Duty to Cooperate

WMRTAB is pleased to confirm that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is an active member of WMRTAB and an officer from the Council regularly attends the group’s meeting and contributes to its work. WMRTAB has therefore facilitated discussion between Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and other neighbouring waste planning authorities to assist with meeting its Duty to Cooperate (DtC) on matters pertaining to the planning for waste management. Furthermore Sandwell Council is a signatory to the WMRTAB Statement of Common Ground.

Planning for Waste Management

WMRTAB is pleased to see that the important matter of waste management has been planned for in the Local Plan and considers that the Vision and Objectives broadly address issues associated with waste management which will arise during the SLP period. WMRTAB also supports the inclusion of a chapter dedicated to waste (and minerals) (Chapter 13). WMRTAB welcomes the fact the SLP addresses the management of all forms of waste (paragraph 13.6).

WMRTAB notes and broadly welcomes policy which:
• Encourages development to utilise heat and energy generated from energy from waste facilities (Policy SCC2);
• encourages reduction of waste from construction (Policy SCC3 and Policy SWA1);
• encourages design of buildings to ensure ease of end of life disassembly and material reuse (policy SCC4);
• requires all new development to consider in detail how waste will be minimised, managed and utilised in construction e.g. recycled materials
(Policy SWA5);
• requires Local Employment Areas to be safeguarded for various uses which includes waste collection, transfer and recycling uses (Policy SEC3);
• sets out the overall strategy for waste management and identifies how much new waste management capacity is likely to be needed (Policy SWA1);
• expects waste to be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle (Policy SWA1);
• allows for capacity to be developed which will ensure waste can be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and will reduce reliance on other authority areas (Policy SWA1);
• encourages collaborative working with neighbouring authorities ‘who import waste into, or export waste out of, Sandwell, to ensure a cooperative cross boundary approach to waste management is maintained’ (Policy SWA1);
• gives priority to the safeguarding of existing and allocated sites for their continued use and the retention of the local employment areas in which they occur (Policy SEC3 and Policy SWA2);
• protects existing sites from encroachment by other forms of development and requires a ‘Waste Site Impact Assessment’ for development proposals which might impact on the effective operation of existing waste sites (Policy SWA2). WMRTAB notes that the addition of a reference to the ‘agent of change’ principle, mentioned in the NPPF, in paragraph 13.41, might provide further clarification/support for this approach. WMRTAB considers that to ensure the effectiveness of this policy, this requirement should be extended to development proposed proximate to preferred locations allocated for waste management use in the Local Plan.

WMRTAB makes the following further comments which are intended to help ensure the effectiveness of the Plan:
• The term ‘Major’ should be defined in clause 1. c. of Policy SHW1 It is recommended that such a definition considers site area and waste
throughput;
• to avoid ambiguity and ensure the objectives of the Plan are met, WMRTAB suggests that the term ‘maximum’ replaces ‘existing’ in clause 1 of Policy SWA2 to read:
‘Sandwell will safeguard all existing strategic and other waste management facilities from inappropriate development, to maintain existing maximum
levels of waste management capacity and meet Strategic Objective 17, unless it can be demonstrated that:…..’
It is considered that this change will improve the effectiveness of the policy by clarifying that the maximum throughput of a facility should be safeguarded;
• WMRTAB notes that paragraph 3.53 of the Plan suggests that ‘negative environmental impacts’ ‘generally accompany’ waste management
operations. WMRTAB does not agree with this statement as, while waste management operations are generally industrial in their appearance, modern waste management facilities do not ‘generally’ result in ‘negative environmental impacts’. WMRTAB request that this statement be modified
as, without modification, this may make it unduly challenging for proposals for waste management facilities to be granted planning permission in
accordance with the policies of the SLP.

WMRTAB has the following additional comments:
• WMRTAB notes and broadly supports the manner in which waste management capacity gaps have been identified. This includes the fact that
waste management capacity requirements have been assessed with the objective of achieving net self-sufficiency;
• WMRTAB notes and supports:
o the separate consideration of waste imports and exports at paragraphs 13.25 to 13.28;
o clarification of the contents of, a Waste Site Impact Assessments in paragraph 13.42.

Duty to Cooperate

WMRTAB is pleased to confirm that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is an active member of WMRTAB and an officer from the Council regularly attends the group’s meeting and contributes to its work. WMRTAB has therefore facilitated discussion between Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and other neighbouring waste planning authorities to assist with meeting its Duty to Cooperate (DtC) on matters pertaining to the planning for waste management. Furthermore Sandwell Council is a signatory to the WMRTAB Statement of Common Ground.

