The Vulcan site comprises part of a wider area of ‘Housing Allocations’ as identified on the Sandwell Local Plan Regulation 19 Policies Map.

As part of the Regulation 18 consultation, the Vulcan representations fully supported the inclusion of Brades Road as a residential allocation. It was remarked that site is clearly consistent with the Government agenda of brownfield first and maximising development within areas with high sustainability credentials that are accessible by a choice of means of transport. Likewise, Vulcan supported the inclusion of adjoining land on Dudley Road East (site ref. SH21) for the same reasons.

The Regulation 18 Appendix B sets 2033 as the date for anticipated delivery timescale (completion year) of Brades Road. As part of its Regulation 18 consultation response, Vulcan encouraged a delivery date in advance of this, with there being justification for taking that approach. As set out in Vulcan’s Regulation 18 Local Plan representations, the justification for identifying delivery of residential development at the site in advance of 2033 is two-fold; firstly that Brades Road is potentially available in the short-term (with vacant possession being possible), and secondly that delivery of new homes may need to be front-loaded during the plan period. Vulcan acknowledges the significant shortfall in housing provision over the plan period and the uncertainty over housing numbers to be provided out of area through ‘duty to co‐operate’. Consequently, where sites are suitable and available, these should be identified as coming forward earlier in the housing trajectory. There is good reason to expect that delivery out of area will be skewed to the latter stages of the Sandwell Local Plan period, given that those neighbouring authorities can be expected justifiably to prioritise meeting their own housing requirements. As a result of this and the potential availability of Brades Road, the site should be recognised as an opportunity to assist with front‐loading homes to be delivered within the Sandwell area.

Regulation 19 Appendix B reiterates the previous anticipated delivery timescale (it is stated as 2033-2034). This does not reflect Vulcan’s ambitions to deliver the site on a more short-term basis, and while the predicted trajectory does not impede prompter delivery, Vulcan encourages the site being identified earlier in the delivery trajectory.

Vulcan wholly supports the proposed inclusion of Brades Road as a residential allocation, as confirmed in the Regulation 19 Appendix B and the Regulation 19 Local Plan Policies Map.

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

REMOVE ALLOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. Not positively prepared. Constraints too great for sustainable development. Failure over decades for this site to be suitable for this purpose and the rattlechain lagoon is still a permitted hazardous waste site containing tens of tonnes of highly toxic white phosphorus. Waste from millions of filled WW2 weapons were deposited there by Albright and Wilson since 1942 and a site licence operated from 1978. (1), (2), 93), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) (10). When dewatered this produces toxic gases. Not safe or possible to include this land within the allocation- no risk assessment or previous developments on such sites for this scenario. Similar site in US produced toxic phosphine gas associated with degradation of white phosphorus which was over 2km away from nearest occupancy, and not as here just metres from existing or proposed homes.(16), (17)Council ,HSE and Environment Agency cannot sign this off knowing what scenario would unfold- Risk of significant harm existing and future occupiers.

This site failed to come forward in the previous plan (2011), where the inspector Crysell did not believe it would. Two different site owners- Rhodia/Solvay owning the toxic lagoon who described the plans as not technically feasible to infill the lagoon to support residential development and discussions as “passive”(21). 13 years on from this, we only get “discussions” and no realistic intention other than kicking the scheme out until the near end of the plan in 2041- hence not effective or deliverable in the plan period. And appears once again to be reliant on money from the public purse to pay for what the polluter did not. Costs not justified or appropriate. Not justified or appropriate to remove thousands of tonnes of over tipped foundry sand off site or to infill the lagoon. Years of blight took place in the initial operation by Mintworth supposedly taking two years and in reality took eleven to create “private open space” which was abandoned and left derelict since. This caused blight to local residents with “misery” of foundry sand blowing into their homes and properties, and would again affect them in the same way. (23), (24), (25), (26), (27). SMBC SWOT analysis of area 2017 DPSPD stated as threats “CONTAMINATED LAND REMEDIATION COSTS”, “INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT

”https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dudley_port_supplementary_planni/response/986421/attach/2/attachment.pdf
More appropriate to create a nature reserve extension to Sheepwash- A SINC site. SH35 area has very rare small blue butterfly and associated kidney vetch so of important scientific interest and protection from development as a local green space. (31)The existing area in Temple Way is not a “garden city” but a concrete car park with few gardens. Further development will cause harm to designated sites of importance for biodiversity. NPPF DEC 2023 P 185 “Habitats and biodiversity relevant, but council have failed to pre assess private land sites in their BNG habitat banks

NPPF Dec 2023 “Ground conditions and pollution P189, 190,191 also relevant to the unsound inclusion of this site.

