Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy are instructed by Heyford Developments to submit representations to the Sandwell Local Plan Preferred Options and welcome the opportunity to comment at this time. Heyford Developments are currently promoting sites in the Housing Market Area (HMA) and whilst these are not all in Sandwell, the Sandwell Plan as drafted will have repercussions on the identification and delivering of housing across the wider HMA. It is for these reasons that Heyford Developments now wish to submit representations to the Plan and our comments should be read with these objectives in mind.

A substantial shortfall and need to find a definitive solution.

The strategy as presented leaves a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings that cannot be accommodated in the Council’s administrative area. This is a substantial number of homes and represents a substantial number of people and families that will go without homes should a definitive solution not be found.

Heyford Developments would like to implore Sandwell Council to engage with the other authorities within the HMA to find a location to secure the delivery of these 18,606 dwellings. As will be demonstrated below, the housing shortfall has reached critical levels across the HMA and the onus is on the authorities where the housing need cannot be met to secure the support of the authorities with land available, including Green Belt land, to assist.

Meeting the needs of all part of the population

The pressure to find a definitive solution to address the housing shortfall, is only further emphasised by the fact that the delivery of affordable housing on those sites within the Sandwell administrative area will fall woefully short of the affordable housing need identified. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment Report (March 2021) identified a need for 4,605 social rented properties and 1,913 shared ownership dwellings (accounting for nearly 24% of the total housing requirement. The release of Green Belt sites in the HMA to meet the overspill from both Sandwell and Dudley will deliver not only market, but much need affordable homes for those parts of the population that most need it.



Supporting Economic Growth
Delivering the right number of homes, in the right location is an important component in fostering economic growth. For Sandwell, this means securing the delivery of homes as close to and /or in locations well connected to Sandwell as possible. The obvious locations being Bromsgrove to the south and South Staffordshire to the west, when you account for the adjoining authorities not having the capacity to assist with meeting Sandwell’s need. It is Heyford Developments consider that the starting point should be sites on the edge of the conurbation to provide homes close to where the demand arises and that can provide a range of homes, including more executive homes for the owners of new businesses.

Shortfall in housing land across the HMA

The shortfall of land for housing is not unique to Sandwell and is a long-established concern within the HMA.

Birmingham Development Plan
The Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”) was adopted in January 2017 and was the first authority in the HMA to conclude it could not meet its housing need within its administrative area. Policy PG1 – Overall Levels of Growth, advised that 89,000 dwellings are required during the course of the plan period (2011 to 2031) to meet the growth requirements of the City. However, only 51,100 additional dwellings can be accommodated within the City’s administrative area. This leaves a shortfall of 37,900 homes including 14,400 affordable homes (that will need to be delivered elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area). The BDP stipulated that Birmingham’s unmet need was to be met by other authorities in the HMA as and when they produced individual Local Plans. This has not happened.

Birmingham City Council has now commenced a review of its Local Plan and consulted on Issues and Options for a draft Plan concluding in December 2022. The Issues and Options document advised that the Standard Method housing requirement for the period 2020 to 2042 is 149,286 dwellings. The Issues and Options consultation document suggests that the total capacity for development within the built up area of the City is 70,871 dwellings. This relies upon all SHLAA sites coming forward for development and the provision of a significant number of windfalls (the windfall sum is 11,675 dwellings). This would result in a housing shortfall of 78,415 dwellings.
Black Country Core Strategy Review
Previously, the four Black Country authorities had been preparing a joint Plan although this has now subsequently been abandoned in favour of the preparation of individual Plans for each authority. Notwithstanding the above, the Preferred Options Black Country Plan proposed a housing requirement based upon the Standard Method which was the sum of the four individual authority housing requirements. The housing requirement for the four authorities was 76,076 dwellings, however, there was only an identified capacity of 47,837 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be directed to other authorities. Now, each authority will calculate its own housing requirement using the standard method calculation. The requirement in Dudley is 11,954 dwellings however, Dudley claims it only has capacity to accommodate 10,876 of these leaving a shortfall of 1,076. The positions in Wolverhampton and Walsall have not yet been published although it is anticipated that there will be a further shortfall in what is required against the capacity within these two authorities, which will broadly align with the shortfall previously identified in the Black Country Core Strategy review when added to the shortfall from Dudley and Sandwell.

Total shortfall
If the housing shortfall figure identified in Policy PG1 of the BDP and the emerging shortfalls in both the Dudley and Sandwell Preferred Options are added together it totals 57,582 dwellings. If the shortfall arising in Dudley and Sandwell is added to the emerging shortfall identified in the Birmingham Issues and Options this increases to 98,097 dwellings. As noted



above, this has the potential to increase even further when any shortfall arising in Wolverhampton and Walsall is added.

Duty to Cooperate and who can assist in meeting the housing shortfall arising from Sandwell
Paragraph 24 of the Framework confirms that Local Planning Authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. Paragraph 26 goes on to state that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary and where development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular area could be met elsewhere. The level of unmet need arising within HMA is one such area where the Duty to Cooperate should be employed in order to determine where this unmet need should be directed.

Having regard to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area there are 14 authorities within it which include Birmingham, the four Black Country authorities and 9 other surrounding authorities. In light of the shortfall arising in Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell this effectively leaves 11 remaining authorities where the need could be distributed.

Turning to each of the remaining authorities it is highlighted above that there is potentially a shortfall that will arise in both Wolverhampton and Walsall when they come to publish their Preferred Options Local Plan. Redditch Borough is effectively built up to its boundary and already has to look to its adjoining neighbour, Bromsgrove, in order to accommodate its housing need. It would be unable to accommodate any further unmet. Similarly, Tamworth had to look to its adjoining neighbours of Lichfield and North Warwickshire in order to meet its current housing requirement in its adopted Local Plan. It too would be unlikely to be able to accommodate any unmet need arise. Cannock Chase’s capacity is restricted due to environmental constraints including the Cannock Chase’s SAC and AONB. A small part of Stratford-upon-Avon District falls within the Housing Market Area whilst North Warwickshire have previously committed to delivering 3,790 dwellings to meeting Birmingham’s needs up to 2031 in its adopted Local Plan (2021). Solihull’s Local Plan is currently at examination and is on hold awaiting publication of the updated Framework and currently proposes approximately 2,000 dwellings to meet the needs of Birmingham. If the Plan progress towards adoption in its current form there would be no scope to seek any increase in the size of the contribution from Solihull until such time as they commenced a further review.

This effectively leaves Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove as the three remaining authorities that would be able to make any meaningful contribution to meeting housing needs arising in the wider HMA. However, a review of what these local authorities has been proposing to help meet the housing shortfall across the HMA falls woefully short of what is needed.

South Staffordshire have previously proposed to accommodate 4,000 dwellings to meet the needs arising in the Black Country. Lichfield were proposing around 2000 homes before withdrawing their plan. Bromsgrove has yet to publish a draft plan and so it is yet to state how many dwellings it may be prepared to accommodate. Collectively this equates to less than 12,000 (plus the homes that Bromsgrove may provide) and on the face of it will fall woefully short of addressing the housing need of local people and families across the HMA.


The outcome of the above is that there is a significant unmet housing need arising principally from Birmingham and Sandwell, with Walsall and Wolverhampton likely to add to this, and at the current time there is no agreement or clear strategy between the 14 HMA authorities as to where or how this unmet need is to be met. Furthermore, in the few authorities that have the ability to assist in meeting the overspill, full opportunity of the land available around the conurbation to assist with meeting the housing overspill is not being taken.




