs. For example, an realistic and evidenced allowance for mandatory BNG needs to be includes within the viability assessment of the Local Plan.

84. The costs of BNG should have been considered as part of the planning obligations and should be specified as a single specific item. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity net gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment, some of which are unknown at this time. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery. As this is an emerging policy area and the market for off-site provision, and statutory credits are not yet known, any figure used for BNG costs will need to be kept under review as BNG implementation progresses and a greater understanding of actual costs become available. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment should clearly set out how it considered the implications of mandatory BNG and how it arrived at the most up to date BNG costs information available to use.

85. At a very basic level viability can be improved by reducing costs or increasing values. Sometimes, therefore changing the type of affordable housing provided can help to improve viability of a specific site, and the plan should recognise this. In this situation there could be a change of the percentages of different types of affordable housing provided, but the headline figure of how much affordable housing is provided would remain the same. Flexibility in the policy is important to allow for these kind of considerations.

86. The geographical distribution of development may impact on the Plan’s ability to deliver affordable housing where it is most needed. HBF notes that the level of open-market housing provided may also impact on the amount of affordable housing that can be developed.

87. It will be also be important to understand if there any geographically specific viability considerations, such as whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in particular areas in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing in that location in a way that remains viable. Similarly, brownfield city centre sites tend to be most suited for apartments or retirement living. There will therefore be a need to include green fields allocations which are more likely to deliver family housing and a higher percentage of affordable housing, in order to provide flexibility in the housing land supply and ensure a range of housing types and tenures is provided. This adds further weigh to the need to consider Green Belt release(s).

88. The HBF does not comment on individual sites, other than to say the Plan should provide for a wide range of deliverable and developable sites across the area in order to provide competition and choice and a buffer to ensure that housing needs are met in full. The soundness of strategic and non-strategic site allocations, whether brownfield or greenfield, will be tested in due course at the Local Plan Examination.

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

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

89. This policy still seeks to require all new residential developments to meet M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of Building Regulations and development of 10 or more units to provide 15% which meet M4(3) (Wheelchair user dwellings) on schemes of more than 20 homes.

90. The requirements to meet Part M4(2) will be superseded by changes to residential Building Regulations. The Government response to ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’ states that the Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through the Building Regulations. The requirement to address this issue is planning policy is therefore unnecessary.

91. HBF are of the view that this matter should be left to Building Regulations, however if a policy were to be needed, the wording needs to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards. M43a sets out standards for wheelchair adaptable housing, where M43b relates to wheelchair accessible housing which can only be required on affordable housing where the Council has nomination rights. Any such requirements would also need to be fully considered from a viability perspective.

92. The PPG states:

“What accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?

Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual’s needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement – see paragraph 011 below.

Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied.”

Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519 Revision date: 19 05 2016

93. The PPG sets out some of the circumstances where it would be unreasonable to require M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings. Such factors include flooding, typography and other circumstances. HBF suggest that flexibility is needed in the application of these standards to reflect site specific characteristics, and the policy wording should reflect this. HBF do not believe this policy is sound without this flexibility, as it fails to comply with national policy and is not effective or justified.

94. In relation to Self-Build and Custom Build Plots, the policy requires sites of 100 or more dwellings, to provide at least 5% as serviced plots for self and custom build, if there is evidence of demand. If after six months of a thorough an proportionate marketing exercise the plot remains unsold, the requirements falls away.

95. HBF does not consider that requiring major developments to provide for self-builders is appropriate. Instead, the HBF advocates for self and custom-build policies that encourage self and custom-build development by setting out where it will be supported in principle. The HBF considers that Councils can play a key role in facilitating the provision of land as set in the PPG. This could be done, for example, by using the Councils’ own land for such purposes and/or allocating sites specifically for self and custom-build home builders- although this would need to be done through discussion and negotiation with landowners.

96. It is considered unlikely that the provision of self and custom build plots on new housing developments can be co-ordinated with the development of the wider site. At any one time, there are often multiple contractors and large machinery operating on-site from both a practical and health and safety perspective, it is difficult to envisage the development of single plots by individuals operating alongside this construction activity.

97. HBF agree that if demand for plots is not realised, it is important that plots should not be left empty to the detriment of neighbouring properties or the whole development. The timescale for reversion of these plots to the original housebuilder should be as short as possible from the commencement of development because the consequential delay in developing those plots presents further practical difficulties in terms of co-ordinating their development with construction activity on the wider site. There are even greater logistical problems created if the original housebuilder has completed the development and is forced to return to site to build out plots which have not been sold to self & custom builders. Therefore, if the current policy requirements are retained HBF would support the suggestion that any unsold plots remaining after the 6-month marketing period revert to the original developer.

Missing Policy- Previous Policy SH06

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

98. The Reg 18 version of the Sandwell Local Plan included a very important policy called “Financial Viability Assessments for Housing”. HBF made comments on this policy saying “As the whole plan viability methodology uses typologies, this means there may be individual sites that are not viable, for example if the costs or vales of a specific site fall outside the parameters used of a typology that was tested. Some site will be on the very margins of viability and other sites may already be unviable even without a change of circumstances. HBF therefore support the recognition of the potential ned for flexibility in relation to site specific viability issues.”

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

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

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

100. HBF are supportive of the use of ‘Building for a Healthy Life’ as best practice guidance but suggest its use should remain voluntary rather than becoming a mandatory policy requirement. Building for a Healthy Life is not really a ‘standard’ to be achieved, but rather a toolkit for considering design and thinking about the qualities of successful places.

Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

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

Nationally Described Space Standard

101. HBF does not support the introduction of the optional Nationally Described Space Standards though policies in individual Local Plans. If the Council wanted to do this, they will need robust justifiable evidence to introduce the NDSS, as any policy which seeks to apply the optional nationally described space standards (NDSS) to all dwellings should only be done in accordance with the NPPF , which states that “policies may also make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”.

102. The NPPF requires that all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence, which should be adequate, proportionate and focussed tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned. The PPG identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy. It states that ‘where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:

• Need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
• Viability – the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.
• Timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions’.

103. HBF also remind the Council that there is a direct relationship between unit size, cost per square metre (sqm), selling price per sqm and affordability. The Council’s policy approach should recognise that customers have different budgets and aspirations. An inflexible policy approach to NDSS for all new dwellings will impact on affordability and effect customer choice. Well-designed dwellings below NDSS can provided a good, functional home. Smaller dwellings play a valuable role in meeting specific needs for both open market and affordable home ownership housing.

104. An inflexible policy approach imposing NDSS on all housing removes the most affordable homes and denies lower income households from being able to afford homeownership. The introduction of the NDSS for all dwellings may mean customers purchasing larger homes in floorspace but with bedrooms less suited to their housing needs with the unintended consequences of potentially increasing overcrowding and reducing the quality of their living environment. The Council should focus on good design and usable space to ensure that dwellings are fit for purpose rather than focusing on NDSS.

105. HBF considers that if the Government had expected all properties to be built to NDSS that they would have made these standards mandatory not optional.

106. If the proposed requirement for NDSS is carried forward, then the Council should put forward proposals for transitional arrangements. The land deals underpinning residential sites may have been secured prior to any proposed introduction of the NDSS. These sites should be allowed to move through the planning system before any proposed policy requirements are enforced. The NDSS should not be applied to any reserved matters applications or any outline or detailed approval prior to a specified date.

107. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

108. This policy also seeks to introduce a water efficiency standard of 110 litres/person/day. HBF note that Part G Building regulations already stipulates 125lpppd normal conditions and 110lpppd in water stressed areas. Therefore, HBF question whether there is a need for this to be referred to within the Local Plan as it is already required by other regulatory frameworks.

109. The policy should be deleted.

Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

110. HBF notes that we are in the midst of a Housing Crisis. Housing delivery is therefore a key challenge facing Sandwell Borough. To address the housing crisis the Council needs to allocate enough sites to meet the housing requirement and provide choice and flexibility in supply. This will require the allocation of a mix and range of sites in a variety of locations. The policies in the Plan with then near careful monitoring to ensure they are delivering the housing. The Sandwell Local Plan must ensure the delivery of new housing to meet both open market and affordable housing needs.

111. The issue of housing is critically important and needs urgently addressing through the plan-making process. HBF believes that the Council needs to explore any and all options to meet the housing need and requirement of Sandwell. This must include full consideration of the current Housing Crisis and if it results in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would require the need for a Green Belt review. A plan that seeks to meet only third of the need does not deliver is simply not good enough and does represent an effective use of the plan-led system.

112. HBF suggest more flexibility is needed within the plan, so that it is able to respond to any changing circumstances. HBF do not support the inclusion of policies within a Local Plan that merely triggers a review of the Local Plan if monitoring shows housing delivery is not occurring as expected. Such a policy does nothing to address the housing crisis or undersupply of homes. There are other more effective and immediate measures that could be introduced into policy that would enable the Council to address housing under deliver, much more quickly than would be possible through the production of another plan, or plan review.

113. It is important that houses are brought forward, and the matter addressed as soon as possible, if under delivery is observed. HBF would suggest, as a minimum, explicit reference should be made within the Plan’s policy to the potential to bring forward supply earlier. However, as the housing need and requirement figures for the Plan are minimum (not maximum) figures the Council could also specifically identify reserve sites, particular sites that could/would be brought forward sooner to address any under delivery whatever the reason for that under performance. This could be a shortfall in market housing permissions granted and/or completions, affordable housing permissions granted and/or completions and any failure against the Housing Delivery Test or local plan monitoring. More is needed on how and when monitoring will be undertaken and more is needed on what action(S) will be taken when if monitoring shows under delivery of housing.

114. There remains a need to address issues that are wider-than-local matters in a joined-up manner under the Duty to Cooperate. HBF suggest that this means there is a need for housing monitoring to be undertaken across the wider region. If other areas are providing housing to meet Sandwell’s need, Sandwell will need to be monitoring this delivery to ensure its needs are being met. However, HBF firmly believe Sandwell should be doing more to address its own needs, including Green Belt release.

115. The HBF would encourage the Council to fully consider the housing needs of the Borough and robustly consider the need for additional housing in the housing requirement before then considering how much of the housing requirement can be met within the Borough, and how much may be unmet. It is important for the housing requirement to reflect the housing needs and growth aspirations of the Borough and not be restricted by capacity considerations, which should be considered after the housing requirement has been set.

116. HBF suggest that the monitoring framework at the end of the Plan needs to be expanded. The Council will need to monitor the delivery of housing and publish progress against a published Housing Trajectory Housing monitoring should be undertaken on a site-by-site basis. Therefore, the detailed housing trajectory including for specific sites should be inserted included within the Plan.

117. HBF note that as we are in the midst of a housing crisis, it is very important that the Council ensures that the Local Plan delivers all the housing that is being planned for. Sandwell should also monitor the delivery of any unmet need by neighbouring authorities and actively participate in local plan consultation and examination to ensure the need for other authorities to meet their need is robustly supported in neighbouring Local Plans.

Appearance at the EIP and Future Engagement

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