National Grid Electricity Transmission has appointed Avison Young to review and respond to local planning authority Development Plan Document consultations on its behalf. We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regard to the current consultation on the above document.

About National Grid Electricity Transmission

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) owns and maintains the electricity transmission system in England and Wales. The energy is then distributed to the electricity distribution network operators, so it can reach homes and businesses. National Grid no longer owns or operates the high-pressure gas transmission system across the UK. This is the responsibility of National Gas Transmission, which is a separate entity and must
be consulted independently. National Grid Ventures (NGV) develop, operate and invest in energy projects, technologies, and partnerships to help accelerate the development of a clean energy future for consumers across the UK, Europe and the United States. NGV is separate from National Grid’s core regulated businesses. Please also consult with NGV separately from NGET.

Proposed development sites crossed or in close proximity to NGET assets:

Following a review of the above Development Plan Document, we have identified that one or more proposed development sites are crossed or in close proximity to NGET assets. Details of the sites affecting NGET assets are provided below.

Site of Bilport Lane, Wednesbury - VT ROUTE TWR (001A - 016): 400Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: BERKSWELL - OCKER HILL

Lion Farm - YJ ROUTE: 275Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: KITWELL - OCKER HILL

Roway Lane, Oldbury VT ROUTE TWR (019 - 036): 400Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: KITWELL - OCKER HILL

Portway Road Substation Open Space - Oldbury Substation and surrounding NGET land ownership

A plan showing details of the site locations and details of NGET assets is attached to this letter. Please note that this plan is illustrative only. Without appropriate acknowledgement of the NGET assets present within the site, these policies should not be considered effective as they cannot be delivered as proposed; unencumbered by the constraints posed by the presence of NGET infrastructure.

We propose modifications to the above site allocations and/or policies to include wording to the following effect: “x. The site will be developed with the following site-specific criteria:

x. a strategy for responding to the NGET overhead transmission lines present within the site which demonstrates how the NGET Design Guide and Principles have been applied at the masterplanning stage and how the impact of the assets has been reduced through good design.”

Please see attached information outlining further guidance on development close to NGET assets. NGET also provides information in relation to its assets at the website below.

• https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/network-andinfrastructure/network-route-maps

Further to the abovementioned conflicting site allocations, it has been identified that the Local Plan makes designations for new areas of open space. Policy SHW4 Open Space and Recreation includes a designation for Portway Road Substation Open Space (see Figure 1). NGET is currently investing in the network of the future to connect more lower carbon electricity to the network, which is crucial for the nation to achieve national net zero ambitions. NGET has a statutory duty to offer generation and demand customers connections to the network in an economic and efficient way.

There has been at substation at Oldbury for many years and it is an important node on the network to enable electricity to be transmitted securely and reliably. Since the acquisition of the land at Oldbury substation, the land outside of the electrical fence line has been retained in the long-term interests of our undertaking and is regarded a “operational land”. This land should therefore not be classified as open space and should be safeguarded for NGET’s operational use.

This designation is categorised as amenity open space and measures 6.95ha. The designation does not appear in the adopted Local Plan, with the area comprising white land. NGET is not able to release land immediately adjacent to operational substations as the land needs to be safeguarded to allow for any potential development in the future. Whilst there are no immediate plans to extend the substation, NGET needs to address the future particularly with the move to net zero and decarbonisation of the energy network.

Demand for electricity is expected to rise as the way we power our homes, businesses and transport changes. As the nation moves towards net zero, the fossil fuels that once powered our economy will be replaced with sources of low-carbon electricity, such as offshore wind farms.

The UK Government has committed to reach net zero emissions by 2050. This means achieving a balance between the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere and those taken out. Decarbonising the energy system is vital to this aim.

NGETs infrastructure projects in England and Wales will support the country’s energy transition and make sure the grid is ready to connect to more and more sources of low carbon electricity generated in Britain.

The way we generate electricity in the UK is changing rapidly. This means we need to build new infrastructure and make upgrades to the grid to bring this clean, green energy from where it’s generated to where it’s needed by homes and businesses.

Further Advice

In summary, NGET must object to the proposed site allocations without appropriate acknowledgement and protection of the NGET assets present within these sites in line with NGET Design Guide and Principles. In addition, NGET object to the proposed designation of open space for the land surrounding Oldbury substation. This land is privately owned and may be required for low carbon energy purposes and National Grid’s operational use to meet the country’s net zero targets and meet the increasing demand for electricity to power our homes, businesses and transport.

NGET is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning their networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us.

To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, NGET wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect their assets. Please remember to consult NGET on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect NGET’s assets. We would be grateful if you could check that our details as shown below are included on your consultation database:

NGET is able to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning their networks and encourages high quality and well-planned development in the vicinity of its assets.

Developers of sites crossed or in close proximity to NGET assets should be aware that it is NGET policy to retain existing overhead lines in-situ, though it recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances that would justify the request where, for example, the proposal is of regional or national importance.

NGET’s ‘Guidelines for Development near pylons and high voltage overhead power lines’ promote the successful development of sites crossed by existing overhead lines and the creation of welldesigned places. The guidelines demonstrate that a creative design approach can minimise the impact of overhead lines whilst promoting a quality environment. The guidelines can be downloaded here: https://www.nationalgridet.com/document/130626/download

The statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath an existing line then it is important that changes in ground levels do not result in safety clearances being infringed. National Grid can, on request, provide to developers detailed line profile drawings that detail the height of conductors, above ordnance datum, at a specific site.

NGET’s statutory safety clearances are detailed in their ‘Guidelines when working near National Grid Electricity Transmission assets’, which can be downloaded here: www.nationalgridet.com/network-and-assets/working-near-our-assets

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.

Appendix B, Mixed use allocations - SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury and policy SHW5

The Council’s position

Mixed use allocation SM2 (SA199) – The further information text to this mixed use allocation states as follows:
Site assessment found It is considered that a mix of residential and employment uses could be accommodated on this site. Net loss of the existing sports pitches could be avoided (nb this option is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the borough) Sufficient community open space can be provided.

Following further consideration and discussions with Parks and Open Spaces, the following sites have been identified as having the potential to provide replacements for pitches lost to development prior to that development commencing on site:
• Lightwoods Park
Balls Hill Open Space, Chester Road Surrey Crescent Site
• Black Patch Park
• Hill Top Park Site
• Brooklands Open Space, Brooklands Site
• Marl Hole Park, Hambletts Road Site
• Ratcliffe Park, Ebenezer Street Site
• Playing Field, Bilston Road Site

A Masterplan will be prepared for the site, which will include a strategy for responding to National Grid overhead transmission lines and underground cables present within the site.

