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

Housing – Policy SHO1

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

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

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

Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople – Policy SH09

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

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

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

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

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

Employment – Policy SEC1

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

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

Transitional Arrangements

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

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

SHO9 It is our view that Travellers (of all kinds) have as much right to a settled home as the settled community, no greater and no less. We have periodically been concerned in cases where the needs of a traveller are set against other policies such as Green Belt to imply that the Traveller is in a different (better) position to claim to be able to set up a home in the Green Belt. It is accordingly desirable that the principle of equality of right should be explicitly stated. This is necessary because new Travellers’ sites often start as development undertaken in breach of planning control, sometimes with development taking place over a long holiday weekend.
Para 7.77 refers to Table 9. We think Table 11 is meant.

Paragraph 7.75 indicates a need for 14 pitches over the plan period up to 2041. The SLP has allocated sites for 10 pitches, resulting in a shortfall of 4 pitches. LDC supports SMBC’s approach, as outlined in paragraph 7.78, to continue seeking new or expanded public sites to address this unmet need and to respond positively to windfall proposals.

As noted above, LDC’s Local Plan is in the early stages of preparation and as such has not yet established the Gypsy and Traveller Needs to be planned for. However, both the adopted Local Plan and withdrawn Local Plan were not able to identify sufficient sites to meet the need at the time. Indeed, Lichfield District Council previously wrote to neighbouring authorities to ascertain whether they could assist in meeting this unmet need.

We commented on the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan consultation in January 2024. Subsequently, we issued comments on the Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment draft version of June 2024 on 16 August 2024. The Council's Phase 2 Water Cycle Study dated September 2024 has been reviewed during this current consultation.

Enclosed with this letter are our six representations on the Publication Plan. We would be grateful if you could acknowledge the receipt of our representations. These are listed as follows with our overall position in brackets:
• EA1 - Sequential Test (Unsound)
• EA2 - L2SFRA (Unsound)
• EA3 - SCC5 FloodRisk (Unsound)
• EA4 - SNE2 Habitats (Unsound)
• EA5 - SH09 (Sound)
• EA6 - SDS8 (Sound)

We found the Phase 2 Water Cycle Study acceptable. Much more could have been made to promote water quality using the recommendations from this study, however, on balance, there are a range of policies which will help address water quality (policies SDS8, SDS2, SCC5 and SCC6). We are also generally supportive of policies SCC1, SCC6 and SDM2 for their policy requirements for climate change and achieving water efficiency and reducing mains water consumption.

The lack of evidence demonstrating the flood risk sequential test and the absence of a level 2 SFRA to support sites proposed in areas at risk of flooding has resulted in us finding the publication plan (and sustainability appraisal) unsound on these elements. The removal of text from policy SCC5 since the last consultation has resulted in a soundness objection. To clarify, in the absence of the relevant tick box on the representation form, we are willing to attend the examination on these representations. We are happy to meet with you to discuss these representations in more detail and agree a way forward. Please note this may be subject to our cost recovery planning advice service.

The evidence base including Sustainability Appraisal has not demonstrated how the Council has applied the flood risk Sequential Test as outlined in National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 167-171. Nor has it confirmed that the sites proposed with zones of medium or high fluvial flood risk (and other sources) have passed the Sequential Test.

Therefore, in the absence of evidence demonstrating the strategic application of the Sequential Test, the Local Plan is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy (paragraphs 167-171). The absence of evidence of application of Sequential Test casts doubt on whether it is 'justified' i.e. an appropriate strategy based on proportionate evidence.

We outlined this in our comments to the regulation 18 consultation. We advised this could either be an update to the Sustainability Appraisal or as a standalone document. However, we can't find reference to the Sequential Test (or Exceptions Test) within the Sustainability Appraisal and no other standalone document appears to be available. There are various places within the Sustainability Appraisal Main Report and Appendices where commentary on the application of the Sequential Test could have featured e.g. Paragraphs 9.2.6-9.2.10 (Chapter 9 Climatic Factors), Box 9.1 Summary of Identified Impacts on Climate Factors, Box 9.2 Summary of Mitigating Effects, Box 9.3 Summary of Residual Effects and Appendix C and Appendix E.