It is clear from the above that the emerging position across the HMA is one where there is a significant housing need that exists, but where certain authorities, such as Sandwell, cannot currently meet its needs in full. Heyford Developments contend that these needs must be met by the HMA authorities in the next round of plans that are now being prepared. If this need is not met in full, it risks giving rise to a number of significant knock on effects on the delivery and provision of housing across the greater Birmingham area. These impacts include:

• worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
• worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
• economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
• the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.

Next Steps

In light of the Council's need and the significant shortfall that the Council is faced with, Heyford Developments urge the Council to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including South Staffordshire, to seek agreement on how and where this unmet housing need is going to be delivered. Meeting the housing needs of the HMA cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and that a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the HMA’s housing needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including affordable homes.

It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall in Sandwell should be those authorities closest to them. South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove are the closest authorities with a meaningful ability to address the shortfall and with land available adjacent to the conurbation. South Staffordshire is still to submit its plan for examination and there is still scope to hold meaningful discussions to provide land to meet the needs arising in Sandwell.

Legal Compliance

2. In response to the Sandwell Local Plan Issues and Options consultation earlier this year HBF underlined the importance of ensuring that any ‘rolled forward’ policies in the draft Black Country Plan remain appropriate and are fully supported by the evidence base.

3. HBF is pleased that our earlier comments have been taken on board. It is important that any of the “previously seen” policies in the draft Black Country Plan, which are now being proposed to be rolled forward and “adapted” in the Sandwell Plan, and the evidence supporting them, are subject to full public consultation. HBF remain of the view that the issue of the housing need for Sandwell, the housing requirement for Sandwell, the potential unmet need of Sandwell and Green Belt designations, are key issues that impact on the fundamental Strategic Policies that will be an essential part of good plan- making in Sandwell. HBF is pleased that some additional information has now been made available as part of this consultation. However, it will remain important that the evidence base continues to be updated, and made available, as the plan-making process continues.

Duty to Cooperate

4. HBF note that following the collapse of Black Country Plan, Sandwell has had to undertake its own calculations for the housing need and requirement and must robustly test how much of this can be met within Sandwell and how much (if any) is an unmet need. The Council will then need to work with neighbouring authorities to identify how that unmet need will be redistributed and prepare a Statement of Common Ground on this issue. The Council should also prepare a Duty to Cooperate Statement.

5. Currently there is not enough information available for HBF to come to a view as to whether or not Sandwell has met, and is meeting, the Duty to Cooperate. The Council will need to evidence its ongoing work with the other neighbouring authorities within the HMA. This will need to be evidenced with more than words of good intentions and be supported with a clear Plan of how all the housing needs of Sandwell will be met. We hope this evidence will be forthcoming, and in light of the known issue around housing numbers and unmet need, it is essential that does.

6. HBF’s main concerns around Duty to Cooperate relate to ensuring the required amount of housing is delivered in reality. This is particularly important because the current Plan indicates a significant amount of unmet need. The issue of fully meeting housing needs within Sandwell remains. Our more detailed comments on this issue can be found in response to Policy SDS1.

7. HBF suggest that the Council prepare a signed Statement of Common Ground between the Council with each of the neighbouring authorities setting out if and how they will contribute to meeting Sandwell’s unmet needs. Such statements will be essential as the Plan progresses. HBF notes the Council’s stated intention to be proactive and pro-growth. However, the issue of potential unmet need requires clearly evidenced and ongoing cooperation. This will be essential to show that the Duty to Cooperate has been met.

Vision for Sandwell

8. HBF support the need for the Vision for Sandwell to include reference to the need for new homes to meet housing need, as included within Ambition 7 but suggest this should be amended to be more explicit about the requirement to meet the development needs of the area. HBF would suggest that both the Vision and Objective Six should be more explicit about the need to plan for both open market and affordable housing to meet housing needs and support the Council’s growth aspirations.

Policy SDS1- Development Strategy

9. The Plan proposes at least 11,167 net new homes and at least 1,206ha of employment land (of which 29ha is currently vacant). It is noted that paragraph 2.6 explains that “There is still, despite the number of housing sites that have been identified and allocated, a shortfall in the numbers of houses that need to be built to meet identified needs. Housing need is calculated using the Government’s standard method based on household growth projections.


• Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes by 2041.
• The supply of suitable residential land based on the most recent evidence stands at 11,167 homes.
• There is an unmet need for 18,606 homes.
• The SLP provides for around one third of the housing need on the land that is available.

10. As Council is planning only to meet one third of their proposed housing number, this means two thirds are not being planned for. As HBF believe the housing requirement should be higher to start with, the actual percentage of unmet need would be even higher. Even, setting the appropriate housing number issue is aside for now, HBF is very concerned about this proposed shortfall. Failure to meet the housing needs of Sandwell will inhibit growth and do nothing to address the current housing crisis, with implications for the economy and population of wider region. It will be important for the Council to clearly show how the unmet need will be met, and what they will do to ensure that it is. However, the Council needs to first establish the appropriate housing requirement for Sandwell before considering if and how this could be met.

11. Paragraph 2.14 explains that “Employment land need is based on economic forecasts in the EDNA up to 2041.
• Sandwell is subject to a demand for 185ha of employment land.
• The supply of land available and suitable for employment use is 42ha (after completions between 2020 – 2022 are considered). This includes windfall supply, generated through intensification / recycling, and includes a vacant land supply of 29ha.
• Based on the amount of land required to grow the economy, there is a shortfall of around 143ha.
• In addition, the plan allocates 1,177ha of occupied employment as strategic, local or other employment land.

12. HBF notes that the Plan therefore proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This would further constrain the ambitions for Growth in Sandwell, and the wider region. HBF suggest these circumstances warrant a full Green Belt review and the allocation of sites to meet the housing and employment requirements of the Borough even if these are within the current Green Belt.

13. With regards the housing requirement itself, HBF strongly support the need for more housing in the Sandwell Local Plan for a variety of reasons including addressing the current housing crisis, meeting housing need, providing affordable housing and supporting employment growth. HBF would request that the Council considers the annual LHN as only the minimum starting point and fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels
of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing.

14. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF requires that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption. HBF note that the current plan period is to 2041 but would still question if the plan period is long enough to cover this requirement. This Reg 18 consultation closes at the end of 2023 and then the representations need to be considered an analysed, a submission plan prepared and consulted, examination, main modifications consultation, inspectors report and adoption by the Council.

15. HBF suggest that the plan-making process may take some time, especially if additional Green Belt release is needed, and suggest that the plan period could be extended now, especially as this would require an update to the evidence base as is important for the evidence base to be consistent with the Plan Period. Extending the plan period would also require an increase to the housing requirement to cover the additional years, and consequential additional housing supply.

16. The Government has made it clear that it still supports the national target of 300,000 new homes per year. The standard method housing requirement has always been the minimum starting point for setting the housing requirement, and HBF support more housing than the standard method housing requirement in order to support economic growth, provide a range and type of sites and to support small and medium house builders.

17. HBF suggest that each of these reasons on its own could justify an increase in the housing requirement for Sandwell and the Council should consider planning for an additional amount of housing to address each reason in turn. However, as previously mentioned it is important that the housing requirement is established, before any consideration is given to any issues around housing land supply, or lack thereof.