The development will be developed with the following site-specific criteria:

YJ ROUTE: 275Kv Overhead Transmission Line route: KITWELL - OCKER HILL 275Kv Underground Cable route: KITWELL 275KV S/S
A strategy for responding to the NGET overhead transmission lines present within the site which demonstrates how the NGET Design Guide and Principles have been applied at the masterplanning stage and how the impact of the assets has been reduced through good design.
SHW5 – Playing Fields and sports facilities – Paragraphs 6.67-6.68 of the justification sets out the following, repeating the same list of possible mitigation sites as referenced in the above proposed allocation:

The proposed reallocation of Lion Farm to deliver housing and employment development will result in the loss of several extant playing pitches currently in use at the site. These will be replaced, and where required the remaining pitches and facilities on site upgraded, prior to the commencement of any development on site.

The locations that have been identified as having capacity to provide potential replacement pitches are:
Lightwoods Park - 2 X full size pitches
Balls Hill Open Space, Chester Road/Surrey Crescent Site - 1 pitch
Black Patch Park - 2 x junior pitches
Hill Top Park Site - 2x full size and 1 x junior pitch
Brooklands Open Space, Brooklands site - 2 x full size and 1 x junior pitch
Marl Hole Park, Hambletts Eoad Site - 1 x full size pitch
Radcliffe Park, Ebenezer Street Site - 1 x junior pitch
Playing Field, Bilston Road Site - 1 x full size pitch or 2 x junior pitches

Evidently, the Council recognises that the existing playing field at Lion Farm has not, and cannot, be demonstrated to be surplus to requirements for sport to meet with part 1a) of draft policy SHW5, paragraph 103a) of the Framework, and exception E1 of Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy. Sport England agrees that the Lion Farm site cannot be agreed to be surplus to requirements for sport.
In putting forward the above list of possible mitigation sites, the Council is seeking to demonstrate that equitable or better replacement playing field provision could be provided to meet with part 1b) of draft policy SHW5, and paragraph 103b of the Framework. Exception E4 of Sport England’s playing fields policy is also relevant.

The Lion Farm playing fields

The playing field site comprises approximately 14.3 hectares of land that is laid out to provide 11 adult grass football pitches. There is also a bowls green, a large ancillary building providing changing rooms and ancillary car parking. There is an electricity pylon on part of the site that practically constrains parts of the playing field land from being laid out to provide further pitches. Nonetheless, the large expanse of playing field allows for pitches to be marked out in different configurations to meet local needs. There is a long history of the site being used for grassroots football.

Sport England has analysed the 8 proposed mitigation sites listed and concludes that these sites, individually and collectively, fall significantly short of meeting the relevant policy criteria for the reasons explained below:

Lightwoods Park, B67 5EU
•
No plan of the site is included to delineate the area of land intended to be used for replacement playing pitches. Sport England has assumed that the land in question is the area shown in the image below:

Does the site provide equitable or better provision in Quantity and Quality?

• There is no agronomy assessment nor any feasibility study by a sports turf expert to assess the quality of the site to accommodate playing pitches. The Council have not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the area of land at Lightwoods Park would be capable of providing equitable or better playing field in quantity and quality, relative to the loss of playing field at Lion Farm, in accordance with the policy criteria.
• The Council consider that the site could accommodate two adult pitches. It is unclear if the site could accommodate two full size pitches due to various constraints, including proximity to existing trees, neighbouring rear gardens and the A456, which would be likely to require high ball stop fencing along a prominent frontage to maintain balls within the field play. A full-size football pitch is 100m x 64m plus 3m run-off to meet FA recommended pitch sizes (so 106m x 70m overall). In our view, two full size pitches would be a very tight fit.
• In addition, the site already contains a non-turf cricket pitch (in good condition) (see Figure 2) in the northern part of the site, which practically constrains the capacity for adult football pitches to be provided in its existing location. This cricket pitch was recently added to the park which indicates that the Council does not consider this a priority location for provision of adult football pitches.

Figure 3 : Existing non-turf cricket pitch in Lightwoods Park

• The presence of the existing cricket pitch with its use for cricket means that this is existing playing field land. There is also some evidence that playing pitches have been marked out on the land previously (see Figure 4 from October 2003). This site would therefore not provide replacement quantity of playing field since the land is already playing field.
• There is a lack of any ancillary facilities including no changing rooms and no off-road car parking at the site. In the absence of such facilities, the site is unlikely to be attractive to users for adult football.
Is the site in a suitable location?
• The site is approximately 4.5km (as the crow flies) from the proposed allocation at Lion Farm, with Lightwoods Park being located in Smethwick sub area, whereas Lion Farm is in Oldbury sub area (as set out in the Council’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy). This is not deemed to be a suitable replacement location to serve demand in Oldbury.

Other comments

• Lightwoods Park is an important community public open space that is used for a broad range of open space functions, which includes a travelling fairground use from time to time and various other activities on this land.

Summary

Lightwoods Park is incapable of providing equitable or better provision in quality and quality, and does not provide a suitable location for replacement playing field provision, relative to the loss at Lion Farm. Provision of adult football pitches could displace the recently implemented non-turf cricket pitch.

Balls Hill open space, Chester Road Surrey Crescent site, B71 2NQ

• No plan of the site is included to delineate the area of land intended to be used for replacement playing pitches. Sport England has assumed that the land in question is the area shown in the image below:

Does the site provide equitable or better provision in Quantity and Quality?

• There is no agronomy assessment nor any feasibility study by a sports turf expert to assess the quality of the site to accommodate playing pitches. The Council have not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the area of land at Balls Hill open space would be capable of providing equitable or better playing field in quantity and quality, relative to the loss of playing field at Lion Farm, in accordance with the policy criteria.
• The Council consider that the site could accommodate one pitch. In practice, the site is only large enough for 1 mini football pitch which would not mitigate the loss of adult pitches at Lion Farm. A full size football pitch is 100m x 64m plus 3m run-off to meet FA recommended pitch sizes (so 106m x 70m overall). An adult pitch could only be accommodated with major re-modelling of the open space including significant tree removal etc
• There is a lack of any ancillary facilities including no changing rooms and no off-road car parking at the site. In the absence of such facilities, the site is unlikely to be attractive to users for adult football.
Is the site in a suitable location?
• The site is approximately 5.7km (as the crow flies) from the proposed allocation at Lion Farm, with Balls Hill open space being located in Wednesbury sub area, whereas Lion Farm is in Oldbury sub area (as set out in the Council’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy). This is not deemed to be a suitable replacement location to serve demand in Oldbury.