Page C3 of SA Appendix C states in response to our regulation 18 comments that 'Regulation 19 will refer to the latest evidence, including any updated Sequential Test information.' The Sequential Test information is not demonstrated. The L1 SFRA 2024 provides the high-level flood risk information. However, the Sequential Test as a planning decision making tool can only be undertaken by the Council's Policy Team, based on the SFRA mapping.

Appendix E of the Sustainability Appraisal, has appraised the site allocations against SA Objective 5 'Climate Change Adaptation.' It summarises that most sites are in Flood Zone 1, 9 are in Flood Zone 3, 2 are in Flood Zone 2 and 5 have indicative Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain). This has relied on the Black Country SFRA to identify the flood zones. Although various parts of the SA main report and appendices refer to the 2024 SFRA, the data from this SFRA hasn't been used to inform the SA, e.g. the SFRA maps (3a and 3b) or Appendix M L1 Site Screening Results. Appendix E could have confirmed the outcome of the Sequential Test and where applicable Exceptions Test.

Actions the Council has already undertaken could have contributed to the application of the Sequential Test. For example, the Site Screening process may have helped achieve the aim of the Sequential Test in directing most of the Councils development to Flood Zone 1 and sites of lowest flood risk from other sources, but this is not explained in the Sustainability Appraisal. Statements made within the Sustainability Appraisal imply a sequential approach has been applied but this needs to be obvious and explicit in order to demonstrate a sound plan.

Prior to the submission of the plan we invite the Council to outline how they intend to address this. This could be amendments to the Sustainability Appraisal or a standalone document. This could be agreed within a Statement of Common Ground.

Actions the Council has already undertaken could have contributed to the application of the Sequential Test. For example, the Site Screening process may have helped achieve the aim of the Sequential Test in directing most of the Councils development to Flood Zone 1 and sites of lowest flood risk from other sources, but this is not explained in the Sustainability Appraisal. Statements made within the Sustainability Appraisal imply a sequential approach has been applied but this needs to be obvious and explicit in order to demonstrate a sound plan.

Prior to the submission of the plan we invite the Council to outline how they intend to address this. This could be amendments to the Sustainability Appraisal or a standalone document. This could be agreed within a Statement of Common Ground.

A Level 2 SFRA has not assessed the sites proposed in areas of medium to highest flood risk from rivers (Flood Zone 2 and 3a/3b and other flood risk sources) to check feasibility of allocating site. Flood depths, duration, rate of inundation and extent including climate change can impact on deliverability and capacity of site for the type of development, potential number of dwellings and density.

If following the application of the flood risk Sequential Test, it has not been possible to locate all development to areas with a lower risk of flooding, the Exception Test is applied. Paragraphs 169-171 of the NPPF set out the policy for strategic allocations. Diagram 1 'Taking flood risk into account in the preparation of strategic policies' (Paragraph: 007) sets out the steps and when a L2 SFRA is required.

Sandwell according to the Sustainabilty Appraisal have some sites in areas of Flood Zone 2, Flood Zone 3 and Flood Zone 3b. When compared against the L1 SFRA 2024 mapping, the following sites proposed for housing fall into this category (note that this excludes any employment allocations affected by functional floodplain and flood zone 3a/2):

*SH59 Beever Road
*SH5 Mill Street, Great Bridge
*SH36 Land between Addington Way and River Tame
*SH35 Rattlechain Site Land to the North of Temple Way
*SM2 Lion Farm, Oldbury
* SH16 Cradley Heath Factory Centre, Woods Lane, Cradley
*SH2 Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton

We recommend the inclusion of other strategically important sites such as SH18 Friar Park, Wednesbury which are close to or on the edge of the floodplain to check for the impact of climate change and other sources of flood risk.