18. The plan-led system requires Council to proactively plan to meet the needs of their community. This means that there is a need to provide a range and choice of sites, a need for flexibility and viability considerations to be taken into account, and a need for the Council to consider whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure the delivery of affordable housing and/or support economic growth. HBF can not see how planning to meet only one third of the housing need for the area represents a positively prepared plan for the future of the area for the next fifteen years and beyond.

19. Once the housing requirement has been set, the next phase is to consider housing land supply. It is important to both minimise the amount of any unmet needs that cannot be accommodated within the Borough and clearly set out how any unmet need will be addressed elsewhere. HBF recognise the Council’s view as to the constrained nature of the Borough and the amount of current Green Belt designation, but would also highlight the size of the shortfall in Housing and Employment land being proposed in this plan. It is important that the housing needs of Sandwell are met in full.

20. Although HBF is pleased to see the Council commit to ongoing working with neighbouring authorities to try an address this matter under the Duty to Cooperate (or its replacement) the fact remains that the Local Plan’s policies should ensure the availability of a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to deliver Sandwell’s housing requirement. If it is not possible to do this within the boundary then Green Belt release may be needed.

21. Criteria 3 of the policy sets out that “Appendices B and C show how the housing and employment land ambitions for Sandwell will be met. Those development needs that cannot be accommodated within the borough will be exported to sustainable locations in neighbouring local authority areas, following consultation.” HBF would question the appropriateness of this approach, but if it is to be pursued then this should be set out as an integral part of the policy and not deferred to Appendix B and C. Surely Housing Allocations should be made as an integral part of the Plan and not in an Appendix.

22. HBF believe that Sandwell’s inability to meet its housing (and employment) needs requires revisiting the Spatial Strategy and results in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would require the need for a Green Belt review as set out in para 140 of the NPPF.

23. HBF notes that the issue of fully meeting housing needs within Sandwell remains, despite the ending of the work on Black Country Plan. Sandwell therefore needs to undertake its own calculations for the housing need and requirement, robustly test how much of this can be met within Sandwell and how much (if any) is an unmet need. The Council then need to work with neighbouring authorities to identify how that unmet need will be redistributed and prepare a Statement of Common Ground on this issue. This issue is both a soundness and a Duty to Cooperate issue. At this stage HBF do not believe the Council has done enough to try and meet all its needs, or explored every and all option to do so.

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

24. HBF strongly disagree with the conclusion in para 3.84 which says:

“It is the Council’s view that there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development. While there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough.

HBF would argue that the current housing crisis and the inability of Sandwell meet its own needs (the Plan is looking to plan for only a third of the identified housing need) provide just such exceptional circumstances to necessitate a Green Belt review, which must include the consideration of both employment and housing sites.

25. NPPF (para 20) is clear that “Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development”. Para 11 of the NPPF states that “all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects”.

26. HBF cannot see how a plan that provides for only a third of its housing requirement standard method baseline (and HBF argue the housing requirement itself should be higher) can meet the requirements to be positively prepared and set out a clear long term vision for the area which is the purpose of plan-making. NPPF para 60 clearly states that “to support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.”

27. HBF believes the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing consider is a factor that constitutes the exception circumstances that justify Green Belt release.

28. HBF support ambitious growth aspirations in Sandwell. HBF highlight the need to consider the interaction between employment and housing. An increase in the number of jobs can it itself generate a requirement for additional housing, and failure to provide housing can have negative impacts on the economic and social wellbeing of the area. The Plan must recognise and reflect this reality.

29. The Plan need to ensure there is a sufficiency of Housing Land Supply (HLS) to meet the housing requirement, ensure the maintenance of a 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT) performance measurements. HBF cannot see how achieving these aims is possible without Green Belt release. It is noted that this may in turn also effect the spatial strategy for the Local Plan.

30. HBF also suggest the Council should give explicit consideration to whether BNG development is acceptable within the Green Belt and/or if Green Belt boundaries need to be revised accommodate schemes that deliver off-site BNG, and possibly even on-site biodiversity gains.

31. Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

32. HBF has been involved in a significant amount of work, being led by the Future Homes Hub, on BNG preparedness for some time and note that it is somewhat unfortunate that the timing of the release of the draft Planning Practice guidance from DLUHC and the Draft DEFRA BNG Guidance has seen this information released midway through your consultation period.

33. HBF note that there is a new information for the Council to work though and consider the implications of, in order to make the necessary changes to the Biodiversity Net Gain policy, so that it complies with the latest policy and guidance as it finalised.

34. The BNG PPG has been published in draft form to allow for “familiarisation” and as such some details may change between now and the implementation date in January 2024. Similarly, HBF understand the DEFRA Guidance is still being refined before the implementation date, and indeed may be further refined once mandatory BNG is working in practice, to reflect any early lessons learnt. Further additional guidance on phased developments is also expected.

35. There are clearly some areas of the Sandwell Local Plan BNG policy and guidance that will need revising and updating, particularly because the (draft) PPG is clear that there is no need for Local Plan policies to repeat national guidance. For example, HBF would suggest criteria two and eight are not necessary as they are merely repeating national policy.

36. It will be important for the Council to fully consider the PPG and DEFRA guidance once it has been formally published, which HBF notes will be in January 2024, after the close of this consultation period. Although no significant changes to the approach to BNG are expected, further clarity may be needed on some of the finer details, and some amendments and additional advice and guidance are anticipated.

37. It is the HBF’s opinion that the Council should not deviate from the Government’s requirement for biodiversity net gain as set out in the Environment Act. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery.

38. Any requirements to go beyond 10% BNG needs to be clearly demonstrated with evidence including considering the implications of the policy approach as part of the whole plan viability appraisal. In particular, HBF would question how the viability of more than 10% BNG can be established when the market for off-site credits, and therefore the costs of delivering the 10% mandatory BNG system are still emerging.

39. HBF note that work undertaken by DEFRA to inform the national percentage BNG requirement found that a 20% net gain requirement would add c.19% to the net gain costs, over and above the minimum requirement of 10%. The report concluded that:

“While this suggests that varying the level of net gain between 5% and 20% has very limited impact on the outcome, there is a trade-off between cost implications for developers and the likelihood of net gain being delivered at a national level (e.g. less costly/likely at 5% net gain compared to 10%, and vice versa for 20%). Our chosen policy approach, which sets out that 10% is the right level to demonstrate net gain, considers this trade-off among other issues.”

40. HBF also notes that the proposed policy wording and supporting text in the Local Plan will need to reflect both that the Environment Act which requires 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, and the emerging policy, guidance and best practice on how Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain will be implemented. There is an important policy distinction to made between the national mandatory requirements and any optional further requests from LPAs to go further and faster. In particular the 10% national target is non-negotiable from a viability perspective, but policies seeking over 10% can be challenged on viability grounds. This distinction needs to be recognised within the Local Plan.

41. HBF suggest particular care is needed in terminology to ensure the Sandwell policy reflects the national policy and guidance. For example, on-site and off- site biodiversity is referred to as units, and the statutory national credit system of last resort is referred to as credit. It is important for the wording of the policy to accurately reflect the legalisation and guidance.