Planning for Waste Management

WMRTAB is pleased to see that the important matter of waste management has been planned for in the Local Plan and considers that the Vision and Objectives broadly address issues associated with waste management which will arise during the SLP period. WMRTAB also supports the inclusion of a chapter dedicated to waste (and minerals) (Chapter 13). WMRTAB welcomes the fact the SLP addresses the management of all forms of waste (paragraph 13.6).

WMRTAB notes and broadly welcomes policy which:
• Encourages development to utilise heat and energy generated from energy from waste facilities (Policy SCC2);
• encourages reduction of waste from construction (Policy SCC3 and Policy SWA1);
• encourages design of buildings to ensure ease of end of life disassembly and material reuse (policy SCC4);
• requires all new development to consider in detail how waste will be minimised, managed and utilised in construction e.g. recycled materials
(Policy SWA5);
• requires Local Employment Areas to be safeguarded for various uses which includes waste collection, transfer and recycling uses (Policy SEC3);
• sets out the overall strategy for waste management and identifies how much new waste management capacity is likely to be needed (Policy SWA1);
• expects waste to be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle (Policy SWA1);
• allows for capacity to be developed which will ensure waste can be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and will reduce reliance on other authority areas (Policy SWA1);
• encourages collaborative working with neighbouring authorities ‘who import waste into, or export waste out of, Sandwell, to ensure a cooperative cross boundary approach to waste management is maintained’ (Policy SWA1);
• gives priority to the safeguarding of existing and allocated sites for their continued use and the retention of the local employment areas in which they occur (Policy SEC3 and Policy SWA2);
• protects existing sites from encroachment by other forms of development and requires a ‘Waste Site Impact Assessment’ for development proposals which might impact on the effective operation of existing waste sites (Policy SWA2). WMRTAB notes that the addition of a reference to the ‘agent of change’ principle, mentioned in the NPPF, in paragraph 13.41, might provide further clarification/support for this approach. WMRTAB considers that to ensure the effectiveness of this policy, this requirement should be extended to development proposed proximate to preferred locations allocated for waste management use in the Local Plan.

WMRTAB makes the following further comments which are intended to help ensure the effectiveness of the Plan:
• The term ‘Major’ should be defined in clause 1. c. of Policy SHW1 It is recommended that such a definition considers site area and waste
throughput;
• to avoid ambiguity and ensure the objectives of the Plan are met, WMRTAB suggests that the term ‘maximum’ replaces ‘existing’ in clause 1 of Policy SWA2 to read:
‘Sandwell will safeguard all existing strategic and other waste management facilities from inappropriate development, to maintain existing maximum
levels of waste management capacity and meet Strategic Objective 17, unless it can be demonstrated that:…..’
It is considered that this change will improve the effectiveness of the policy by clarifying that the maximum throughput of a facility should be safeguarded;
• WMRTAB notes that paragraph 3.53 of the Plan suggests that ‘negative environmental impacts’ ‘generally accompany’ waste management
operations. WMRTAB does not agree with this statement as, while waste management operations are generally industrial in their appearance, modern waste management facilities do not ‘generally’ result in ‘negative environmental impacts’. WMRTAB request that this statement be modified
as, without modification, this may make it unduly challenging for proposals for waste management facilities to be granted planning permission in
accordance with the policies of the SLP.

WMRTAB has the following additional comments:
• WMRTAB notes and broadly supports the manner in which waste management capacity gaps have been identified. This includes the fact that
waste management capacity requirements have been assessed with the objective of achieving net self-sufficiency;
• WMRTAB notes and supports:
o the separate consideration of waste imports and exports at paragraphs 13.25 to 13.28;
o clarification of the contents of, a Waste Site Impact Assessments in paragraph 13.42.

Duty to Cooperate

WMRTAB is pleased to confirm that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is an active member of WMRTAB and an officer from the Council regularly attends the group’s meeting and contributes to its work. WMRTAB has therefore facilitated discussion between Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and other neighbouring waste planning authorities to assist with meeting its Duty to Cooperate (DtC) on matters pertaining to the planning for waste management. Furthermore Sandwell Council is a signatory to the WMRTAB Statement of Common Ground.

Planning for Waste Management

WMRTAB is pleased to see that the important matter of waste management has been planned for in the Local Plan and considers that the Vision and Objectives broadly address issues associated with waste management which will arise during the SLP period. WMRTAB also supports the inclusion of a chapter dedicated to waste (and minerals) (Chapter 13). WMRTAB welcomes the fact the SLP addresses the management of all forms of waste (paragraph 13.6).