Please note the L1 SFRA 2024 by JBA has provided a Site Screening Results in Appendix M.

The presence of functional floodplain (3b) can significantly restrict a site's capacity to deliver development as only water compatible or essential infrastructure are permissible in this zone.This is reinforced by your local plan policy SCC5 Flood Risk.

Flood Zone 3a (and including climate change) can also be restrictive if the extents limit available space for flood mitigation including floodplain compensation and safe access and egress. A Level 2 SFRA will assess in more detail the flood risk characteristics of a site and as stated above should inform the Council of the overall deliverability of the site allocation.

Paragraph 171 states both elements of the exception test should be satisfied for development to be allocated or permitted.

In the absence of a L2 SFRA we consider the Local Plan including Sustainabilty Appraisal is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy (paragraph 169-171). It is also not meeting the justified test of soundness, as without a complete evidence base to support the relevant site allocations, it's not an appropriate strategy based on a proportionate evidence base.

Although we were supportive of this policy at the regulation 18 stage (draft policy SCC4 now SCC5) a section of the policy has been removed which we considered to be an essential component. The following section of the policy appears to have been removed:

"15. All developments should seek to provide wider betterment by demonstrating in site-specific flood risk assessments and surface water drainage strategies (where required) what measures can be put in place to contribute to a reduction in overall flood risk downstream. This may be by:
a) provision of additional storage on site e.g., through oversized SuDS, natural flood management techniques, green infrastructure and green-blue corridors; and / or
b) by providing a partnership funding contribution towards wider community schemes (both within and beyond the Black Country, in shared catchments with Southern Staffordshire and Birmingham).

We cannot consider this omission to be sound in terms of being 'justified' or 'consistent with national policy.' It is not consistent with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs 158 and 166 as follows:

158. Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating from rising temperatures. Policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts, such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure.

166. Strategic policies should be informed by a strategic flood risk assessment, and should manage flood risk from all sources. They should consider cumulative impacts in, or affecting, local areas susceptible to flooding, and take account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood risk management authorities, such as lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards.

The NPPF paragraph 20 also indicates 'flood risk' as a strategic policy issue.

This is now unsound as the policy does not include strategic flood risk measures based on a cross-boundary study via the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) and the conclusions and recommendations by both the Black Country SFRA 2020 and the L1 SFRA 2024 by JBA.
The 2024 L1 SFRA section 7.3 explains that the Cumulative Impact Assessment is being undertaken with Wolverhampton and Dudley Councils. The results summarise a number of catchments rated as high-risk or medium-risk for cumulative impacts from historic flood risk, surface water flood risk, potential development, predicted flood risk from increased runoff upstream and sewer flooding. Strategic solutions are listed in section 7.4 of the SFRA including seeking opportunities to deliver flood risk benefits through development, promoting natural flood management, and contributions towards flood risk management measures that benefit the wider community.

10.3 has policy recommendations from the cumulative impact assessment, stating:

The cumulative impact assessment for the Black Country has highlighted that the potential
for development to have a cumulative impact on flood risk is relatively high across the
authorities. Many of the catchments are red and amber rated and those that are yellow still
have levels of flood risk higher than many of the rural catchments in surrounding local
authority areas in Southern Staffordshire. This supports the need for incremental action and betterment in flood risk terms across all four Black Country Authority areas.

Section 15 directly addresses this recommendation by requiring developments to seek to provide 'wider betterment' and measures to contribute to a reduction in overall flood risk downstream. Plus contributing to wider community schemes is likely to become more important in the coming years. This allows the policy to compliment the policies of neighbouring authorities such as Dudley and Wolverhampton, help to alleviate flood risk strategically across the Black Country and demonstrate cross-boundary co-operation.