42. HBF question the wording of criteria six, as it should be for the BNG plan to set out what happens if monitoring shows any BNG measure are ineffective. For large and complex sites where the development is phased, the guidance is clear that the 10% must be delivered at the end of the development, and this may not result in 10% BNG on each phase.

43. It is also important to note that Local Nature Recovery Strategies are new initiative, and one has yet to be prepared that covers Sandwell. As the LNRS emerges it will be important for this Local Plan to be kept under review and further public consultation on the interaction between the two documents and/or changes to Local Plan policy to reflect the LNRS may be needed.

Policy SNE3 – Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

44. HBF would question how the Council arrived at the requirement for 3 replacement trees for everyone lost and what (if any) assumptions have been relation to the size and standard of trees. HBF considers that a three for one replacement policy could impact on the land uptake for any development and may have implications for the density of developments, which in turn has the potential to have an impact on the viability of developments.

45. HBF suggest further flexibility is needed in the policy, for example hedgerow removal may be an essential to gain access to a site, but BNG policies which require 10% net gain from the pre-development baseline so any loss would already have to be compensated. HBF suggest the Council should give more thought to how the suite of environmental policies are intended to work together so that developers are completely clear what is expected of them, and to ensure that the policies do not serve to make development undeliverable. The interrelationships between the BNG policy and other environmental policies needs to be fully considered and explained.

Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience

46. The HBF supports the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is
standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers. The Councils do not need to set local energy efficiency standards in a Local Plan policy because of the higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard, which are currently out for consultation.

47. HBF also draws the Council’s attention to the recent Ministerial Statement on this issue which says “the Government does not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale.” See https://questions- statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-12-13/HCWS123

Policy SCC2 – Energy Infrastructure

48. HBF is concerned about mandatory requirements to connect to district heating networks. HBF considers that it is important that this is not seen as a requirement and is instead implemented on a flexible basis. Heat networks are one aspect of the path towards decarbonising heat, however, currently the predominant technology for district-sized communal heating networks is gas combined heat and power (CHP) plants. Over 90% of district networks are gas fired. As 2050 approaches, meeting the Government’s climate target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero will require a transition from gas-fired networks to renewable or low carbon alternatives such as large heat pumps, hydrogen or waste-heat recovery but at the moment one of the major reasons why heat network projects do not install such technologies is because of the up-front capital cost. The Council should be aware that for the foreseeable future it will remain uneconomic for most heat networks to install low-carbon technologies. This may mean that it is more sustainable and more appropriate for developments to utilise other forms of energy provision, and this may need to be considered.

49. Government consultation on Heat Network Zoning also identifies exemptions to proposals for requirements for connections to a heat network these include where a connection may lead to sub-optimal outcomes, or distance from the network connection points and impacts on consumers bills and affordability.

50. Furthermore, some heat network consumers do not have comparable levels of satisfaction as consumers on gas and electricity networks, and they pay a higher price. Currently, there are no sector specific protections for heat network consumers, unlike for people on other utilities such as gas, electricity or water. A consumer living in a building serviced by a heat network does not have the same opportunities to switch supplier as they would for most gas and electricity supplies.

51. The Council’s proposed policy approach is unnecessary seeks to go beyond the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard without justification. It is the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is
standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers.

52. The Council should be aware that the long awaited consultation on the Future Homes standard was published on Dec 13th 2023 and consultation closes in 6 March 2024. The consultation documents can be found online at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-homes-and- buildings-standards-2023-consultation

Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

53. HBF is concerned about any policies which mandate on-site renewable energy generation. HBF considers that it is important that this is not seen as a requirement and is instead implemented on a flexible basis. HBF recognises that there may be potential for renewable energy generation on- site, however, it may be more sustainable and efficient to use larger scale sources rather than small-scale, it is also noted this policy also takes no account of the fact that over time energy supply from the national grid will be decarbonised.

Policy SHW1– Health Impact Assessments


54. HBF is unclear why the Health Impact Assessment is seeking to assess if a development “will provide a range of housing types and tenures that meet the needs of all sectors of the population including for older people and those with disabilities requiring varying degrees of care; extended families; low-income households; and those seeking to self-build as set out in Polices SHO3, SHO4 and SHO5”. This matter is already adequately addressed in the specific housing policies and should not need to be repeated in a HIA.

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

55. In relation to criteria one, HBF’s detailed comments in relation to the amount of housing needed in Sandwell can be found in our response to policy SD1: Development Strategy. In summary, HBF request that the standard method LHN should be the minimum starting point for establishing the housing requirement and the Council should then fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing. HBF suggests that these considerations should result in a higher housing requirement for Sandwell which set be set out in the Local Plan. Only then should consideration around deliverability and housing land supply come into play, the housing requirement should be established first.

56. In relation to criteria two, HBF note that the Council is looking to phase the plan and delivery of the housing requirement. For the plan to be effective and justified, a clear explanation of this approach and the reasoning behind for it is needed. As HBF is of the view that the overall housing requirement for Sandwell should be higher, it follows that our view is that the numbers in each phase should be higher too.

57. HBF supports the principal of discounting the housing land supply assumptions to take account of non-implementation rates. We note that site with planning permission include a lapse rate of 5% other commitments are SHLAA are discounted by 10% and occupied employment land discounted by 15%, but these figures should be clearly evidenced. HBF also notes that no allowance is made for non-delivery of windfall sites and we believe one is needed. HBF would question if the discount rates should in fact be higher especially for sites that are currently occupied in employment use. The anticipated loss of current employment sites to housing further underlines the need for housing and employment to be considered together, and for the potential implications of not meeting with the housing and employment need of the borough to present the exceptional circumstances required to justify Green Belt release.

58. Para 7.4 of the Plan states that “A balanced range of sites has been provided, in terms of size, location and market attractiveness, which will help to maximise housing delivery over the Plan period. Across the borough, 10% of identified supply in the Plan and in the most recent Brownfield Register is on sites no larger than 1ha, which is in accordance with the requirement set out in the NPPF at paragraph 069.”

59. The NPPF requires Local Plans to identify land to accommodate at least 10% of the housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare, unless there are strong reasons why this cannot be achieved. HBF has undertaken extensive consultation with its small developer members. One of the chief obstacles for small developers is that funding is extremely difficult to secure without a full, detailed, and implementable planning permission. Securing an implementable planning permission is extremely difficult if small sites are not allocated. Without implementable consents lenders are uneasy about making finance available or the repayment fees and interest rates they set will be very high. Small developers, consequently, need to invest a lot of money and time up-front in the risky business of trying to secure an allocation and a planning permission, and this is money that many small developers do not have.

60. HBF would therefore wish to see the 10% small sites allowance delivered through allocations. Indeed, we would advocate that a higher percentage of small sites are allocated if possible. Such sites are important for encouraging the growth in SME housebuilders who will tend to develop these sites but rarely see the benefits that arise from the allocation of sites in a local plan. Up until the 1980s, small developers accounted for the construction of half of all homes built in this country resulting in greater variety of product, more competition, and faster build-out rates. Since then, the number of small companies has fallen by 80%.

61. HBF also note that support for small and medium builders need not be limited to only small sites of less than 1Ha. SMEs also deliver on other types of non- strategic sites (for example up to 100 units). The inclusion of additional non- strategic allocations would expand the range of choice in the market, and be of a scale that can come forward and making a contribution to housing numbers earlier in the plan period.