Other comments

• Balls Hill open space is a relatively small local community park containing children’s play equipment and an outdoor gym. The area of land in question is currently laid out to provide an informal kickabout space and so currently fulfils an alternative open space function to meet local needs. This would be lost to accommodate a playing pitch.
• There is a large multi pitch playing field nearby to the north at Hydes Road which is likely to be more attractive to pitch users as there are more pitches and more facilities available. Whilst Hydes Road currently has poor quality changing room facilities the Council have allocated funds to improve these. In practice, Balls Hill is therefore unlikely to be in demand for the provision of pitches, and would be better retained as a public open space as existing.
Summary
• Balls Hill open space is incapable of providing equitable or better provision in quality and quality, and does not provide a suitable location for replacement playing field provision, relative to the loss at Lion Farm. The park is an important local public open space and should be retained as such.

Black Patch Park, B66 2LL

• No plan of the site is included to delineate the area of land intended to be used for replacement playing pitches. Sport England has assumed that the land in question is the area shown in the image below:

Does the site provide equitable or better provision in Quantity and Quality?

• There is no agronomy assessment nor any feasibility study by a sports turf expert to assess the quality of the site to accommodate playing pitches. The Council have not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the area of land at Black Patch Park would be capable of providing equitable or better playing field in quantity and quality, relative to the loss of playing field at Lion Farm, in accordance with the policy criteria.
• The Council consider that the site could accommodate two full size and one junior pitch. Sport England considers that the site is not large enough to accommodate these pitches. We consider that two adult pitches could only be accommodated with major re-modelling of the open space including significant tree removal etc. The provision of junior pitches would not equitably mitigate the loss of adult pitches at Lion Farm. A full size football pitch is 100m x 64m plus 3m run-off to meet FA recommended pitch sizes (so 106m x 70m overall).
• There is evidence that the site has been used to provide playing pitches previously and so constitutes disused playing field (see image below). This would therefore not provide equitable replacement quantity since the land is already playing field.
• There is a lack of any ancillary facilities including no changing rooms and no off-road car parking at the site. In the absence of such facilities, the site is unlikely to be attractive to users. The site has contained ancillary facilities previously however these were vandalised. The site lacks good natural surveillance being within a predominantly industrial area, which makes such facilities vulnerable to such problems re-occurring.

Is the site in a suitable location?

• The site is approximately 5.6km (as the crow flies) from the proposed allocation at Lion Farm, with Black Patch Park open space being located in Smethwick sub area, whereas Lion Farm is in Oldbury sub area (as set out in the Council’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy). This is not deemed to be a suitable replacement location to serve demand in Oldbury.

Summary

• Black Patch Park is incapable of providing equitable or better provision in quality and quality, and does not provide a suitable location for replacement playing field provision, relative to the loss at Lion Farm. The site constitutes existing playing field and so will not provide any quantitative replacement, and whilst the site has some potential to be brought back into use, the lack of ancillary facilities makes this unattractive to users. The site is also too small to accommodate adult pitches.

Hill Top Park, B70 0RZ

• No plan of the site is included to delineate the area of land intended to be used for replacement playing pitches. Sport England has assumed that the land in question is the area shown in the image below:

Does the site provide equitable or better provision in Quantity and Quality?

• There is no agronomy assessment nor any feasibility study by a sports turf expert to assess the quality of the site to accommodate playing pitches. The Council have not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the area of land at Hill Top Park would be capable of providing equitable or better playing field in quantity and quality, relative to the loss of playing field at Lion Farm, in accordance with the policy criteria.
• The Council consider that the site could accommodate two adult pitches and one junior pitch. Sport England consider that in practice there is insufficient space to accommodate these pitches. There are two grassed plateaus, the central plateau is existing playing field accommodating an existing non-turf (artificial) cricket pitch. This area could only accommodate a youth sized pitch (9v9), and this would then displace the existing cricket pitch. The eastern lower plateau is smaller and can only accommodate a mini football pitch (5v5). The provision of junior pitches would not equitably mitigate the loss of adult pitches at Lion Farm. A full size football pitch is 100m x 64m plus 3m run-off to meet FA recommended pitch sizes (so 106m x 70m overall). An adult pitch could only be accommodated with major re-modelling of the open space including tree removal, re-profiling the levels etc.
• There is a lack of any ancillary facilities including no changing rooms and no off-road car parking at the site. In the absence of such facilities, the site is unlikely to be attractive to users.

Is the site in a suitable location?

• The site is approximately 5.1km ((as the crow flies) from the proposed allocation at Lion Farm, with Hill Top Park being located in Wednesbury sub area, whereas Lion Farm is in Oldbury sub area (as set out in the Council’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy). This is not deemed to be a suitable replacement location to serve demand in Oldbury.

Other comments

• Hill Top Park is a relatively small local community park containing children’s play equipment, outdoor gym and a MUGA. The area of land in question is currently laid out to provide an existing cricket pitch so there is no meaningful capacity to provide additional pitches without losing the other open space functions of the park.

Summary

Hill Top Park is incapable of providing equitable or better provision in quality and quality, and does not provide a suitable location for replacement playing field provision, relative to the loss at Lion Farm. The site, in part, constitutes existing playing field and so will not provide any quantitative replacement. The lack of ancillary facilities makes this unattractive to users. Its is also too small to accommodate adult pitches and would displace an existing cricket pitch to accommodate any provision for football.

Brooklands open space, WS5 4HU

• No plan of the site is included to delineate the area of land intended to be used for replacement playing pitches. Sport England has assumed that the land in question is the area shown in the image below:

Does the site provide equitable or better provision in Quantity and Quality?

• There is no agronomy assessment nor any feasibility study by a sports turf expert to assess the quality of the site to accommodate playing pitches. The Council have not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the area of land at Brooklands open space would be capable of providing equitable or better playing field in quantity and quality, relative to the loss of playing field at Lion Farm, in accordance with the policy criteria.
• The Council consider that the site could accommodate two adult pitches and one junior pitch. Sport England consider that in practice there is insufficient space to accommodate these pitches. There is one existing pitch located in the north west portion of the site so this constitutes existing playing field. The area of open space to the south of adjoining residential properties is practically constrained by a lack of sufficient space to accommodate adult pitches of sufficient width to meet FA recommended pitch dimensions. A full size football pitch is 100m x 64m plus 3m run-off to meet FA recommended pitch sizes (so 106m x 70m overall). In theory, there may be sufficient space to accommodate youth 9v9 or mini football pitches, however this would likely require long sections of ball stop fencing to be erected to protect residential properties from damage, which may be resisted locally as this could be perceived to be detrimental to the amenity/outlook of the residential area. The provision of junior pitches would not equitably mitigate the loss of adult pitches at
Lion Farm.
• There is a lack of any ancillary facilities including no changing rooms and no off-road car parking at the site. In the absence of such facilities, the site is unlikely to be attractive to users.

Is the site in a suitable location?