WMRTAB notes and broadly welcomes policy which:
• Encourages development to utilise heat and energy generated from energy from waste facilities (Policy SCC2);
• encourages reduction of waste from construction (Policy SCC3 and Policy SWA1);
• encourages design of buildings to ensure ease of end of life disassembly and material reuse (policy SCC4);
• requires all new development to consider in detail how waste will be minimised, managed and utilised in construction e.g. recycled materials
(Policy SWA5);
• requires Local Employment Areas to be safeguarded for various uses which includes waste collection, transfer and recycling uses (Policy SEC3);
• sets out the overall strategy for waste management and identifies how much new waste management capacity is likely to be needed (Policy SWA1);
• expects waste to be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle (Policy SWA1);
• allows for capacity to be developed which will ensure waste can be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and will reduce reliance on other authority areas (Policy SWA1);
• encourages collaborative working with neighbouring authorities ‘who import waste into, or export waste out of, Sandwell, to ensure a cooperative cross boundary approach to waste management is maintained’ (Policy SWA1);
• gives priority to the safeguarding of existing and allocated sites for their continued use and the retention of the local employment areas in which they occur (Policy SEC3 and Policy SWA2);
• protects existing sites from encroachment by other forms of development and requires a ‘Waste Site Impact Assessment’ for development proposals which might impact on the effective operation of existing waste sites (Policy SWA2). WMRTAB notes that the addition of a reference to the ‘agent of change’ principle, mentioned in the NPPF, in paragraph 13.41, might provide further clarification/support for this approach. WMRTAB considers that to ensure the effectiveness of this policy, this requirement should be extended to development proposed proximate to preferred locations allocated for waste management use in the Local Plan.

WMRTAB makes the following further comments which are intended to help ensure the effectiveness of the Plan:
• The term ‘Major’ should be defined in clause 1. c. of Policy SHW1 It is recommended that such a definition considers site area and waste
throughput;
• to avoid ambiguity and ensure the objectives of the Plan are met, WMRTAB suggests that the term ‘maximum’ replaces ‘existing’ in clause 1 of Policy SWA2 to read:
‘Sandwell will safeguard all existing strategic and other waste management facilities from inappropriate development, to maintain existing maximum
levels of waste management capacity and meet Strategic Objective 17, unless it can be demonstrated that:…..’
It is considered that this change will improve the effectiveness of the policy by clarifying that the maximum throughput of a facility should be safeguarded;
• WMRTAB notes that paragraph 3.53 of the Plan suggests that ‘negative environmental impacts’ ‘generally accompany’ waste management
operations. WMRTAB does not agree with this statement as, while waste management operations are generally industrial in their appearance, modern waste management facilities do not ‘generally’ result in ‘negative environmental impacts’. WMRTAB request that this statement be modified
as, without modification, this may make it unduly challenging for proposals for waste management facilities to be granted planning permission in
accordance with the policies of the SLP.

WMRTAB has the following additional comments:
• WMRTAB notes and broadly supports the manner in which waste management capacity gaps have been identified. This includes the fact that
waste management capacity requirements have been assessed with the objective of achieving net self-sufficiency;
• WMRTAB notes and supports:
o the separate consideration of waste imports and exports at paragraphs 13.25 to 13.28;
o clarification of the contents of, a Waste Site Impact Assessments in paragraph 13.42.

It appears from the Draft Sandwell Local Plan that the mixed-use allocation of the Site is being dropped and the Site will only retain a Local Employment Area allocation. This would wholly undermine the regeneration of the heritage assets on the Site, which require a flexible and adaptive policy position to support the most appropriate regeneration approach to the heritage assets.

The CHT request further consideration into the Local Employment Area designation and that the policy designation be removed in this location (area outlined in red in Figure 1 below). It is instead recommended that this is replaced with a bespoke site-specific allocation for mixed-use development. This will allow for greater flexibility of the Site use, enabling different uses and options to be explored, and in-turn ensure the future and protection of these highly significant heritage assets, as outlined below.

Policy SEC3 – Local Employment Areas

The Site forms part of the Foundry Lane (south) SEC3 Local Employment Area Allocation. Accordingly, under this proposed policy, only industrial uses (B2, B8 and E (g)(iii)), and some ancillary employment-generating uses including childcare facilities and food and drink outlets that are demonstrated to support the LEA’s function.

The rationale for this policy is stated in the supporting text. It notes that LEAs play an important role in the local economy as they offer a source of mainly low-cost industrial units that provide local jobs. The supporting text notes that one of the key characteristics of LEAs is “a critical mass of active industrial and service uses and premises that are fit for purpose”. Other characteristics are:
• Good access to local-markets suppliers and employees;
• The existing or potential use and/ or traffic generated by the use does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses or the highway network; and
• Good public transport accessibility.