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

REMOVE ALLOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. Lagoon site not compatible with development. Constraints too great for sustainable development. Failure over decades for this site to be suitable for this purpose and the rattlechain lagoon is still a permitted hazardous waste site containing tens of tonnes of highly toxic white phosphorus. (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) (10). When dewatered this produces toxic gases. 16), (17). Not safe or possible to include this land within the allocation- no risk assessment or previous developments on such sites for this scenario.
Permit has not been surrendered and can only be by Rhodia/Solvay when the Environment Agency agrees to this after a completion certificate.
It is not for the owners of the adjacent site nor their neighbours, nor SMBC to believe they are entitled to judge this legal matter , when/if this may even happen and in the time of the Sandwell plan. Similarly SMBC should be mindful of Part 2 a of the EPA and liabilities regards land that has no risk assessment for the scenarios likely from dewatering the lagoon and toxic gases. The EA will not agree to the inclusion of the lagoon in conjunction with a different development on the adjacent site given the time bomb that activity on one site may impact on another. If they do, they are not a fit body to exist.

Similar site in US produced toxic phosphine gas associated with degradation of white phosphorus which was over 2km away from nearest occupancy, and not as here just metres from existing or proposed homes. (16), (17). Council ,HSE and Environment Agency cannot sign this off knowing what scenario would unfold- Risk of significant harm existing and future occupiers being compromised.
NPPF Dec 2023 “Ground conditions and pollution P189, 190,191 also relevant to the unsound inclusion of this site.

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

REMOVE ALLOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. Not positively prepared. Constraints too great for sustainable development. River Tame adjacency threatens pollution to controlled waters through Sheepwash Nature Reserve as has been observed before from the Brades Brook off Addington Way.
Not relevant for housing figures with inclusion of new Dudley Road site in updated LP.
More appropriate to create a nature reserve extension to Sheepwash- A SINC site. SH35 area connecting has very rare small blue butterfly colony and associated kidney vetch so of important scientific interest and protection from development as a local green space. (31) The existing area in Temple Way is not a “garden city” but a concrete car park with few gardens. Further development will cause harm to designated sites of importance for biodiversity.
NPPF Dec 2023 p185 “Habitats and biodiversity relevant, but council have failed to pre assess private land sites in ther BNG habitat banks

NPPF Dec 2023 “Ground conditions and pollution P189, 190,191 also relevant to the unsound inclusion of this site.

Petition against the housing allocation at land off and including Rattlechain Lagoon (SH35 and SH36).

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document sets out "Comments noted, do not need to amend as there are policies in place with regards to playing pitch replacement. Sandwell Council will continue to engage with Sport England in relation to this matter"

Sport England notes that Appendix 2 maintains the following reference "Playing Pitches on site - subject to demonstration of viability, reinstatement should be made in accordance with the PPOSS/Action Plan 2023"

Sport England continues to object to the maintained reference to only mitigating the loss of playing field where it is viable to do so, since there is no exception criteria in para 103 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance in respect of viability. Since this wording does not accord with national policy, as drafted the policy allocation is considered to be unsound. This objection could be addressed by removing the words "subject to demonstration of viability", suggested replacement wording as follows "Any loss of playing field will need to be mitigated in line with policy SHW5 & para 103 of the NPPF".

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf".

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states that no change is proposed to the allocation wording on the basis that the planning condition was secured in respect of the planning application and that there are policies in the plan that refer to the loss of sports facilities.

Sport England remains of the view that the allocation should make reference to mitigating the loss of the golf course. The existing planning consent, whilst currently extant, may not be implemented. It is important that the policy allocation recognises the need to mitigate the loss of the existing sports facility to accord with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the NPPF. Sport England's objection could be addressed by adding the words "the loss of the disused golf course will need to be mitigated in line with policy SHW5 & para 103 of the NPPF".


SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation : "The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states the allocation does not include the disused playing field. Additional information will be added to the further information column stating that any proposal will need to allow for access to the playing field.

