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.

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.

Spatial Portrait - We welcome the many references to the history of Sandwell as a Borough and the local historic environment of the area.

Ambitions - We would have welcomed a reference to the historic environment within the ‘ambitions’ of the Plan.

Vision - We welcome the many references to the historic environment within the vision.
Strategic Objectives - We welcome the inclusion of Objective 4. It should reference the need to protect the significance of heritage assets to ensure that all typologies are accurately referenced and considered within the policy. Again, we welcome Objective 5 and this would benefit from referencing ‘heritage assets’ rather than ‘historic assets’.

Policy SDS1 clause j - We support the inclusion of a reference to heritage within this policy. We welcome the amendments from the previous version. The policy should relate to ‘heritage assets’ and would benefit from the removal of the term ‘designated’.

Policy SDS2 clause i - Remove ‘unacceptable level of’ from the policy text. We are supportive of energy efficiency measures for heritage assets; however, they must be appropriate and suitable to the context of the building they are being applied to and not cause harm to the significance of heritage assets. Further, the policy would benefit from some justification text setting out the specific considerations for energy efficiency measures and the historic environment to provide more certainty and reference the need for other measures such as listed building consent.
Clause j) - Re-word this clause. Harm to heritage should be wholly/ exceptional. The policy should reference the need to protect the significance of heritage assets, including their setting rather than only refer to setting. Harm should be avoided or minimised.

Policy SDS3 - We reiterate our previous comments that the policy would benefit from a reference to the historic environment and specifically the Wednesbury High Street Action Zone, as well as text about relevant heritage led regeneration programmes within Sandwell. We note a brief reference in paragraph 3.54.

Policy SDS4 clause 1, ai - See previous comments about the need to remove the reference to ‘call for sites’ as these sites ay be suggested but be inappropriate for development.

Green and Blue Infrastructure, including Policy SDS8 - We reiterate our comments as raised previously about the need to include the historic environment and heritage landscapes as a component of blue and green infrastructure, more far reaching than a reference to Registered Parks and Gardens.

Policy SNE4 - We continue to support the inclusion of this policy in the Plan. Our previous comment relating to the need include protection of the significance of the asset and its integrity, are still relevant here.

Policy SNE5 - We welcome the amendments to this policy for heritage.

Policy SNE6 - We continue to support the inclusion of this policy and the references to the historic environment.

Section Historic Environment - We welcome a specific section on the historic environment being incorporated into the Plan, and policies for the historic environment.

We are supportive of the introductory paragraphs which do a very good job of setting the scene for the historic environment of the area and are an interesting read.

Paragraph 4.108 - Should also refer to non designated heritage assets which also have protection, albeit to a lesser extent than designated heritage assets.

Paragraph 4.113 - Should be referred to as ‘heritage assets’ and elsewhere throughout the Plan.

Policy SHE1 - We welcome the amendments the Council has made to the policy since our previous comments, and this has been gratefully received. We would recommend that clause 4 is amended slightly to read ‘…seek to conserve and enhance the significance of listed buildings by exercising appropriate control in their setting, over the design of …’ to ensure that the policy relates to the significance (which is what is protected).

Policy SHE2 - We welcome the policy. We consider that it needs a clause akin to Policy SHE1 clause 2, that then relates to all other heritage assets aside from listed buildings and conservation areas. Insert the clause into this policy also to be compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 16.

Clause 3, consider a minor edit on this section to ensure that ‘all’ heritage assets are protected.

We welcome clause 5 and specific detail about the local character of Sandwell.

SHE3 - We welcome the amendments to this policy.

SHE4 - We welcome the amendments to this policy. Clause 3 amend ‘significant adverse effect’ with ‘harm’.

Policies SCC1-SCC6 - See previous comments at Regulation 18 stage, December 2023.

Policy SH02 clause 2, c. - We support this clause.

Policy SH09 - The policy would benefit from a clause relating to the need to protect the significance of heritage assets and their setting and any harm will be resisted.

Employment section - We consider within this section there could be a reference to the benefit of the historic environment; heritage led regeneration, heritage tourism, public realm, the economic benefit that heritage assets bring to an area including Conservation Areas, Wednesbury High Street Action Zone and the benefit of heritage assets in revitalising the town centre economy and relevant issues on shopfronts and design within heritage centres. See Regulation 18 comments.

Policy SCE1 - See previous comments to Regulation 18 consultation.

Paragraph 9.171 - Can the policy/ Plan do anything to overcome the vacancy rate and heritage at risk of these assets?

