In its representations to the Regulation 18 Local Plan, Vulcan commented that draft Policy SHO3 (‘Housing Density, Type and Accessibility’) should be explicit that a table provided in the Justification section provides a recommendation rather than prescriptive requirement for a residential development proposal. Likewise, Vulcan set out that Policy SHO3 should be consistent with Policies SHO4 AND SHO5 to be explicit that dwelling mix and mix of tenures will be site specific and subject to a consideration of local needs at the time of a proposed development coming forward.

The Regulation 19 version of Policy SHO3 (also ‘Housing Density, Type and Accessibility’) is closely similar to the wording of the Regulation 18 version.

Consistent across both Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 drafts, Policy SHO3 sets out that “Developments of ten homes or more should provide a range of house types and sizes that will meet the accommodation needs of both existing and future residents, in line with the most recently available information.” This offers flexibility to house types which may differ over time and in geographical area within the Borough.

The flexibility afforded when considering the appropriateness of housing density, type and accessibility within a development proposal is welcomed by Vulcan, and the draft wording of Policy SHO3 is supported in this regard.

SHO3.5 is welcome. There needs to be scope for permitting some larger houses in modest numbers to meet the needs of large families, but this is probably covered by the inclusion of the word "disproportionate".

N.B As part of this submission and including objections of soundness for SH35 and SH36, please find enclosed a petition of those named supporting these comments which should be used as a barometer of public opposition to residential development in this location. Please also refer to attached FOS evidence PDF which cites relevant material in numbered parentheses.

We object to the soundness of this policy.
Paragraph 1 is unsound and not justfied or effective. The council should NOT allow planning applications based upon environmental consultancies reports which it has no proof are genuine or even truthful in their claims. Many claims have been made about sites SH35 and SH36 which are fantasy in terms of them being suitable for built development with professional bodies like the environment agency not believing acheivable aims. This is the same rehashed scheme as the 2011 SAD, and therefore some scrutiny must be applied as to why these sites failed to come forward in the intervening 13 years since, and into the distant future of this plan in the 2030's. Many consultancies carry out desk top studies which offer no insight at all into real world events or conditions and are just written for their clients to deliver development. They are effectively a lie or disingenuous at best. Planning officers in the past have stated they are not technical experts in the fields mentioned, and so how can the council justify recommened approval without expert impartial advice- particularly on sites such as Rattlechain with no previous similar sites in the UK that have been remediated?
"c. land that will potentially become contaminated as a result of the development"; REMOVE- THE COUNCIL ARE ENCOURAGING BREAKING THE LAW IN THIS REGARD AND ENDANGERING PUBLIC LAND AND THE PUBLIC.

Paragraph 2 SOUND, BUT ONLY WITH REMOVAL OF P1 C

NPPF Dec 2023 p189-191
"191. Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life; b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation."

3 UNSOUND. The council open themselves up to contaninated land free for all development with this clause. The council cannot monitor the likely impacts on the environment/watercourses and have failed to stop pollution and statutory nuisances caused by developments of tipping on the site SH35 and SH36 previously to adjoining local resident's properties. (23), (24), (25), (26), (27)

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility) requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness as defined in Policy SHE2”.

However, any housing density targets should be expressed as an indicative target, rather than a minimum requirement, to prevent the Policy being overly prescriptive and to give flexibility to ensure that development is ultimately viable and deliverable.

It is also not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required are indicative (only) and apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are
achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Applying a density across the whole site is not deliverable and consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve any minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban
greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each specific proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

It is strongly considered that the onerous minimum housing density required is one factor why there has been poor delivery from often long-allocated housing sites during the Black Country Core Strategy period to date, for example.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness (as referenced within the Policy).

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements. It should also add clarity around whether the more flexible targets should be applied to the gross site area or the net
developable area.

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.

Part 2 of Policy SHO3 requires new schemes of 10 homes or more to achieve the densities and accessibility standards set out in Table 6 ‘Minimum Housing Densities and Accessibility’. However, given the limited land available for development in Sandwell, these requirements are considered to be overly prescriptive. The policy should acknowledge that site specific circumstances, housing mix and design approach (including in relation to public realm and car parking), will inform the appropriate density for a site. Some sites which can deliver a significant amount of high quality residential development may not meet the specific accessibility standards set out in Table 6 but are still appropriate residential sites

Policy SHO3(2) is not considered to be sound, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF, as its requirements are not justified by appropriate evidence and the current wording is not effective in relation to enabling the deliverability of future sustainable development.

Part 2 of Policy SHO3 requires new schemes of 10 homes or more to achieve the densities and accessibility standards set out in Table 6 ‘Minimum Housing Densities and Accessibility’. However, given the limited land available for development in Sandwell, these requirements are considered to be overly prescriptive. The policy should acknowledge that site specific circumstances, housing mix and design approach (including in relation to public realm and car parking), will inform the appropriate density for a site. Some sites which can deliver a significant amount of high quality residential development may not meet the specific accessibility standards set out in Table 6 but are still appropriate residential sites.

It is noted that NPPF paragraph 124 seeks out a range of factors which should be taken into account in demonstrating efficient use of land. Policy SHO3 should be sufficiently flexible to enable these to be accommodated. The use of minimum densities across the Plan area is not required by the NPPF.

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.