Sport England disputes the Council's view that the proposed allocation does not constitute disused playing field land. This is evident from google earth aerial imagery as shown in the attached document. The image shown from October 2003 clearly shows there to be a football pitch marked out. There has been no material change of use of the land since that time, and planning permission would not be required to cut the grass etc and mark out a pitch for re-use as playing field. Sport England is therefore of the view that the further information wording requiring access to be retained to the adjoining playing field to east in insufficient, and that there is also a need to mitigate the loss of playing field in accordance with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the Framework. As it stands, Sport England considers the allocation to be unsound as it is not in accordance with national policy that protects playing fields. To address this, it will be necessary to make it clear that the site can only be developed where there is provision to mitigate the loss of playing field in accordance with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the Framework. The Council have not put forward any such proposals. Alternatively, the allocation should be withdrawn from the plan.


SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. 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. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states work is underway to identify replacement provision in suitable locations, if this cannot be found, the allocation will be amended or deleted in full.

This statement demonstrates that the Council recognise there is significant doubt that it will be possible to mitigate the loss of existing playing field in line with relevant policies, including draft policy SHW5, paragraph 103 of the NPPF and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy.

The further information wording has been amended to include "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

Sport England has assessed each of these sites and concluded that they collectively and individually fall significantly short of providing equitable or better replacement in quantity and quality in a suitable location to meet the relevant policy test in policy SHW5, para 103 of the Framework, and SE's playing fields policy. We have set out our analysis in the attached document. We also refer in further detail to the relevant sections of the Council's own evidence base in the adopted Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy 2022 which recommends protecting this playing field site for use for football. Sport England therefore is strongly of the view that this allocation is unsound as it is in conflict with national policy to protect playing fields. The Council have been unable to identify suitable mitigation sites for replacement playing field that would meet the relevant policy test and so we consider that the allocation should be withdrawn from the plan.

Appendix B – Housing Allocations

SH43 (SA166) land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr

Dudley MBC consider that additional text should be added to the ‘Further information’ for the site in the Mixed Use Allocations Table to state the following:

The relocation of playing pitches to alternative sites will take account of any cross-boundary needs which are currently being served.

Dudley MBC consider that additional text should be added to the ‘Further information’ for the site in the Mixed Use Allocations Table to state the following:

The 2.3ha employment land element is for Use Classes E(g)(ii), E(g)(iii) and B2), warehousing (Use Class B8) (as per Local Plan Policy SEC1).

Allocation Site Reference SM2- Lion Farm

Dudley MBC provided several comments at the Regulation 18 Local Plan stage in respect of this site allocation. Firstly, clarification was sought on whether the existing playing pitches were to be retained or relocated and if there were any implications for cross boundary provision given the need to protect and enhance playing pitches across the Black Country. Secondly, clarification was sought on whether the site would be used for B class employment land or other employment-related provision (as the site had been previously identified for potential retail-related provision).

The Regulation 19 Local Plan has sought to clarify the potential locations for replacement playing pitches (as set out within the ‘Further Information’ at Appendix B- Mixed Use Allocations) and the site is now included within the employment site allocations for B class uses (at Appendix C- Employment Allocations).

However, further clarification is sought from Dudley MBC that any replacement playing pitches will take account of potential cross-boundary usage, and it is considered that reference should be made to the type of employment uses proposed for clarity. The modifications proposed would ensure the Local Plan is sound in terms of being ‘justified’, ‘effective’ and ‘consistent with national planning policy’.

We would note that as part of any detailed planning applications for the site, the cumulative impacts with the nearby Edwin Richards Quarry allocation (for 626 homes) on cross-boundary infrastructure including highways should be considered.

Dudley MBC consider that additional text should be added to the ‘Further information’ for the site in the Mixed Use Allocations Table to state the following:

The relocation of playing pitches to alternative sites will take account of any cross-boundary needs which are currently being served.

Dudley MBC consider that additional text should be added to the ‘Further information’ for the site in the Mixed Use Allocations Table to state the following:

The 2.3ha employment land element is for Use Classes E(g)(ii), E(g)(iii) and B2), warehousing (Use Class B8) (as per Local Plan Policy SEC1).

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document sets out "Comments noted, do not need to amend as there are policies in place with regards to playing pitch replacement. Sandwell Council will continue to engage with Sport England in relation to this matter"

Sport England notes that Appendix 2 maintains the following reference "Playing Pitches on site - subject to demonstration of viability, reinstatement should be made in accordance with the PPOSS/Action Plan 2023"

Sport England continues to object to the maintained reference to only mitigating the loss of playing field where it is viable to do so, since there is no exception criteria in para 103 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance in respect of viability. Since this wording does not accord with national policy, as drafted the policy allocation is considered to be unsound. This objection could be addressed by removing the words "subject to demonstration of viability", suggested replacement wording as follows "Any loss of playing field will need to be mitigated in line with policy SHW5 & para 103 of the NPPF".