• The site is approximately 8.2km (as the crow flies) from the proposed allocation at Lion Farm, with Brooklands open space being located in Wednesbury sub area, whereas Lion Farm is in Oldbury sub area (as set out in the Council’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy). This is not deemed to be a suitable replacement location to serve demand in Oldbury.

Other comments

• Brooklands open space already contains one pitch and so this could not be deemed replacement provision. The remainder of the open space forms an important open space function for residents.

Summary

Brooklands open space is incapable of providing equitable or better provision in quality and quality, and does not provide a suitable location for replacement playing field provision, relative to the loss at Lion Farm. The site, in part, constitutes existing playing field and so will not provide any quantitative replacement. The lack of ancillary facilities makes this unattractive to users. The site is also too small to accommodate adult pitches and the provision of junior pitches would not be possible without installing significant lengths of ball stop fencing to protect existing residential properties to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area. The site is therefore unsuitable for the provision of replacement playing field.

Marl Hole Park, B70 9NT

• No plan of the site is included to delineate the area of land intended to be used for replacement playing pitches. Sport England has assumed that the land in question is the area shown in the image below:

Does the site provide equitable or better provision in Quantity and Quality?

• There is no agronomy assessment nor any feasibility study by a sports turf expert to assess the quality of the site to accommodate playing pitches. The Council have not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the area of land at Marl Hole Park would be capable of providing equitable or better playing field in quantity and quality, relative to the loss of playing field at Lion Farm, in accordance with the policy criteria.
• Council consider that the site could accommodate a full size pitch. Sport England considers that in practice there is insufficient space to fit in an adult pitch without significant tree removal, with the open space being particularly constrained by a lack of width due to the location of the woodland areas, such that there is only sufficient space for a mini football pitch. A full size football pitch is 100m x 64m plus 3m run-off to meet FA recommended pitch sizes (so 106m x 70m overall). There is only sufficient space to accommodate a mini football pitch. The provision of a mini pitch would not equitably mitigate the loss of adult pitches at Lion Farm.
16
• There is a lack of any ancillary facilities including no changing rooms and no off-road car parking at the site. In the absence of such facilities, the site is unlikely to be attractive to users.

Is the site in a suitable location?

• The site is approximately 2.8km (as the crow flies) from the proposed allocation at Lion Farm, with Marl Hole Park being located in West Bromwich sub area, whereas Lion Farm is in Oldbury sub area (as set out in the Council’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy). This is not deemed to be a suitable replacement location to serve demand in Oldbury.

Other comments

• Marl Hole Park is a relatively small neighbourhood park that provides a relatively modest kickabout area as part of the open space to the west of the woodland. There is a footpath around the western edge of the open space, with a cross fall of ground level from east to west. The park appears to form an important open space function for residents.

Summary

Marl Hole Park is incapable of providing equitable or better provision in quality and quality, and does not provide a suitable location for replacement playing field provision, relative to the loss at Lion Farm. There is insufficient space, without extensive tree removal and remodelling of the land to accommodate anything larger than a mini football pitch..The site is also too small to accommodate adult pitches. The lack of ancillary facilities makes this unattractive to users The site is therefore unsuitable for the provision of replacement playing field.

Radcliffe Park, Ebeneezer Street, B70 0EF

• No plan of the site is included to delineate the area of land intended to be used for replacement playing pitches. Sport England has assumed that the land in question is the area shown in the image below:

Does the site provide equitable or better provision in Quantity and Quality?

• There is no agronomy assessment nor any feasibility study by a sports turf expert to assess the quality of the site to accommodate playing pitches. The Council have not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the area of land at Ratcliffe Park would be capable of providing equitable or better playing field in quantity and quality, relative to the loss of playing field at Lion Farm, in accordance with the policy criteria.
• The Council consider that the site could accommodate a junior pitch. Sport England considers that in practice there is insufficient space to fit in anything larger than a 5v5 mini football pitch. The provision of a mini pitch would not equitably mitigate the loss of adult pitches at Lion Farm.
• There is a lack of any ancillary facilities including no changing rooms and no off-road car parking at the site. In the absence of such facilities, the site is unlikely to be attractive to users.

Is the site in a suitable location?

• The site is approximately 4.6km (as the crow flies) from the proposed allocation at Lion Farm, with Ratcliffe Park being located in Wednesbury sub area, whereas Lion Farm is in Oldbury sub area (as set out in the Council’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy). This is not deemed to be a suitable replacement location to serve demand in Oldbury.

Other comments

• Ratcliffe Park is a relatively small neighbourhood park that provides a relatively modest kickabout area as part of the open space, together with children’s play equipment etc. The park appears to form an important open space function for residents.

Summary

Ratcliffe Park is incapable of providing equitable or better provision in quality and quality, and does not provide a suitable location for replacement playing field provision, relative to the loss at Lion Farm. There is insufficient space to accommodate anything larger than a mini football pitch. The site is also too small to accommodate adult pitches. The lack of ancillary facilities makes this unattractive to users The site is therefore unsuitable for the provision of replacement playing field.

Bilston Road, WS10 7JD

• No plan of the site is included to delineate the area of land intended to be used for replacement playing pitches. Sport England has assumed that the land in question is the area shown in the image below:

Does the site provide equitable or better provision in Quantity and Quality?

• There is no agronomy assessment nor any feasibility study by a sports turf expert to assess the quality of the site to accommodate playing pitches. The Council have not provided any analysis to demonstrate how the area of land at Bilston Road would be capable of providing equitable or better playing field in quantity and quality, relative to the loss of playing field at Lion Farm, in accordance with the policy criteria.
• The Council consider that the site could accommodate one full size pitch or 2 junior pitches. Sport England considers that in practice there is insufficient space to fit in anything larger than a mini football pitch. This is due to the location of the existing multi use games area in the central part of the site which looks to be in good condition and presumably well used. Even if the MUGA were to be removed, we would question whether the site warrants the investment required to create only one replacement adult pitch. The site is constrained by significant gradient changes across the site and would require significant engineering works to re-profile the land to provide a suitable plateau for a replacement pitch.
• There is a lack of any ancillary facilities including no changing rooms and no off-road car parking at the site. In the absence of such facilities, the site is unlikely to be attractive to users.

Is the site in a suitable location?

• The site is approximately 7km (as the crow flies) from the proposed allocation at Lion Farm, with Bilston Road being located in Wednesbury sub area, whereas Lion Farm is in Oldbury sub area (as set out in the Council’s Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy). This is not deemed to be a suitable replacement location to serve demand in Oldbury.

Other comments

• Bilston Road is a relatively small neighbourhood park that provides a relatively modest kickabout area as part of the open space, together with children’s play equipment and the MUGA etc. The park appears to form an important open space function for residents, and the loss of the MUGA in good condition would be have a negative impact in order to accommodate one replacement pitch.