We don't know if section 15 of the draft SCC4 policy was removed in error, or removed to reduce the length of the policy. There are other sections of the policy that could be withdrawn if the concern is the length of the policy e.g. the requirements for site-specific FRAs are already set out in the NPPF, the PPG and other web sources such as https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessment-for-planning-applications. To overcome this we request the Council re-insert section 15 on achieving wider flood risk betterment.

Other parts of the policy are welcome, in particular, section 6 on watercourses and flood mitigation. We strongly support the requirement in part iv for a ten metre easement alongside main rivers.

Policy SNE2 is comprehensive and sets out the requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain. At the regulation 18 consultation, although we welcomed the policy, we recommended that the policy acknowledge the role BNG will have for the water environment, with reference to the Humber and Severn River Basin Management Plans. The RBMPs are a key evidence base for applicants to consider when a watercourse metric is required, as the objective of achieving good status for waterbodies will also contribute towards nature recovery. Achieving the objectives of the RBMPs by restoring and renaturalising watercourses and/or creating wildlife rich river corridors can contribute to an applicants biodiversity credits and gain plan. Watercourse enhancement as part of developments will play a key role in delivery of BNG across Sandwell in addition to other types of habitat creation or enhancement.

Unfortunately, our advice has not been taken on board or incorporated within policy SNE2 or the justification text.

The West Midlands Combined Authority Local Nature Recovery Strategy may not be published for some time yet, and it's important that other strategies and plans such as RBMPs are referenced.

Without an appropriate reference to RBMPs and the water environment in relation to this policy, we would consider it inconsistent with paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and therefore unsound.

Although we would have preferred amendments to the policy text, we think this can be overcome with a minor amendment to the Justification text, paragraph 4.16, as follows:

4.16 Development should also contribute to wildlife and habitat connectivity in the wider area, in line with the Biodiversity Action Plan, River Basin Management Plans and the Black Country and West Midlands Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

A reference to paragraph 4.16 to the RBMP will help secure this important evidence base as part of a number of strategies applicants should consider when designing for BNG and achieving wider biodiveristy benefits as it relates to the water environment. Councils have a duty to have regard to RBMPs in plan-making and decision taking (Water Environment Regulations 2017) and the inclusion of this minor change will help towards meeting that duty.

We support part 4 (g) of the policy, which states:

the site should not be at risk of flooding and proposals must not increase flood risk for others, in accordance with Policy SCC5.

This has taken on board our previous comments at the regulation 18 stage and we welcome the inclusion to ensure the safety of occupiers and residents at these sites.

Whilst we would have expected more strengthening of the policy in terms of blue infrastucture, such as emphasis on restoring and enhancing the river network, we are overall in support of Policy SDS8. In particular, part 2 which states:

Sandwell's green and blue infrastructure networks, including open spaces, green spaces, nature conservation sites, parks and gardens (including registered parks and gardens), habitats, rivers, canals, other waterways, trees and green features, should be enhanced where possible (Policies SNE1 - SNE6, SHE1 – SHE4).

And also part 4 which requires major developments to be planned, designed and managed in an integrated way so that they deliver multiple climate change and environmental benefits over the liftime fo the development, making reference to flood risk policy SCC5.

Dudley MBC considers the policy to be sound. The Local Plan policy is informed by the most up to date shared evidence base; the Black Country Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA, 2022). Dudley MBC supports the use of this jointly produced evidence base.

It is noted there is one allocation for 10 pitches proposed near the boundary with Dudley borough (site reference SG1, Brierley Lane). Detailed proposals for this site via future planning applications should take account of any cross-boundary infrastructure issues arising and matters related to impacts upon amenity of the local area (including within Dudley borough).

Dudley MBC supports Sandwell MBC seeking to meet its remaining needs for pitches and plots via the planning application process. As set out in Duty to Cooperate discussions between the local authorities, Dudley MBC is unable to contribute towards any unmet needs of Sandwell and has identified its own shortfall in Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision within the Regulation 19 Dudley Local Plan (October 2024).

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.