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf".

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states that no change is proposed to the allocation wording on the basis that the planning condition was secured in respect of the planning application and that there are policies in the plan that refer to the loss of sports facilities.

Sport England remains of the view that the allocation should make reference to mitigating the loss of the golf course. The existing planning consent, whilst currently extant, may not be implemented. It is important that the policy allocation recognises the need to mitigate the loss of the existing sports facility to accord with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the NPPF. Sport England's objection could be addressed by adding the words "the loss of the disused golf course will need to be mitigated in line with policy SHW5 & para 103 of the NPPF".


SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation : "The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states the allocation does not include the disused playing field. Additional information will be added to the further information column stating that any proposal will need to allow for access to the playing field.

Sport England disputes the Council's view that the proposed allocation does not constitute disused playing field land. This is evident from google earth aerial imagery as shown in the attached document. The image shown from October 2003 clearly shows there to be a football pitch marked out. There has been no material change of use of the land since that time, and planning permission would not be required to cut the grass etc and mark out a pitch for re-use as playing field. Sport England is therefore of the view that the further information wording requiring access to be retained to the adjoining playing field to east in insufficient, and that there is also a need to mitigate the loss of playing field in accordance with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the Framework. As it stands, Sport England considers the allocation to be unsound as it is not in accordance with national policy that protects playing fields. To address this, it will be necessary to make it clear that the site can only be developed where there is provision to mitigate the loss of playing field in accordance with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the Framework. The Council have not put forward any such proposals. Alternatively, the allocation should be withdrawn from the plan.


SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. 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. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states work is underway to identify replacement provision in suitable locations, if this cannot be found, the allocation will be amended or deleted in full.

This statement demonstrates that the Council recognise there is significant doubt that it will be possible to mitigate the loss of existing playing field in line with relevant policies, including draft policy SHW5, paragraph 103 of the NPPF and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy.

The further information wording has been amended to include "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

Sport England has assessed each of these sites and concluded that they collectively and individually fall significantly short of providing equitable or better replacement in quantity and quality in a suitable location to meet the relevant policy test in policy SHW5, para 103 of the Framework, and SE's playing fields policy. We have set out our analysis in the attached document. We also refer in further detail to the relevant sections of the Council's own evidence base in the adopted Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy 2022 which recommends protecting this playing field site for use for football. Sport England therefore is strongly of the view that this allocation is unsound as it is in conflict with national policy to protect playing fields. The Council have been unable to identify suitable mitigation sites for replacement playing field that would meet the relevant policy test and so we consider that the allocation should be withdrawn from the plan.

SH18 (SA55) Friar Park (STW/SMBC land), Wednesbury -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "Sport England recognises that the allocation does make reference to mitigating the loss of playing pitches in line with the PPOSS/Action Plan, but objects to this being subject to viability testing, since there is no relevant exception criteria for viability testing in para 99 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance. To address, this we recommend that the reference to viability testing be removed."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document sets out "Comments noted, do not need to amend as there are policies in place with regards to playing pitch replacement. Sandwell Council will continue to engage with Sport England in relation to this matter"

Sport England notes that Appendix 2 maintains the following reference "Playing Pitches on site - subject to demonstration of viability, reinstatement should be made in accordance with the PPOSS/Action Plan 2023"

Sport England continues to object to the maintained reference to only mitigating the loss of playing field where it is viable to do so, since there is no exception criteria in para 103 of the NPPF, nor within draft policy SHW5, nor within Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance in respect of viability. Since this wording does not accord with national policy, as drafted the policy allocation is considered to be unsound. This objection could be addressed by removing the words "subject to demonstration of viability", suggested replacement wording as follows "Any loss of playing field will need to be mitigated in line with policy SHW5 & para 103 of the NPPF".

SH34 (SA79) Brandhall Golf Course -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "The allocation references an existing planning application for redevelopment of the site, for which Sport England have objected. We recognise that there is no longer a need to retain the 18 hole municipal course, but take the view that mitigation should be secured to make qualitative improvements to the existing golf course facility at Warley Woods in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS 2022. We understand that a planning condition has been included to secure this mitigation. To address this, we would recommend that an appropriate reference be added to the allocation regarding securing an appropriate the off-site contribution towards golf".