Page 306 - We welcome the reference to the Wednesbury High Street Action Zone and its success. Are there any lessons learned from this exercise that can be utilised in other retail areas across Sandwell, which could also benefit from heritage led regeneration? And can the Plan reference any hooks in the relevant sections to assist with future opportunities and delivery.

Policy SWB1 - The policy would benefit from a clause on the historic environment.

Policy STR1 - See comments to Regulation 18 Local Plan. How has the historic environment been considered when safeguarding land for future transport development? For example, do you have any information relating to clause 1?

Policy STR2 - See comments to Regulation 18 Local Plan. How has the historic environment been considered when safeguarding land for future transport development? For example, do you have any information relating to clause 2?

Policy STR5 - There may be opportunities to ‘better reveal the significance’ of heritage assets through proposed walking and cycling routes. It would be beneficial if the policy sought to utilise any of these opportunities if they arise.

Policy STR6 clause a - Is the policy identifying any strategic park and ride sites at this stage? If so, are there any considerations for the historic environment?

Policy SWA3 - What assessment has been undertaken to assess the preferred locations for waste sites and whether there are any implications for the historic environment? We note that no sites have been allocated at this stage but are keen to ensure all relevant heritage considerations and assessments are undertaken at the appropriate stage and that preferred locations for new development does not give any weight in the planning process to an allocation/ planning permission, without the appropriate assessment being undertaken.

Policy SWA4 clause d - The policy needs a clause relating to the historic environment within this section and the need to protect the significance of heritage assets, including their setting. Setting does not only relate to a visual relationship but can also relate to how you can experience a heritage asset and if this is affected through noise, smells and traffic for example.

Policy SMI1 - We cannot find any information relating to proposed mineral allocations at this time.

Policy SMI2 - We welcome a reference to heritage within clause 5, b) however, we consider that it should state should protect the significance of heritage assets, including their setting. The policy should also make provision for appropriate restoration principles, that consider the sensitivity of the historic environment and wider historic landscape, within which mineral sites may be located.

Paragraph 13.108 - We support the reference to cumulative impacts because often in minerals working, it is the cumulative impact of a number of minerals workings in one location that cause harm to the significance of heritage assets and the wider historic landscape.

It would be beneficial if the justification text referenced the need for appropriate restoration principles for minerals working sites.

Policy SDM4 - We welcome a reference to heritage within this policy.

Policy SDM3 - Clause 1 should reference the available historic environment townscape evidence base that Sandwell Council has and has been referenced elsewhere in the document. Any proposed tall building should take account of its context and other existing landmark sites, such as heritage assets, in gauging what height is appropriate. Referencing the existing evidence base can help inform development proposals. Where a heritage asset is currently a key landmark on the skyline such as a church spire, then this should remain as the principle landmark site on the skyline and other new development should respect its height and position on the skyline.

Clause 5 c) Re-word the policy clause so that ‘the proposal will not cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting’.

Clause 5 g) Consider re-wording this clause to ensure prominence of existing key landmarks remain and to avoid a homogenous skyline within the Borough.

Clause 6 a) how will this be achieved?

Add in a clause to ensure that any applications for tall buildings are accompanied by a Heritage Assessment, where relevant.

We are not aware of any locations that have been identified for tall buildings within this Plan. If the Council are considering locations, then we would welcome a meeting to discuss and ascertain what heritage assessment has been undertaken to date.

Policy SDM4 - The policy should include a clause of how to consider advertisements in relation to heritage assets including individual listed buildings and within Conservation Areas, to ensure that only appropriate advertisements are included and there is no harm to the significance of heritage assets. We usually see this in Local Plan Advertisements policies. Additional information in the justification text would be beneficial.

Policy SDM5 - The policy should include a clause on how to assess Shop Fronts where they are also heritage assets. Some of the clauses within the current policy wording would not be appropriate in the context of historic shop fronts. They are also likely to require listed building consent, and this would be worthwhile to include within the policy text. We usually see this contained within Local Plan Shopfront policies. Additional information in the justification text would be beneficial.

Appendices from Page 11 - Site Allocations

SH14 – How will the site consider the Grade II heritage asset, within its boundary? What harm may occur and can this be overcome. Cannot locate the specific heritage assessment for this site when searching under the site reference or address.

SH34 – The site includes Ridge and Furrow within the site. The site assessment states that mitigation is possible but there are no details about what the possible mitigation measures are and how this can be considered within the site. We would require the retention of ridge and furrow and appropriate design to consider this heritage asset. At present there is no reference of how to overcome the harm to this site. However, we note that this site is subject to planning approval and as such consider that these issues will have been addressed at planning application stage.

