Comment

Representation ID: 1722

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve

Still believe Sandwell council choice of sites is unsound. Sheepwash was rejected according to planning policy because nit all of the site is owned by SMBC. We see no legal reason as to why this was rejected, it is already designated within a wildlife canal corridor area and would directly benefit the council as well. Tividale Park is too far away from the strategic site allocation SSH3 and would not support loss of habitat from this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 1737

Received: 27/03/2026

Respondent: Mrs Sara Lovell

Though we welcome the intention to expand BNG ambitions through this policy, we are concerned that the proposed wording may inadvertently encourage loss of biodiversity in the borough due to the lack of readily available habitat banks. Therefore we suggest the addition of wording to reflect the preference for biodiversity gains that benefit the local area such as: '...Proposals that offer more than 10% BNG on development sites will be welcomed and the additional ecological value, where it benefits Sandwell, will be considered positively when a decision is made on the relevant planning application.'

Comment

Representation ID: 1792

Received: 30/03/2026

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Policy SNE1 – Nature Conservation

HBF remains concerned that the Council has misunderstood how mandatory national Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) works in practice and is seeking to introduce additional local policy requirements which will in fact undermine how the national BNG policy is intended to be implemented. Elsewhere in the Plan the Council has accepted the national policy requirement is 10% but in criterion 5 of this policy, the Council is still seeking to require 15% in some circumstances. This is not appropriate especially as not all development is required to deliver BNG. Although HBF welcome the Councils recognition of the role that the LNRS can play in helping to form the evidence base for this Local Plan, it should be used to inform considerations of the planning balance at the policy level, not become as any kind of arbitrary tool. This is simply not appropriate as the definition and delineation of the area of strategic significance be subjected to same level of consultation or evidence scrutiny as other policy requirements in the Plan. This additional wording should be removed.

We also note that the current NPPF (Dec 2025) consultation indicates that the only time where it may be appropriate to seek more than 10% BNG through local policy relates to allocations, and even then only where this is clearly evidenced and justified. The policy needs revising and updating to ensure it reflects current policy and does not enable BNG to become a barrier to new development, when it is intended to deliver a win-win both helping to support nature recovery and addressing the housing crisis.