Summary

Bilston Road is incapable of providing equitable or better provision in quality and quality, and does not provide a suitable location for replacement playing field provision, relative to the loss at Lion Farm. There is insufficient space to accommodate anything larger than a mini football pitch. The site is also too small to accommodate adult pitches without the loss of the MUGA and significant engineering works to re-profile the site. The lack of ancillary facilities makes this unattractive to users The site is therefore unsuitable for the provision of replacement playing field.

Summary analysis of the eight proposed mitigation sites

For the various reasons explained in the sections above, none of the sites put forward are capable of meeting the relevant policy criteria in draft policy SHW5, paragraph 103 of the Framework or Sport England’s Playing Fields policy.

None of the sites, either singularly or collectively, have been demonstrated to be capable of providing equitable or better provision of playing field in quantity or quality.

The Council have not undertaken any technical assessments/feasibility analysis by a suitably qualified sports turf expert to evidence their position in respect of the capacity of these 8 sites to provide playing pitches, and to present their analysis of why they consider these sites are capable of providing equitable or better provision in a suitable location to the loss at Lion Farm, (which we estimate would equate to a loss of 6-7 adult football pitches depending on the extent of land proposed for the allocation), together with access to ancillary changing and off-road car parking facilities.
Sport England have explained that all the sites, perhaps with the exception of Lightwoods Park, are incapable of accommodating adult pitches. Even Lightwoods Park may be challenging to accommodate adult pitches without considering the potential need for ball stop fencing to prevent balls from leaving the field of play into the A456.

Given the loss of playing field at Lion Farm currently provides adult pitches, we do not consider that the provision of youth and mini football pitches at the proposed mitigation sites could not be considered to meet this policy criteria of being equitable or better in quality and quantity.

In some cases, the mitigation being put forward constitutes existing playing field land, and the case of Lightwoods Park and Hill Top Park would displace existing non turf cricket pitches. Displacing these pitches would be a further negative impact.

In the case of Bilston Road, this would displace an existing Multi Use Games Area, a further negative impact.

Areas of land at Lightwoods Park, Black Patch Park and Brooklands contain either disused playing field, having been laid out with playing pitches in the past, or are currently laid out to provide grass pitches for football.

None of the identified mitigation sites have any existing ancillary changing rooms, nor any off-road car parking, and many of the sites would seem incapable of being able to accommodate such provision. In the absence of such provision the sites would likely be unattractive to users.
None of the sites are located close to the Lion Farm site, and none of the identified sites are located in the Oldbury sub area. They are either in the Wednesbury or West Bromwich sub areas, several kilometres away, and so are not considered to be in a suitable location to meet the policy criteria. The users of the Lion Farm site would be unlikely to see these sites as suitable alternatives given the geographical location away from the Oldbury sub area.
Several of the sites contain existing informal kickabout spaces that serve an important open space function that would be lost to accommodate any proposed pitches. The loss of open space for other functions would also need to be considered.

Lack of suitable alternative sites

It is Sport England’s view that the Council have exhausted all opportunities within Sandwell area to identify suitable sites to mitigate the proposed loss of playing field land at Lion Farm.

If there were better and more appropriate alternative sites to the 8 suggested sites identified in the policy allocation, they would have included them, but they have not done so, since such suitable alternative sites for replacement playing provision cannot be identified by the Council.
Sport England is unaware of any suitable alternative sites.

Evidence of need to protect the site for existing and future demand for football

Para 102 of the Framework expressly states:
Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities (including quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses) and opportunities for new provision. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sport and recreational provision is needed, which plans should then seek to accommodate.

The Council recognise the need to maintain an up to date evidence base which is set out in their adopted Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy (PPOSS). The Council’s draft policy SHW5 reflects the need to use that information to protect playing fields to meet their identified needs, and this reflects national policy in para 103 of the Framework.

The PPOSS was prepared by specialist sports consultants KKP on the Council’s behalf in line with Sport England’s Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance : https://www.sportengland.org/guidance-and-support/facilities-and-planning/planning-sport?section=assessing_needs_and_playing_pitch_strategy_guidance

The PPOSS contains the following findings and recommendations that are relevant to Lion Farm:

PPOSS Assessment Report (October 2022) :

• Pitch quality is an issue in Sandwell. Of the 139 grass football pitches in Sandwell that are available for community use, 83 (60%) are reported to be poor quality (page 14). This includes the pitches at Lion Farm playing fields.
• Lion Farm site was identified as a priority site for pitch improvements in the Local Football Facility Plan (page 16)
• The ancillary facilities at Lion Farm are also reported to be poor quality (page 19). The provision at Lion Farm includes existing changing rooms and car parking.
• There is a high demand for football pitches across Sandwell and in the Oldbury sub area, with a reported 97 teams in Oldbury equating to 28% of the overall demand across Sandwell. There is likely to have been further teams growth across Sandwell and within Oldbury since the PPOSS was prepared. For instance, Sport England are aware of recent growth from clubs such as Oldbury Utd and Starz Academy in the Oldbury area.
• The PPOSS reports there to be projected increased demand from population growth across Sandwell (see table 2.9 and 2.10). This relates to growth in demand for adult and youth 11v11 pitches.
• The Lion Farm site is currently reported to be played to capacity at peak times (Table 2.13).
• There is a reported shortfall of supply to meet demand for adult pitches across Sandwell of 17 Match Equivalent Sessions (MES) (see table 2.19 on page 32). Within Oldbury, there is a reported shortfall of 5.5 MES, and with future population growth this will be expected to become a shortfall of 6 MES in the future.
• Across Sandwell, there are also reported shortfalls for youth 11v11, youth 9v9 and mini 7v7 pitches. Across Oldbury, there are also reported shortfalls of capacity for youth 9v9 and mini 7v7 pitches.

PPOSS Strategy and Action Plan (October 2022):

• Part 3 sets the aims of the strategy. Aim 1 is to protect the existing supply of outdoor sports facilities where it is needed to meet current and future needs (page 10)
• Table 4.12 considers the theoretical scenario of improving certain poor quality pitches, including Lion Farm to build additional capacity. Table 4.13 sets out that even where several poor quality pitches were to be improved to good quality, there would still be an overall shortfall of capacity across Sandwell.
• Table 4.15 is clear that when the LFFP is to be updated, the Lion Farm site and several others should be retained as a priority for pitch quality improvements.
• Page 20-21 sets out a series of specific recommendations for football. These include, protecting existing quantity of pitches, including lapsed and disused provision, until all demand is met (unless replacement provision meets Sport England’s requirements and is agreed and provided – we have explained that in our view this cannot be achieved at the sites proposed by the Council). The football recommendations of the PPOSS also include a range of measures to enhance provision for football including improving pitch quality, improving ancillary provision etc.
• The Action Plan reports the site under site ID 50 (page 65) as follows: there are 11 existing poor quality adult football pitches that are played to capacity at peak time. The recommendations are to protect the site, to improve pitch quality and ancillary quality in line with LFFP recommendations. The PPOSS also states that if the site is to be lost to ensure that appropriate mitigation takes place in line with the Framework and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy. The proposed allocation being put forward fails to demonstrate this.