62. In relation to criteria three, HBF notes that NPPF (para 71) only permits an allowance for windfall sites if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available and will continue to be a reliable source of supply. HBF are also of the view that any buffer provided by windfall sites should be in addition to the buffer added to the housing need figures derived from the Standard Method to provide choice and competition in the land market. However, by including windfalls within the Plan’s housing requirement supply, any opportunity for windfalls to provide some additional housing numbers and flexibility is removed. Windfalls do not provide the same choice and flexibility in the market as additional allocations.


63. Criteria 3 indicates that regular monitoring will be undertaken annually of housing delivery, but this does not tally with the Monitoring Framework at the end of the Plan. It should also be possible to see from Housing Trajectory how much reliance is being made on windfalls, or from when. To be both justified and effective the Housing Trajectory should include break down the housing numbers into different sources of supply. HBF are of the view that any allowance for windfall should not be included until the fourth year of a housing trajectory, given the likelihood that dwellings being completed within the next three years will already be known about (as they are likely to need to have already received planning permission to be completed within that timeframe).

64. HBF also question the need for Criteria 6 about BNG to be repeated here within the policy (and in other policies elsewhere in the Plan) when this matter has already been addressed elsewhere within the Plan, and the Plan should be read as a whole. To repeat this only this policy requirement here seems repetitious and confusing. HBF comments on BNG can be found in response to Policy SNE2 which is the appropriate place for them to be considered.
HBF does not believe it there is any need to repeat the requirements of policy SNE2 here.

65. Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

66. As outlined above HBF are concerned about the Councils reliance on windfall in place of allocating housing sites. HBF also question whether it is appropriate to treat council owned land differently in policy terms from any other land. Consideration of who the applicant or landowner is, is not normally considered a to be a planning matter. The allocation of sites and the granting of permission for windfall housing should be considered on their planning merits and the contribution they can make to sustainable development, not who is the owner of the land.

67. HBF contend there is need for greenfield development in Sandwell to address the housing crisis and meet the housing requirement, some of these greenfield sites may need to be on Green Belt land. If monitoring showed underperformance of housing delivery additional housing will need to brought forward which could include allowing additional green field sites. The policy should be amended to account for this possibility.

68. It should be noted that HBF also support the need for additional greenfield allocations to meet the housing requirement.

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

69. This policy requires a density of 100 dwellings per hectare for areas of ‘very high-density’ housing areas, 45 dwellings in ‘high accessible areas’ and 40+ for ‘moderate area’. Although the Table Six uses 100+, 45+ and 40+, so there is a need for consistency between the two.


70. Is it unclear from the policy wording if this policy only applies to allocated sites, or all development over 10 units. It is also unclear how a developer would know which target applied to their development and which standard to apply on a site not allocated in the Plan. The Plan needs to better explain and justify its approach.

71. HBF would also question how realistic such high densities are, noting that the setting of residential density standards should be undertaken in accordance with the NPPF (para 125). HBF would also question how this policy links into other policies in the Plan including the policies that seek to protect family housing, resist HMOs, limit tall buildings, prevent intensification, resist windfalls, and require a range and mix of housing. All of these policies may prevent densification. Indeed, even the amount of land now required for on- site BNG delivery may impact on the density that is delivered.

72. HBF suggest that density needs to be considered on a site by site basis to ensure schemes are viable, deliverable and appropriate for the site, and policy needs to include some flexibility if needed to enable it to respond to site specific circumstances.

73. HBF would question of the density proposed are realistic deliverable and viable as the deliverability of high-density residential development in Sandwell will be dependent upon the viability of brownfield sites and the demand for high density city centre living post Covid-19. It is important that delivery of the housing requirement does not rely overly ambitious intensification of dwellings.

74. HBF also question why there is need for a specific mention of 4+ bedroom houses in Criteria 6 of the policy as the wording of the policy as this presupposes no need for four bed houses in the evidence which may not be the case. The plan should also be read as a whole and the matter of responding to housing need it terms of size and type of units is already covered elsewhere in the Plan.

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

75. HBF welcomes the recognition that the delivery of affordable housing in Sandwell may raise issues of viability. Viability must be an integral part of the plan-making process, and the findings of the viability appraisal should have helped inform and test policy development. HBF are particularly concerned about the disconnect between the Nov 2023 viability study and the policies in the Sandwell Local Plan.

76. Para ES17 of the Aspinall Verdi, Nov 2023, Viability Report says “Based on our residential market research, we recommend that the policy should be differentiated by housing market zone and greenfield/brownfield land. This reflects the range of values across Sandwell and the different risks/costs associated with greenfield and brownfield development. This approach optimises the ability of SMBC to deliver affordable housing and fund infrastructure (through land value capture) with-out undermining delivery.


ES 18 The table below sets out our recommendations for the affordable housing targets, derived from the viability analysis herein. These targets assume no grant. These are in line with Sandwell’s affordable housing policy.

New Value Zones
Affordable Housing Greenfield
(baseline 25%) Brownfield
Affordable Housing (baseline 25%)
High Value Zone 25% 25%
Medium Value Zone 15% 10%
Lower Value Zone 10% 0%”

77. Policy SH04 however seeks 25% affordable housing where viable and does not differentiate between greenfield and brownfield sites. The policy therefore does not reflect the evidence and the evidence does not reflect the policy.

78. By way of another example, para ES19 of the study says:

“In the Lower Value zones where the affordable housing threshold for viability is below 10% the Council could rely on the NPPF paragraph 64 (February 2019) which requires that, ‘planning policies… should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership’ (subject to exemptions for: a) Build to Rent homes (see below); b) specialist accommodation for specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students); c) custom self[1]build; or d) is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception
site).

We suggest SMBC could therefore keep the affordable housing target at 10% in-line with national policy and consider other proactive interventions in the market to deliver the housing. SMBC will need to be more proactive to deliver housing and regeneration in these areas. In this respect consideration could be given to, inter alia:
• facilitating development on Authority owned land e.g., with deferred land payments and/or overage;
• direct development of housing by SMBC (for lower profit margins);
• partnering with Registered Providers;
• establishing an Urban Development Company to act as master- developer and de-risk sites;
• delivery of brownfield/regeneration sites (e.g., in the strategic centres) through partnership and delivery funding schemes;
• use of grant funding for remediation of Brownfield land and soft-loans etc.

79. HBF do not recognise this interpretation of the NPPF or the approach to Viability in plan-making being suggested by the consultants. NPPF and PPG are clear that if whole plan viability testing shows a contribution for affordable housing is not viable, then Local Plan policy should not seek to impose one. The policies need amending to ensure they reflect the viability realities of delivering development in Sandwell. To meet the tests of soundness the plan must be viable and deliverable. It is simply not possible to ignore evidence which shows the policies in the Plan would make development unviable.

80. HBF have further concerns about some of the other detail in the Viability Assessment as it has not considered a number of key costs and requirements. For example, HBF information suggests that complying with the current new part L is costing £3500 per plot. The Future Homes Standard Part L in 2025 is anticipated to cost up to £7500+ per plot. There will also be the addition of the Building Safety Levy that is coming in pay for cladding. This will be a per plot basis around the UK, and initial values are around £1500- £2500 per plot. These costs appear to have not been considered in the viability appraisal.

