Vulcan raised no fundamental objection to the Regulation 18 wording of Policy SEC1 (‘Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs’). Vulcan did, however, set out justification for changes to the wording to make it clear where the Council supports alternative uses on existing employment sites, specifically those sites where the Council supports transition from employment to residential.

The wording of the Regulation 19 version of Policy SEC1 (‘Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs’) is closely similar, with no explicit confirmation that there are instances where the Council supports transition from employment to residential (or other land uses).

While it is acknowledged that Vulcan’s site at Brades Road is proposed to be allocated for residential development, for avoidance of ambiguity it remains Vulcan’s stance that Policy SEC1 should acknowledge that there are certain existing employment sites where the Council supports transition to residential land uses, and the importance of such sites in delivering sufficient homes for the Borough.

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.

It is noted within Policy SEC1 that there is an employment need of 212ha in Sandwell. The total identified supply is 42ha, leaving a significant shortfall of 170ha. This is proposed to be exported through the Duty to Cooperate to authorities within the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA). LDC supports SMBC in meeting its own needs through the allocation of new employment sites and ongoing Duty to Cooperate discussions with BC FEMA authorities.

The now withdrawn Lichfield District Local Plan 2043 identified that there is a relatively limited supply of employment sites within Lichfield District and that the council was unable to assist authorities in respect of any unmet employment needs.

Dudley MBC considers the policy to be sound. Dudley MBC supports the overall approach of the policy. The Local Plan policy is informed by the most up to date shared evidence base; the Economic Development Needs Assessment for the Black Country Authorities (EDNA, October 2023). Dudley MBC supports the use of this jointly produced evidence base.

Dudley MBC supports ongoing joint working to address the employment land needs of the Black Country Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) as per our response to Paragraphs 15-18 of the Local Plan (Duty to Cooperate).

It is noted that elements of the Sandwell employment land supply have been slightly updated since the last version of the Black Country Employment Land Supply Paper (November 2023) was published e.g., the inclusion of Lion Farm (site reference SM2) as an employment land allocation. Dudley MBC welcomes continued joint working to produce an up-to-date shared evidence base for the employment land supply across the FEMA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHE3 - We welcome the amendments to this policy.

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCE1 - See previous comments to Regulation 18 consultation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 6 a) how will this be achieved?

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

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

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

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

Appendices from Page 11 - Site Allocations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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