Overall Summary and Conclusion

The PPOSS clearly identifies that the site is important to meet existing and future needs for football. The loss of the site (or part of the site), without equitable or better replacement would have a significant detrimental impact on capacity for adult football within Sandwell, where there are already capacity shortfalls.

There is a particular shortfall of adult and youth 11v11 pitches in Oldbury. The mitigation being put forward would not help meet the need in Oldbury as all the sites identified are in Wednesbury and West Bromwich, and 7 of the 8 sites could not accommodate adult pitches (and the provision of adult football pitches at Lightwoods Park would displace an existing non-turf cricket pitch).

The Lion Farm site is particularly valuable for football as it contains multiple pitches that are used by a local adult football league whose demand would likely be displaced by the proposed development. Lion Farm is the single largest playing field site in Sandwell in terms of the number of football pitches that are provided at a single site. This makes it an attractive site for users and brings benefits in terms of management and maintenance of pitches across a single site. The site is in an accessible location to users in the Oldbury area. The site should be protected from development and improved in line with the PPOSS to help meet identified existing and future needs, in line with para 102 of the NPPF.

The proposed allocation should be withdrawn from the proposed Local Plan since there is significant doubt that the allocation is deliverable, given Sport England’s likely Statutory objection to any future planning application. The allocation is also unsound on the basis that it’s in conflict with national policy in para 103 of the NPPF, draft policy SW5 and Sport England’s Playing fields policy, since the Council cannot demonstrate that there are deliverable proposals to mitigate the loss of playing field that would accord with these policies (to be equitable or better in quantity and quality in a suitable location). We consider this allocation to be in direct conflict with the Council's stated ambitions, vision and objectives of the Draft Plan, particularly those that seek to improve the health and well-being of Borough's residents.

Sport England therefore strongly objects to the proposed allocation at Lion Farm playing

Sandwell Site Allocations and Allocation Changes
Comment: Each allocation needs to be checked for being Potential Sites of Importance (PSI) and evidence reviewed on each case and the need for a local sites assessment to be considered prior to the allocation. Evidence on a number of Potential Sites of Importance (PSIs) suggested local site assessments should be carried out in order to establish whether these meet the local sites criteria threshold. Examples (though not an exhaustive list) are listed below.

Comment: We would object to any housing allocation on a site that has a current local site designation. For example, SH18 and SH43 below. We would also object to the allocation of any PSIs where evidence suggests these could be sites of value locally on the basis that these would require local site assessment prior to an allocation being proposed. For example we would object to SH35 and SH36 on this basis. We are aware that the area to the East of the lagoon supports a sizeable area of kidney vetch and is likely to support a colony of the rare Small Blue butterfly. We understand that other notable species such as Bee Orchids are present on the eastern side of that site (by Macdonald Close) and that this is an area of grassland, open mosaic and scrub which has developed on former colliery/brickworks land which connects to the wider Sheepwash area. The areas have also been identified as core areas in the nature recovery network analysis therefore the need for a local sites assessment in such circumstances is clear.


Please see further notes and objections to specific allocations here:

SH18 - Friar Park, Wednesbury. The site is a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) and part of the core nature recovery network/LNRS areas of principal biodiversity importance. We therefore object to it being allocated for housing/development.

SH19 - Land at Horseley Heath, Tipton. Due to its adjacency, we have concerns about the impact of this allocation on Dixons Branch Canal

SH21 - Dudley Road East. As above, but for Gower Branch Canal


SH30 - Land to East of Black Lane, West Bromwich. As above, but for Ridgeacre Branch Canal

These are areas that could be potential sites of importance so evidence should be reviewed and a local sites assessment could be necessary.

SH35 - Rattlechain site - land to north of Temple Way, Tividale.

SH36 - Land between Addington Way and River Tame, Temple Way. Adjacent to Brades Hall SLINC.

Both SH35 and 36 are PSIs We are aware that the area to the East of the lagoon supports a sizeable area of kidney vetch and is likely to support a colony of the rare Small Blue butterfly. We understand that other notable species such as Bee Orchids are present on the eastern side of that site (by Macdonald Close) and that this is an area of grassland, open mosaic and scrub which has developed on former colliery/brickworks land which connects to the wider Sheepwash area. The areas have also been identified as core areas in the nature recovery network analysis therefore the need for a local sites assessment in such circumstances is clear and the allocation reviewed accordingly, as necessary.


SH43 - Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr. The site is a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) adjacent to a SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) and part of the core nature recovery network/LNRS areas of principal biodiversity importance. We therefore object to it being allocated for housing/development.

Reiterating from our previous response submitted in December 2023 as our suggested changes have not been included yet.

In order to be legally compliant with existing relevant policies (e.g. UK Environment Act 2021, the Biodiversity Net Gain law 2024, and the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance) and in order to meet the required criteria for soundness, several suggestions are made below for this section of the local plan.

We would object to any housing allocation on a site that has a current local site designation. See further details in changes suggested below.

The Chance and Soho Foundry and Mint sites are key regeneration sites within Sandwell, identified within the Sandwell Regeneration Strategy 2022-2027 as priority projects to become places to be “revived for modern uses”, with an expected delivery date of 2027. The Site supports significant
heritage assets that are in a state of disrepair and their maintenance and up-keep can only be delivered by a comprehensive redevelopment of the Site.

The CHT have previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council, to support the regeneration of the Chance Glassworks and Soho Foundry sites. This demonstrates the commitment at a senior Council level to the regeneration of these important sites and CHT are pleased to see this
reflected in the emerging policy position for the Chance Glassworks site.

It is clear that the existing adopted policy has not worked in bringing about the regeneration of these assets, therefore CHT are grateful that the Council have recognised that a shift in policy is imperative to prevent the ongoing decay and safeguard this unique site for future generations, and have provided
the Site with a bespoke allocation that reflects the aspirations of the Vision Document shared with the Council as part of the previous Issues and Options consultation.

CHT considers that the emerging policy in this regard accords with paragraphs 126 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by adapting the policy position to reallocate land and setting a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the heritage assets on the Chance Glassworks site and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.

The CHT wish to see the sensitive, heritage-led regeneration of the Chance Glassworks Site remain a priority for Sandwell Council throughout the Local Plan process. The proposals will continue to be shaped by extensive engagement with the Local Planning Authority and other key stakeholders.