81. Other factors that need to be taken into account include increasing the costs of materials and labour due to inflation and the costs of mandatory BNG, which are still emerging as the off-site market is yet to be established. Although the initial price of statutory credits is now known this national fallback option has been deliberately highly priced to discourage their use. Whilst this intention is understandable, at present the lack of functioning local markets for off-site credits causes viability problems because HBF members experience to date suggests that any scheme that needs to rely on statutory credits becomes unviable. HBF have numerous concerns about the whole plan viability study, including the omission of some key policy costs. For example, a realistic and evidenced allowance for mandatory BNG needs to be includes within the viability assessment of the Local Plan.

82. The costs of BNG should have been considered as part of the planning obligations and should be specified as a single specific item, no rolled into any total policy costs. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity net gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment, some of which are unknown at this time. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery. As this is an emerging policy area and the market for off-site provision, and statutory credits are not yet known, any figure used for BNG costs will need to be kept under review as BNG implementation progresses and a greater understanding of actual costs become available. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment should clearly set out how it considered the implications of mandatory BNG and how it arrived at the most up to date BNG costs information available to use.

83. At a very basic level viability can be improved by reducing costs or increasing values. Sometimes, therefore changing the type of affordable housing provided can help to improve viability of a specific site, and the plan should recognise this. In this situation there could be a change of the percentages of different types of affordable housing provided, but the headline figure of how much affordable housing is provided would remain the same. Flexibility in the policy is important to allow for these kind of considerations.


84. The geographical distribution of development may impact on the Plan’s ability to deliver affordable housing where it is most needed. HBF notes that the level of open-market housing provided may also impact on the amount of affordable housing that can be developed.

85. It will be also be important to understand if there any geographically specific viability considerations, such as whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in particular areas in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing in that location in a way that remains viable. Similarly, brownfield city centre sites tend to be most suited for apartments or retirement living. There will therefore be a need to include green fields allocations which are more likely to deliver family housing and a higher percentage of affordable housing, in order to provide flexibility in the housing land supply and ensure a range of housing types and tenures is provided. This adds further weigh to the need to consider Green Belt release(s).

86. The HBF does not comment on individual sites, other than to say the Plan should provide for a wide range of deliverable and developable sites across the area in order to provide competition and choice and a buffer to ensure that housing needs are met in full. The soundness of strategic and non- strategic site allocations, whether brownfield or greenfield, will be tested in due course at the Local Plan Examination.

87. Policy SHO4- Delivering Wheelchair Accessible and Self/custom build Housing

88. This policy seeks to require all new residential developments to meet M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of Building Regulations and development of 10 or more units to provide 15% which meet M4(3) (Wheelchair user dwellings) on schemes of more than 20 homes.

89. The requirements to meet Part M4(2) will be superseded by changes to residential Building Regulations. The Government response to ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’ states that the Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through the Building Regulations. The requirement to address this issue is planning policy is therefore unnecessary.

90. HBF are of the view that this matter should be left to Building Regulations, however if a policy were to be needed, the wording needs to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards. M43a sets out standards for wheelchair adaptable housing, where M43b relates to wheelchair accessible housing which can only be required on affordable housing where the Council has nomination rights. Any such requirements would also need to be fully considered from a viability perspective.

91. The PPG states:



“What accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?

Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual’s needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement – see paragraph 011 below.

Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied.”

Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
Revision date: 19 05 2016

92. The PPG sets out some of the circumstances where it would be unreasonable to require M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings. Such factors include flooding, typography and other circumstances. HBF suggest that flexibility is needed in the application of these standards to reflect site specific characteristics, and the policy wording should reflect this. HBF do not believe this policy is sound without this flexibility, as it fails to comply with national policy and is not effective or justified.

93. HBF also note that the Aspinall Verdi Viability Study 2023 says “We also propose a nuanced adjustment in SMBC's M4(3) accessibility policy, emphasising a tailored approach that considers the unique characteristics of different value zones, thereby addressing cost mitigation. Specifically, we recommend that 15% of units situated in medium and higher value zones adhere to M4(3) accessibility standards, while no such obligation is imposed on units located in the lower value zones. This approach not only ensures the equitable allocation of resources but also aligns with the distinct requirements and priorities within each value zone.”

94. However, this recommendation appears not to have been actioned and incorporated into the policy. There should be no need for developers to have to go through the process and cost of a site-specific viability appraisal when the evidence at the plan-making stage has already shown it to be unviable.


95. In relation to Self-Build and Custom Build Plots, the policy requires sites of 100 or more dwellings, to provide at least 5% as serviced plots for self and custom build if there is evidence of demand. If after six months of a thorough a proportionate marketing exercise the plot remains unsold, the requirements falls away.

96. HBF does not consider that requiring major developments to provide for self- builders is appropriate. Instead, the HBF advocates for self and custom-build policies that encourage self and custom-build development by setting out where it will be supported in principle. The HBF considers that Councils can play a key role in facilitating the provision of land as set in the PPG. This could be done, for example, by using the Councils’ own land for such purposes and/or allocating sites specifically for self and custom-build home builders- although this would need to be done through discussion and negotiation with landowners.

97. It is considered unlikely that the provision of self and custom build plots on new housing developments can be co-ordinated with the development of the wider site. At any one time, there are often multiple contractors and large machinery operating on-site from both a practical and health and safety perspective, it is difficult to envisage the development of single plots by individuals operating alongside this construction activity.

98. HBF agree that if demand for plots is not realised, it is important that plots should not be left empty to the detriment of neighbouring properties or the whole development. The timescale for reversion of these plots to the original housebuilder should be as short as possible from the commencement of development because the consequential delay in developing those plots presents further practical difficulties in terms of co-ordinating their development with construction activity on the wider site. There are even greater logistical problems created if the original housebuilder has completed the development and is forced to return to site to build out plots which have not been sold to self & custom builders. Therefore, if the current policy requirements are retained HBF would support the suggestion that any unsold plots remaining after the 6-month marketing period revert to the original developer.

Policy SHO6- Financial viability Assessments for Housing

99. As the whole plan viability methodology uses typologies, this means there may be individual sites that are not viable, for example if the costs or vales of a specific site fall outside the parameters used of a typology that was tested. Some site will be on the very margins of viability and other sites may already be unviable even without a change of circumstances. HBF therefore support the recognition of the potential ned for flexibility in relation to site specific viability issues.

Policy SID1 - Promotion of Fibre to the Premises and 5G Networks


100. There is no need for the first section of this policy on Fibre to the Premises broadband because this matter has been addressed through the Part R update to building Regulations that came in last year on 26 December 2022, which ensures development provides gigabit ready physical infrastructure.

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

101. HBF are supportive of the use of ‘Building for a Healthy Life’ as best practice guidance but suggest its use should remain voluntary rather than becoming a mandatory policy requirement. Building for a Healthy Life is not really a ‘standard’ to be achieved, but rather a toolkit for considering design and thinking about the qualities of successful places.

Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

Nationally Described Space Standard

102. HBF does not support the introduction of the optional Nationally Described Space Standards though policies in individual Local Plans. If the Council wanted to do this, they will need robust justifiable evidence to introduce the NDSS, as any policy which seeks to apply the optional nationally described space standards (NDSS) to all dwellings should only be done in accordance with the NPPF1, which states that “policies may also make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”.

103. The NPPF2 requires that all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence, which should be adequate, proportionate and focussed tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned. The PPG identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy. It states that ‘where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:

• Need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
• Viability – the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.