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states that no change is proposed to the allocation wording on the basis that the planning condition was secured in respect of the planning application and that there are policies in the plan that refer to the loss of sports facilities.

Sport England remains of the view that the allocation should make reference to mitigating the loss of the golf course. The existing planning consent, whilst currently extant, may not be implemented. It is important that the policy allocation recognises the need to mitigate the loss of the existing sports facility to accord with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the NPPF. Sport England's objection could be addressed by adding the words "the loss of the disused golf course will need to be mitigated in line with policy SHW5 & para 103 of the NPPF".


SH43 (SA166) Land off Tanhouse Avenue, Great Barr -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation : "The site includes an area of disused playing field that has previously been delineated to provide a football pitch. The proposed allocation does not reference this, and does not identify the need to mitigate the loss of the playing field in line with para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, and so we object to this proposed allocation. To address this, either the proposed allocation should be deleted, or additional text be added to make it clear that the proposed allocation an only come forward subject to addressing the loss of former playing field in line with the above policies."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states the allocation does not include the disused playing field. Additional information will be added to the further information column stating that any proposal will need to allow for access to the playing field.

Sport England disputes the Council's view that the proposed allocation does not constitute disused playing field land. This is evident from google earth aerial imagery as shown in the attached document. The image shown from October 2003 clearly shows there to be a football pitch marked out. There has been no material change of use of the land since that time, and planning permission would not be required to cut the grass etc and mark out a pitch for re-use as playing field. Sport England is therefore of the view that the further information wording requiring access to be retained to the adjoining playing field to east in insufficient, and that there is also a need to mitigate the loss of playing field in accordance with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the Framework. As it stands, Sport England considers the allocation to be unsound as it is not in accordance with national policy that protects playing fields. To address this, it will be necessary to make it clear that the site can only be developed where there is provision to mitigate the loss of playing field in accordance with draft policy SHW5 and para 103 of the Framework. The Council have not put forward any such proposals. Alternatively, the allocation should be withdrawn from the plan.


SM2 (SA199) Lion Farm, Oldbury -

At Reg 18 stage Sport England made the following representation: "The site constitutes existing playing field for which para 99 of the NPPF, draft policy SHW5 and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy apply. Sport England notes the allocation is for retention of 6 sports pitches with changing facilities and car parking (5 ha), with the remainder to be lost to a mix of residential, employment and open space uses. We note the reference that this allocation is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the Borough, however this does not provide sufficient comfort that a proposal will come forward to provide replacement playing field that is equivalent or better quantity, equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location, and subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements to meet the relevant Exception criteria of our policy. The Council's own evidence base in the PPOSS 2022 identifies shortfalls of capacity for football in Oldbury and across the Borough, both now and in the future, with a recommendation to protect and enhance the quality of the existing pitches at Lion Farm. The site is well used for adult league football in the Warley Sunday League by several local teams whose demand would likely be displaced should the site be redeveloped. Sport England are aware that finding a suitable site(s) to replace 6 pitches will be extremely challenging for the Council in light of the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS, and so in the absence of detailed deliverable proposals that demonstrate how these pitches would be replaced in line with the relevant policies referred to above, Sport England is of the view that there is significant doubt that the caveat would be reasonably met. 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. As such, Sport England strongly objects to the proposed allocation which should be removed from the plan."

The Council's response to Reg 18 consultation document states work is underway to identify replacement provision in suitable locations, if this cannot be found, the allocation will be amended or deleted in full.

This statement demonstrates that the Council recognise there is significant doubt that it will be possible to mitigate the loss of existing playing field in line with relevant policies, including draft policy SHW5, paragraph 103 of the NPPF and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy.

The further information wording has been amended to include "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

Sport England has assessed each of these sites and concluded that they collectively and individually fall significantly short of providing equitable or better replacement in quantity and quality in a suitable location to meet the relevant policy test in policy SHW5, para 103 of the Framework, and SE's playing fields policy. We have set out our analysis in the attached document. We also refer in further detail to the relevant sections of the Council's own evidence base in the adopted Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy 2022 which recommends protecting this playing field site for use for football. Sport England therefore is strongly of the view that this allocation is unsound as it is in conflict with national policy to protect playing fields. The Council have been unable to identify suitable mitigation sites for replacement playing field that would meet the relevant policy test and so we consider that the allocation should be withdrawn from the plan.