SH51 – The site would need to demonstrate that harm to Highfields, Grade II can be overcome and that suitable mitigation measures are available to avoid/ minimise the harm. There is no proposed mitigation measures within the further information relating to this site in the further information in the Plan, and so we remain concerned with regards to this development.

SM5 – we remain concerned about this site and how the development can come forward given the heritage assets on site and the lack of information surrounding the proposed development at this time. There is no information within the appendices relating to the site allocations for this site and whether there are any mitigation measures that are suitable to avoid/ minimise the harm to heritage assets.

Smethwick police station site – no site reference within the assessment - we remain concerned about this site and how the development can come forward given the heritage assets in close proximity to the site and the lack of information surrounding the proposed development at this time. The mitigation measures in the assessment are not suitable to assess whether any harm to heritage could be avoided. There is no information within the appendices relating to the site allocations for this site and whether there are any mitigation measures that are suitable to avoid/ minimise the harm to heritage assets.

SH66 – Wednesbury Police Station - no site reference within the assessment - we remain concerned about this site and how the development can come forward given the heritage assets in close proximity to the site and the lack of information surrounding the proposed development at this time. The mitigation measures in the assessment are not suitable to assess whether any harm to heritage could be avoided. There is no information within the appendices relating to the site allocations for this site and whether there are any mitigation measures that are suitable to avoid/ minimise the harm to heritage assets.

Former Corus Premises – unclear from information in the Plan – is no development proposed on this site? The heritage assessment states there are heritage assets to consider but no further development and no reference within the Plan to the potential for harm or appropriate mitigation measures.

British Gas – Land off Dudley Road – it is possible for harm to occur to the Canal Conservation Area and a mitigation measure could be included to ensure appropriate design and siting to ensure harm avoided to the canal and the potential for it to have an enhancement opportunity if appropriate development considerations were taken forward.

Roway Lane, Oldbury – what heritage asset is the heritage assessment referring to and how will development not harm any heritage asset on the site? Unclear on the evidence base relating to this site.

SH44 Wyndmill Farm – the assessment relates to Bustleholm Farm as a heritage asset. What type of heritage asset is this? We cannot find it located on the National List. The assessment states no further development on this site, is this correct?

SM2 – concerns relating to this site. There are a number of heritage assets listed in the site assessment as being in proximity to the site, including the presence of archaeology on the site. The assessment concludes no harm but we consider a more detailed heritage assessment is required for this site to understand what heritage may be impacted and whether there are any appropriate mitigation/ avoidance measures. There is nothing within the Local Plan appendices relating to heritage yet there is a need for a masterplan where issues could be considered.

SM3 – concerns relating to this site. There are a number of heritage assets that could be affected by proposed development and the heritage assessment concludes development should have regard to heritage assets. Further assessment is required. Additionally, there is no reference to heritage assets or potential mitigation measures within the Local Plan appendices.

SM4 - concerns relating to this site. There are a number of heritage assets that could be affected by proposed development and the heritage assessment concludes development should have regard to heritage assets. Further assessment is required. Additionally, there is no reference to heritage assets or potential mitigation measures within the Local Plan appendices.

SM6 - concerns relating to this site. There are a number of heritage assets that could be affected by proposed development and the heritage assessment concludes development should have regard to heritage assets. Further assessment is required. Additionally, there is no reference to heritage assets or potential mitigation measures within the Local Plan appendices.

SM1 Chances Glassworks – there is no heritage assessment for this site. There are a number of heritage assets within the site and within proximity to the site so a detailed heritage assessment for this site is essential to assess whether development can come forward and if appropriate avoidance/ mitigation measures exist to overcome the harm to heritage. We recognise that this could be a location for heritage led regeneration and a heritage assessment will provide a useful process to assess the harm and the potential to ensure that an appropriate policy can be included within the Local Plan, if relevant.

General point – any development being proposed which could have an impact on a Canal Conservation Area, should be fully considered at this stage and a mitigation measure included within the ‘further information’ section in the Local Plan appendices to ensure it is fully considered at planning application stage.

General point – we would welcome a meeting with the Council to discuss their Regulation 19 site allocations and to ensure that any site which could have the potential to harm heritage assets has been considered through the heritage assessment (where planning permission/ commencement has not occurred). It is, in cases a little unclear, as to whether all the relevant sites have been assessed. Where we have raised comments above, we would be grateful to discuss these specific sites in more detail and to assess whether there are appropriate mitigation measures that can be included within the Plan.

General point – white land – what is this policy criteria relating to? There is no policy within the Local Plan which relates to white land and how it should be considered? Are there any implications for the historic environment?