1 para 130f & Footnote 49
2 Para 31


• Timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions’.

104. HBF also remind the Council that there is a direct relationship between unit size, cost per square metre (sqm), selling price per sqm and
affordability. The Council’s policy approach should recognise that customers have different budgets and aspirations. An inflexible policy approach to NDSS for all new dwellings will impact on affordability and effect customer choice.
Well-designed dwellings below NDSS can provided a good, functional home. Smaller dwellings play a valuable role in meeting specific needs for both open market and affordable home ownership housing.

105. An inflexible policy approach imposing NDSS on all housing removes the most affordable homes and denies lower income households from being able to afford homeownership. The introduction of the NDSS for all dwellings may mean customers purchasing larger homes in floorspace but with bedrooms less suited to their housing needs with the unintended consequences of potentially increasing overcrowding and reducing the quality of their living environment. The Council should focus on good design and usable space to ensure that dwellings are fit for purpose rather than focusing on NDSS.

106. HBF considers that if the Government had expected all properties to be built to NDSS that they would have made these standards mandatory not optional.

107. If the proposed requirement for NDSS is carried forward, then the Council should put forward proposals for transitional arrangements. The land deals underpinning residential sites may have been secured prior to any proposed introduction of the NDSS. These sites should be allowed to move through the planning system before any proposed policy requirements are enforced. The NDSS should not be applied to any reserved matters applications or any outline or detailed approval prior to a specified date.

108. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

109. This policy also seeks to introduce a water efficiency standard of 110 litres/person/day. HBF note that Part G Building regulations already stipulates 125lpppd normal conditions and 110lpppd in water stressed areas. Therefore, HBF question whether there is a need for this to be referred to within the Local Plan as it is already required by other regulatory frameworks.

110. The policy should be deleted.


Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

111. HBF notes that we are in the midst of a Housing Crisis. Housing delivery is therefore a key challenge facing Sandwell Borough. To address the housing crisis the Council needs to allocate enough sites to meet the housing requirement and provide choice and flexibility in supply. This will require the allocation of a mix and range of sites in a variety of locations. The policies in the Plan with then near careful monitoring to ensure they are delivering the housing. The Sandwell Local Plan must ensure the delivery of new housing to meet both open market and affordable housing needs.

112. HBF note that the Issue and Options consultation document suggested that that Council was of the view that Sandwell was so constrained it may only be able to provide 9,492 against an identified need of 30,300 new dwellings between 2021 and 2041, less than a third of what is needed. The Reg 18 consultation version is now seeking providing 11,167 homes against a requirement of 29,773 homes by 2041. HBF is unclear of the reasoning and justification for this change.

113. The issue of housing is critically important and needs urgently addressing through the plan-making process. HBF believes that the Council needs to explore any and all options to meet the housing need and requirement of Sandwell. This must include full consideration of the current Housing Crisis and if it results in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would require the need for a Green Belt review. A plan that seeks to meet only third of the need does not deliver is simply not good enough and does represent an effective use of the plan-led system.

114. HBF suggest more flexibility is needed within the plan, so that it is able to respond to any changing circumstances. HBF do not support the inclusion of policies within a Local Plan that merely triggers a review of the Local Plan if monitoring shows housing delivery is not occurring as expected. Such a policy does nothing to address the housing crisis or undersupply of homes. There are other more effective and immediate measures that could be introduced into policy that would enable the Council to address housing under deliver, much more quickly than would be possible through the production of another plan, or plan review.

115. It is important that houses are brought forward, and the matter addressed as soon as possible, if under delivery is observed. HBF would suggest, as a minimum, explicit reference should be made within the Plan’s policy to the potential to bring forward supply earlier. However, as the housing need and requirement figures for the Plan are minimum (not maximum) figures the Council could also specifically identify reserve sites, particular sites that could/would be brought forward sooner to address any under delivery whatever the reason for that under performance. This could be a shortfall in market housing permissions granted and/or completions, affordable housing permissions granted and/or completions and any failure against the Housing Delivery Test or local plan monitoring. More is needed on how and when monitoring will be undertaken and more is needed on what action(S) will be taken when if monitoring shows under delivery of housing.

116. There remains a need to address issues that are wider-than-local matters in a joined-up manner under the Duty to Cooperate. The HBF notes that Sandwell was closely involved in the production of the Black Country Plan (BCP), alongside the other three Black Country councils, but that work on the joint BCP officially ceased in October 2022. The HBF notes that the BCP website says “it is with regret that we are unable to reach agreement on the approach to planning for future development needs within the framework of the Black Country Plan”. The statement on the website continues that “Local Plans for the four Black Country Councils will now provide the framework for the long- term planning of the Black Country. The Black Country Plan 2039 work programme will end, and we will now transition to a process focused on Local Plans. The issues of housing and employment land need will now be addressed through individual Local Plans for each of the authorities. The Councils will co- operate with each other and with other key bodies as they prepare their Local Plans." This suggests compliance with the Duty to Cooperate may be a key challenge for meeting the legal requirements of plan-making in Sandwell.

117. HBF suggest that there is a need for housing monitoring to be undertaken across the wider region. If other areas are providing housing to meet Sandwell’s need, Sandwell will need to be monitoring this delivery to ensure its needs are being met. However, HBF firmly believe Sandwell should be doing more to address its own needs, including Green Belt release.

118. The HBF would encourage the Council to fully consider the housing needs of the Borough and robustly consider the need for additional housing in the housing requirement before then considering how much of the housing requirement can be met within the Borough, and how much may be unmet. It is important for the housing requirement to reflect the housing needs and growth aspirations of the Borough and not be restricted by capacity considerations, which should be considered after the housing requirement has been set.

119. HBF suggest that the monitoring framework at the end of the Plan needs to be expanded. The Council will need to monitor the delivery of housing and publish progress against a published Housing Trajectory Housing monitoring should be undertaken on a site-by-site basis. Therefore, the detailed housing trajectory including for specific sites should be inserted included within the Plan.

120. HBF note that as we are in the midst of a housing crisis, it is very important that the Council ensures that the Local Plan delivers all the housing that is being planned for. Sandwell should also monitor the delivery of any unmet need by neighbouring authorities and actively participate in local plan consultations and examinations to ensure the need for other authorities to meet their need is robustly supported in neighbouring Local Plans.

Legal Compliance

2. In response to the Sandwell Local Plan Issues and Options consultation earlier this year HBF underlined the importance of ensuring that any ‘rolled forward’ policies in the draft Black Country Plan remain appropriate and are fully supported by the evidence base.

3. HBF is pleased that our earlier comments have been taken on board. It is important that any of the “previously seen” policies in the draft Black Country Plan, which are now being proposed to be rolled forward and “adapted” in the Sandwell Plan, and the evidence supporting them, are subject to full public consultation. HBF remain of the view that the issue of the housing need for Sandwell, the housing requirement for Sandwell, the potential unmet need of Sandwell and Green Belt designations, are key issues that impact on the fundamental Strategic Policies that will be an essential part of good plan- making in Sandwell. HBF is pleased that some additional information has now been made available as part of this consultation. However, it will remain important that the evidence base continues to be updated, and made available, as the plan-making process continues.