The financial feasibility of restoring the heritage assets on the Site is significantly compromised within the framework of this allocation. The allocation is tailored for generic industrial spaces, trade, haulage or logistics related uses, which is unlikely to generate the significant financial investment required for CHT and/or others to support and deliver the successful restoration of this site. Currently, the heritage assets on the Site are not in active industrial use and the restoration of the assets for these uses is not the optimal viable use, nor are these uses suitable for the existing buildings and structures on the Site. The only hope for the restoration of this internationally recognised heritage asset undoubtedly relies on the support of the public sector.

In reference to the Soho Foundry, the Council’s own response to March 2023 representation (published September 2024) states “It is accepted that the future of the site is somewhat dependent on introducing a high quality, mixed use, heritage led, regeneration programme”. There is a clear acceptance from the local authority that the future of the Soho Foundry and its restoration is dependent on the Site being allocated for mixed-use. This is somewhat in conflict with the allocation and limitation of the Site for traditional industrial employment use and presents a significant policy hurdle and blocker to CHT’s aims and objectives of regenerating this site. Notwithstanding, the proposed sole employment use allocation is not considered to accord with Chapter 16 of the NPPF Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, and more specifically paragraph 196 which establishes that:

See attachment for table

CHT, a trust which is driven by the protection, restoration, and celebration of the Soho Foundry buildings, consider that the inclusion of the Site within the wider employment allocation will render it undeliverable, and provides a significant barrier to the restoration of the Ssite.

If the Site remains in a predominantly industrial allocation, CHT may have no choice but to abandon the Site, which begs the question as to whether a commercial developer or industrial business will be willing to take on this financial cost and afford equal priority to the history and celebration of these assets. CHT agree that some employment uses could form part of the mix of uses proposed, but if the policy position is overly restrictive, as currently set out in the Reg 19 Local Plan, then it is likely that funding availability to restore the site will be limited.

Policy SEC3 Response – Site specific allocation

To facilitate the regeneration of the Site, it is essential to carve out a specific site allocation that caters solely and explicitly to the Soho Foundry buildings, so it is viable and not hinged upon the wider industrial-led regeneration of the area. This bespoke allocation should provide the flexibility needed to explore a range of uses that align with heritage-led regeneration, enabling CHT to achieve its mission without the constraints imposed by the Policy SEC3 framework.

There is a clear policy rationale at the national level for a new approach to be considered in the next Local Plan. Paragraph 126 of the NPPF emphasises the need for planning policies to reflect changes in demand for land. Given the prolonged lack of progress under the existing policy, it is prudent to reassess and reallocate the land for a more deliverable use. The proposed draft policy hinders the ability of the site to be restored and fulfil alternative needs, including the restoration and celebration of unique heritage assets of national value.

The rationale for a bespoke application is also supported by NPPF Paragraph 212, which outlines the importance of seeking opportunities for new a heritage asset is indisputable, and therefore supports the Council’s rationale to explore opportunities that can increase their significance.
The Soho Foundry buildings, being part of a Conservation Area, require a nuanced strategy that goes beyond a generic allocation for industrial redevelopment. A bespoke allocation would allow for careful consideration of the heritage significance and a tailored approach to development, ensuring that the setting is preserved and, where possible, improved to better reveal the historical importance of the site. Moreover, unlike industrial uses, the alternative uses proposed in this representation would make the buildings open to the public which would promote their significance.

Overall, there is a clear rationale for the site to be removed from Policy Allocation SEC3 and granted a bespoke allocation which better reflects the circumstances of the site.

Policy SHE1 – Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Policy SHE1 outlines several key aims and objectives in preserving listed buildings and conservations areas as detailed below:

1. Impact of development proposals on the significance of Sandwell’s heritage assets and their setting will be considered with case law, legislation and the NPPF
2. Proposals should protect the significance of heritage assets and conserve and enhance local character and aspects of heritage assets together with their settings. The general presumption will be retaining and protecting assets from adverse impacts
3. Proposals should demonstrate how they respond to the significance of heritage assets
4. Council will conserve and enhance the settings on listed buildings through exercising appropriate control over development
5. Proposals must respect the historic character and architectural style, considering building scale, grouping, materials and fenestration
6. The loss of any historic asset/ historic feature will be resisted, and every attempt should be made to secure the asset in as complete form as possible.