In considering the above, CHT supports the heritage-led mixed-use allocation of Chances Glass Works - Land west of Spon Lane, north of Palace Drive - for housing and employment workspace, a heritage centre, 1 ha of open space, and a new access point.

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.

1. Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives

The Trust has no further additions to make to its Regulation 18 observations.

2. Spatial Strategy

The Trust maintains its endorsement of the ‘key issues addressed in the SLP’ but repeats its request that our canal network be included within Figure 2 - Sandwell Spatial Map so that the contribution our network makes towards the delivery of Sandwell’s Spatial Strategy and overall Sandwell Local Plan Vision 2041 can be fully appreciated and realised by citizens and developers alike.

3. Development Strategy

The Trust continues to welcome the retention and enhancement of a canal-specific policy (Policy SNE6) within the Regulation 19 Sandwell Local Plan and as such does not seek the addition of replica canal-specific wording within every other relevant policy wording within the Plan. Cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 however is encouraged where applicable.

We note the inclusion of ‘blue-green infrastructure’ within Policy SDS1 (e) – Spatial Strategy for Sandwell and welcome the retention of canal-related content within the now renumbered Policy SDS3 – Regeneration in Sandwell.

We also maintain our commitment to continued engagement with the Council and partner stakeholders in the delivery of regeneration initiatives within Sandwell which interface with our network, such as those for the Smethwick-Birmingham Corridor Framework and Rolfe Street Masterplans and related SPD’s, as they progress.

Placemaking – achieving well-designed places

The Trust continues to encourage incorporation of cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the justification text to now renumbered Policy SDS5 - Achieving Well-designed Places, as well as consultation on any future Local Design Codes.

Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy

The Trust welcomes inclusion of the canals within both renumbered Policy SDS6 (point 9) - Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy and its justification text, and has no further comments to make on this matter.

Green and Blue Infrastructure

The Trust welcomes inclusion of the canals within now renumbered Policy SDS8 - Green and Blue Infrastructure in Sandwell and its introductory and justification texts, and has no further comments to make on this matter.

4. Sandwell's Natural and Historic Environment

Nature Conservation

In relation to Policy SNE2 – Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats, the Trust repeats its previous advice that, “the value of the canal network to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) will manifest itself as the implementation of BNG gains traction in 2024 and beyond. For example, canals are part of the local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and as such will provide an increasing value and essential role in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Canals more broadly play a crucial role within Sandwell for nature conservation and provide large populations of urban dwellers with access to nature. As such Sandwell's canals should be recognised for the crucial role they facilitate in priority species movements and recovery through the West Midlands.”

We continue to seek on-going engagement in the evolution of BNG-related policy wording throughout the plan preparation stages over 2024/5, including at Examination stages and in the correct application of the BNG metric in the assessment of current and future planning applications which suitably interface with our network.

Canals in Sandwell – Policy SNE6

The Trust gratefully notes that all our requested changes to this policy wording have been incorporated with the Regulation 19 version of this policy, and we therefore have no additional comments to make.

The Historic Environment

The Trust continues to welcome mention of ‘the canal network and its associated infrastructure, surviving canalside pre-1939 buildings and structures, and archaeological evidence of the development of canal-side industries and former canal routes’ within Policy SHE2 5(e) – Development in the Historic Environment.

5. Climate Change

The Trust notes that this section of the Regulation 19 version of the Sandwell Local Plan has been substantially rewritten.

Paragraphs 5.13 and 5.61: We welcome the addition of these paragraphs in relation the potential of our network to provide for the heating and cooling needs of forthcoming adjacent development.

The Regulation 18 version and paragraph 5.15 (in relation to retrofitting) appears to have been removed from this section of the Regulation 19 version and therefore our comments on the need to assess development impacts of this in terms of canal setting, historical significance and amenity value are absent. The Trust requests reinstatement of this section and incorporation of this advice, where applicable.

Para 5.71: The Trust welcomes the addition of the canal network within this paragraph in support of Policy SCC5 – Flood Risk.

Para 5.83 Canals and SuDS: The Trust welcomes the addition of the canal network within this paragraph in support of Policy SCC6 - Sustainable Drainage.

6. Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell

The Trust notes that para 6.14 (h) includes reference to blue and green infrastructure, which by Glossary definition includes the canal network. Para 6.46 also adds reference to the canal network, and reference within para 6.50 to the use of planning conditions and obligations to support the work of agencies such as ourselves is further beneficially added.

7. Sandwell's Housing
The Trust previously advised that it, “is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Housing need and supply policies and allocated sites can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals in Sandwell (as requested amendments above refer). However, inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and
allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly, ideally at pre-application stage. The Trust therefore requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-wereinterested-in/pre-application-advice

See also comments on Appendix B below.

In relation to towpath improvement aspirations the Trust has identified the Tame Valley Canal, Walsall Canal and the Old Wednesbury Canal as priority areas for upgrading over the plan period, and will seek to request Section 106/CIL monies from appropriate schemes where they arise in proximity to these stretches of the network.

The Trust also advises that it has some specific critical assets within the Sandwell area such as Spouthouse Embankment, Titford Pools feeder, and Netherton Tunnel which will require careful assessment of allocations for impact and mitigation under the provisions of SNE6 – Canals, particularly in relation to matters of land stability and infrastructure maintenance, cross-referenced with historic coal mining activity within Sandwell.”

We maintain this previous advice and reiterate the importance of fully assessing development proposals under the requirements of Policy SNE6 – Canals.

8. Sandwell’s Economy

The Trust previously advised that it, “is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Economy policies and allocated sites can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). However, inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will
enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly, ideally at pre-application stage. The Trust requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted preapplication enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-wereinterested-in/pre-application-advice (ACTION REQUEST).

See also comments on Appendix C below.”

We maintain this previous advice and restate the importance of fully assessing development proposals under the requirements of Policy SNE6 – Canals.

9. Sandwell's Centres and 10. West Bromwich

The Trust previously advised that it, “is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Centres policies and allocated sites can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). However, inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will
enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly, ideally at pre-application stage. The Trust requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted preapplication enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-wereinterested-in/pre-application-advice (ACTION REQUEST).

See also comments on Appendix D below.”

We note that in places the canal network is now identified within ‘Areas of High Historic Townscape Value’ designations, and on this basis have no further comments to make on this matter.

11. Transport

The Trust previously advised that, “The Section contains a number of polices in relation to transportation, including the promotion of active and sustainable travel through modal shift. The canal network can provide robust opportunities for promotion of these agendas and the Trust welcomes the inclusion of the canal network within sub-section 3 of Policy STR5 – Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking. However, the Trust requests inclusion of the canal network within Figure 13 - Transport Key Diagram, overlaying with cycle and walking networks, to enable its role in the delivery of sustainable transport and modal shift to be more readily identified in conjunction with the implementation of Policy STR5 – Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking (ACTION REQUEST).