It is clear that the policy aims to take every measure in the protection of Sandwell’s heritage assets. This is significantly outlined in art 6 of Policy SHE1, which notes that “every attempt should be made to secure the asset”. This indicates that the alternative uses proposed in this representation could be supported by the Council, however, as the site is designated under Policy SEC3, development of the site is restricted to industrial uses indicating that there is an inherent policy conflict for the site. For the reasons outlined in the previous section, CHT consider that the existing allocation on the site fails to recognise the unique circumstances of the site. To reflect the aspirations of Policy SHE1, a bespoke allocation should be provided in the emerging Local Plan to enable adaptive reuse options to be explored so that the historic asset can be preserved whilst remaining financially viable.

To address this inherent conflict, there is a pressing need for the Site to be removed from policy allocation SEC3 and for the site to have its own bespoke allocation, which would allow for the exploration of alternative uses under the principles outlined in Policy SHE1. This would result in a more balanced approach that not only preserves and enhances the unique heritage embodied by the Soho Foundry buildings, but also make it deliverable within the plan period.

Policy SDS2 – Regeneration in Sandwell

Another Policy potentially at odds with Policy SEC3 is Policy SDS2, which also covers the Site. Policy SDS2 designates Regeneration Areas as the primary focus for new development, regeneration, and investment. Specifically focusing on Smethwick, part g of policy SEC3 establishes that the regeneration of Smethwick should be largely driven by the desire to “accommodate new green neighbourhoods on re-purposed employment land” and provide new active travel routes. As noted in part i) of the policy, Rolfe Street is specifically identified as an area to accommodate new residential development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. In the case of the Soho Foundry buildings, their status as community. As noted within the supporting text, paragraph 3.38, funding has recently been granted from the Towns Fund to bring forward residential development at Grove Lane and Rolfe Street. Collectively Rolfe Street Masterplan (approved June 2023) and Grove Land Masterplan were (approved January 2022) will deliver approx. 1,200 dwellings. This represents 46% of the total 2,581 dwelling target set out in SDS2.

Given the emerging residential context, CHT are of the view that the Site should be considered within the wider context, with the Site presenting a valuable opportunity to provide crucial amenity and uses that are compatible with the wider area and residential development.

Notwithstanding, paragraph 3.40 recognises Soho Foundry as playing an important role in the delivery of this aim, noting the “opportunities exist to invest in Soho Foundry and surrounding area, creating mixed-use facility that will attract visitors and revitalise this part of the borough”. The Site is located along the Canal Corridor and contains exceptionally significant buildings which are capable of promoting the area’s unique history and provide significant community facilities for the public. The Site could also be safely accessed by pedestrians from the canal, promoting active travel along this route. Despite this, the inclusion of the Site within Policy SEC3 is in conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy SD2 and supporting text. Policy SEC3 will instead mean that the restoration of the Site would be restricted to industrial uses, which would work against the aspiration to create green neighbourhoods using re-purposed employment land and therefore strongly hinder the public enjoyment of these assets. Therefore, the Site should be removed from Policy Allocation SEC3 and a bespoke allocation which supports flexible uses included within the emerging Local Plan if the regeneration aims of Policy SDS2 are to be achieved.

Policy SWA2 – Waste sites and adjoining Employment Land

The Soho Foundry site neighbours an established recycling facility, allocated under Policy SWA2, known as Simm’s Metals. The allocation of this waste facility and the surrounding employment land, for waste and continued employment uses represents a significant missed opportunity to redevelop all the land bound by Foundry Lane, the B4136 and the canal as a wider heritage-led regeneration scheme. It is recommended that the Council considers options for the wider regeneration of this area.

In conclusion, the representations put forth by CHT underscore the unique challenges and opportunities associated with the Soho Foundry and Mint site. The Grade II* listed buildings and rich industrial heritage of the site demand a tailored approach that goes beyond the industrial use constraints of proposed Policy SEC3.

Rather than perpetuate the historical ineffectiveness of the prior allocation, a fresh approach is needed to realise the restoration of the Site, in accordance with Paragraph 126 of the NPPF. The Site has significant potential not only to meet the Council’s heritage aims (under Policy SHE1), but also create a substantial regeneration opportunity (in accordance with Policy SDS2). However, without the removal of the Site from allocation SEC3 and the granting of a bespoke site specific and flexible allocation which reflects the unique circumstances of the site, this will never be achieved.

CHT believe that the site could potentially accommodate a range of business, tourism and leisure uses that would foster the public enjoyment of these assets. Further technical work will be prepared in due course to bring forward masterplan proposals for the site.

CHT would like to work with the planning policy team and relevant consultees in this process to ensure a suitable solution is found, which supports the heritage regeneration aspirations of the Trust.