Similarly, the Trust welcomes mention of encouragement of use of the waterways within sub-section 1 of Policy STR4 – The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics as a sustainable alternative to road-based freight movement.”

We gratefully note that our network is now added into Figure 14 – Existing Transport Network and Figure 15 - Transport Improvements Plan and have no further comments to make on this matter.

12. Infrastructure and Delivery

The Trust previously advised, “The Trust welcomes mention of the potential for use of canal towpaths for the provision of 5G network infrastructure within sub-section 3d of Policy SID1 - Promotion of Fibre to the Premises and 5G Networks and requests additional wording as follows, ‘To be delivered through the reasonable use of planning conditions or S106/CIL obligations.’ (ACTION REQUEST).”

We welcome the retention of wording relating to the potential of our network to provide these opportunities within now renumbered Policy SID2 – Digital Infrastructure and paragraph 12.33, albeit without mechanisms for delivery being specified. We therefore repeat our previous advice.

13. Minerals and Waste

The Trust previously advised, “The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Minerals and Waste policies and allocated sites (identified as being preferentially within Local Employment Sites) can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). However, inclusion of the
canal network within relevant policy and allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly. The Trust therefore requests ongoing engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/specialist-teams/planning-and-design/our-statutory-consultee-role/what-wereinterested-in/pre-application-advice (ACTION REQUEST).

See also comments on Appendix E and Appendix F below.”

We maintain this previous advice and restate the importance of fully assessing development proposals under the requirements of Policy SNE6 – Canals.

14. Development Constraints and Industrial Legacy

We previously advised, “The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Development Constraints and Industrial Legacy policies can be adequately addressed through the issues specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). Accordingly, we request the incorporation of cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the introductory text to this section, for example after para 14.5. or more specifically in the justification texts for Policies SCO2 - Pollution Control and Policy SCO3 - Land contamination and instability (ACTION REQUEST).

Similarly, we request para 14.17 of the justification text lists potential receptors of light pollution impact and includes the canal network within that list. (ACTION REQUEST).”

We note that paragraph 14.18 is added which reflects impacts to our network specifically, and therefore have no further comments to make on this matter.

15. Development Management

We previously advised, “The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Development Management policies can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). Accordingly, we request the incorporation of cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the introductory text to this section, or more specifically in the justification texts for Policy SDM1 – Design Quality, Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards, and Policy SDM3 – Tall Buildings and Gateway Sites.

In relation to design quality, the canal network also presents opportunities for positive placemaking and the reduction of anti-social behaviour as commented on above in relation to Policy SDS4 - Achieving Well-designed Places.

In relation to tall buildings and gateway sites the Trust requests that Policy SDM3 – Tall Buildings and Gateway Sites sub-heading 5(c) specify that this relates to both designated and non-designated heritage assets (ACTION REQUEST).

The associated justification text should also contain reference to the need for impact of tall buildings within typically lower height profile canal environments to be a material consideration, to enable assessment of impact on the prevailing visual environment and character of the canal network (ACTION REQUEST).”

We note that reference to our network is added into Policy SDM1 (h) – Design Quality and paragraph 15.17 and into Policy SDM3 (c) – Tall Buildings and Gateway Sites, and therefore have no further comments to make on this matter.

Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

We previously advised, “The Trust requests opportunity to engage with the Council on an on-going basis throughout the plan period to secure the benefits to the canal network envisaged by the Plan’s suite of policies (ACTION REQUEST).

Furthermore, the Trust notes that use, delivery and monitoring of Section 106 and CIL payments is not included within the policy wording and queries its absence (ACTION REQUEST).”

The Trust reiterates this previous advice.

Errata Sheet

The Trust has no comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX A – Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

The Trust previously advised, “The Trust seeks to maintain engagement with the Council on the evolution of BNG delivery within Sandwell in its forthcoming formative roll-out stages (2024/25) and thereafter on an implementation basis throughout the plan period (ACTION REQUEST).”

The Trust maintains this previous advice, on an on-going basis through the Development Management process.

APPENDIX B - Sandwell Site Allocations

SH7 - The Boat Gauging House and adjoining land, Factory Road, Tipton – development proposals should have particular regard to the heritage assets on site in scale, form and impact on character. The Trust requests clarification of the continued inclusion or deletion of this allocation. We note the additional of our requested wording to all other allocations, and therefore have no further comments to raise to those other allocations.

APPENDIX C – Employment Allocations – vacant land

SEC1-10 - Brandon Way/ Albion Road - development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the land stability issues of the canal. The Trust requests clarification of the continued inclusion or deletion of this allocation.

APPENDIX D – West Bromwich Masterplan and Carter's Green Framework Plan (now Masterplans)

The Trust welcomes substantial reference to the canal network now within this Appendix, and seeks continued engagement through the Development Management process to ensure effective delivery.

APPENDIX E – Strategic Waste Sites

We previously advised, “The Trust notes the identification of the existing Strategic Waste Sites within the Black Country authorities, (rather than just Sandwell) and raises no additional comments subject to statutory consultation on any forthcoming planning applications on any of these sites within our notified areas, and assessment in line with the emerging Policy SNE6 - Canals (for any sites within Sandwell) if applicable.” The Trust maintains this previous advice.

APPENDIX F – Minerals

We previously advised, “The Trust notes the identification of existing Key Mineral Infrastructure sites and raises no additional comments subject to statutory consultation on any forthcoming planning applications on any of these sites within our notified areas, and assessment in line with the emerging Policy SNE6 – Canals, for sites within Sandwell, if applicable.“

The Trust maintains this previous advice.

APPENDIX G – Site allocations - changes

We previously advised, “The Trust notes the changes in allocations, largely from housing to employment uses, and raises no additional comments subject to statutory consultation on any forthcoming planning applications on any of these sites within our notified areas, and assessment in line with the emerging Policy SNE6 - Canals.

It is noted that in principle some employment uses may give rise to additional assessment needs and mitigation requirements in relation to operational pollution control e.g. air and water quality.”

The Trust maintains this previous advice.

APPENDIX H – Rowley Hills

The Trust has no additional comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX I – Sandwell Local Plan Housing Trajectory

The Trust has no additional comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX J – Sandwell Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy (extract) (now Open space and play provision standards for development)

The Trust has no additional comments to make

APPENDIX K – Transportation Policy

The Trust has no comments to make on the proposed parking standards.

APPENDIX L – Transport Proposals

The Trust has no additional comments to make subject to assessment in line with Policy SNE6 – Canals.

APPENDIX M – Sandwell’s Historic Environment Designations

The Trust has no comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX N – Superseded Policies and Plans

The Trust has no comments to make on this matter.

APPENDIX O – Glossary

The Trust has no comments to make on the proposed definitions.

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?