Duty to Cooperate

4. HBF note that following the collapse of Black Country Plan, Sandwell has had to undertake its own calculations for the housing need and requirement and must robustly test how much of this can be met within Sandwell and how much (if any) is an unmet need. The Council will then need to work with neighbouring authorities to identify how that unmet need will be redistributed and prepare a Statement of Common Ground on this issue. The Council should also prepare a Duty to Cooperate Statement.

5. Currently there is not enough information available for HBF to come to a view as to whether or not Sandwell has met, and is meeting, the Duty to Cooperate. The Council will need to evidence its ongoing work with the other neighbouring authorities within the HMA. This will need to be evidenced with more than words of good intentions and be supported with a clear Plan of how all the housing needs of Sandwell will be met. We hope this evidence will be forthcoming, and in light of the known issue around housing numbers and unmet need, it is essential that does.

6. HBF’s main concerns around Duty to Cooperate relate to ensuring the required amount of housing is delivered in reality. This is particularly important because the current Plan indicates a significant amount of unmet need. The issue of fully meeting housing needs within Sandwell remains. Our more detailed comments on this issue can be found in response to Policy SDS1.

7. HBF suggest that the Council prepare a signed Statement of Common Ground between the Council with each of the neighbouring authorities setting out if and how they will contribute to meeting Sandwell’s unmet needs. Such statements will be essential as the Plan progresses. HBF notes the Council’s stated intention to be proactive and pro-growth. However, the issue of potential unmet need requires clearly evidenced and ongoing cooperation. This will be essential to show that the Duty to Cooperate has been met.

Vision for Sandwell

8. HBF support the need for the Vision for Sandwell to include reference to the need for new homes to meet housing need, as included within Ambition 7 but suggest this should be amended to be more explicit about the requirement to meet the development needs of the area. HBF would suggest that both the Vision and Objective Six should be more explicit about the need to plan for both open market and affordable housing to meet housing needs and support the Council’s growth aspirations.

Policy SDS1- Development Strategy

9. The Plan proposes at least 11,167 net new homes and at least 1,206ha of employment land (of which 29ha is currently vacant). It is noted that paragraph 2.6 explains that “There is still, despite the number of housing sites that have been identified and allocated, a shortfall in the numbers of houses that need to be built to meet identified needs. Housing need is calculated using the Government’s standard method based on household growth projections.


• Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes by 2041.
• The supply of suitable residential land based on the most recent evidence stands at 11,167 homes.
• There is an unmet need for 18,606 homes.
• The SLP provides for around one third of the housing need on the land that is available.

10. As Council is planning only to meet one third of their proposed housing number, this means two thirds are not being planned for. As HBF believe the housing requirement should be higher to start with, the actual percentage of unmet need would be even higher. Even, setting the appropriate housing number issue is aside for now, HBF is very concerned about this proposed shortfall. Failure to meet the housing needs of Sandwell will inhibit growth and do nothing to address the current housing crisis, with implications for the economy and population of wider region. It will be important for the Council to clearly show how the unmet need will be met, and what they will do to ensure that it is. However, the Council needs to first establish the appropriate housing requirement for Sandwell before considering if and how this could be met.

11. Paragraph 2.14 explains that “Employment land need is based on economic forecasts in the EDNA up to 2041.
• Sandwell is subject to a demand for 185ha of employment land.
• The supply of land available and suitable for employment use is 42ha (after completions between 2020 – 2022 are considered). This includes windfall supply, generated through intensification / recycling, and includes a vacant land supply of 29ha.
• Based on the amount of land required to grow the economy, there is a shortfall of around 143ha.
• In addition, the plan allocates 1,177ha of occupied employment as strategic, local or other employment land.

12. HBF notes that the Plan therefore proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This would further constrain the ambitions for Growth in Sandwell, and the wider region. HBF suggest these circumstances warrant a full Green Belt review and the allocation of sites to meet the housing and employment requirements of the Borough even if these are within the current Green Belt.

13. With regards the housing requirement itself, HBF strongly support the need for more housing in the Sandwell Local Plan for a variety of reasons including addressing the current housing crisis, meeting housing need, providing affordable housing and supporting employment growth. HBF would request that the Council considers the annual LHN as only the minimum starting point and fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels
of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing.

14. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF requires that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption. HBF note that the current plan period is to 2041 but would still question if the plan period is long enough to cover this requirement. This Reg 18 consultation closes at the end of 2023 and then the representations need to be considered an analysed, a submission plan prepared and consulted, examination, main modifications consultation, inspectors report and adoption by the Council.

15. HBF suggest that the plan-making process may take some time, especially if additional Green Belt release is needed, and suggest that the plan period could be extended now, especially as this would require an update to the evidence base as is important for the evidence base to be consistent with the Plan Period. Extending the plan period would also require an increase to the housing requirement to cover the additional years, and consequential additional housing supply.

16. The Government has made it clear that it still supports the national target of 300,000 new homes per year. The standard method housing requirement has always been the minimum starting point for setting the housing requirement, and HBF support more housing than the standard method housing requirement in order to support economic growth, provide a range and type of sites and to support small and medium house builders.

17. HBF suggest that each of these reasons on its own could justify an increase in the housing requirement for Sandwell and the Council should consider planning for an additional amount of housing to address each reason in turn. However, as previously mentioned it is important that the housing requirement is established, before any consideration is given to any issues around housing land supply, or lack thereof.

18. The plan-led system requires Council to proactively plan to meet the needs of their community. This means that there is a need to provide a range and choice of sites, a need for flexibility and viability considerations to be taken into account, and a need for the Council to consider whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure the delivery of affordable housing and/or support economic growth. HBF can not see how planning to meet only one third of the housing need for the area represents a positively prepared plan for the future of the area for the next fifteen years and beyond.

19. Once the housing requirement has been set, the next phase is to consider housing land supply. It is important to both minimise the amount of any unmet needs that cannot be accommodated within the Borough and clearly set out how any unmet need will be addressed elsewhere. HBF recognise the Council’s view as to the constrained nature of the Borough and the amount of current Green Belt designation, but would also highlight the size of the shortfall in Housing and Employment land being proposed in this plan. It is important that the housing needs of Sandwell are met in full.

20. Although HBF is pleased to see the Council commit to ongoing working with neighbouring authorities to try an address this matter under the Duty to Cooperate (or its replacement) the fact remains that the Local Plan’s policies should ensure the availability of a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land to deliver Sandwell’s housing requirement. If it is not possible to do this within the boundary then Green Belt release may be needed.

21. Criteria 3 of the policy sets out that “Appendices B and C show how the housing and employment land ambitions for Sandwell will be met. Those development needs that cannot be accommodated within the borough will be exported to sustainable locations in neighbouring local authority areas, following consultation.” HBF would question the appropriateness of this approach, but if it is to be pursued then this should be set out as an integral part of the policy and not deferred to Appendix B and C. Surely Housing Allocations should be made as an integral part of the Plan and not in an Appendix.

22. HBF believe that Sandwell’s inability to meet its housing (and employment) needs requires revisiting the Spatial Strategy and results in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would require the need for a Green Belt review as set out in para 140 of the NPPF.

23. HBF notes that the issue of fully meeting housing needs within Sandwell remains, despite the ending of the work on Black Country Plan. Sandwell therefore needs to undertake its own calculations for the housing need and requirement, robustly test how much of this can be met within Sandwell and how much (if any) is an unmet need. The Council then need to work with neighbouring authorities to identify how that unmet need will be redistributed and prepare a Statement of Common Ground on this issue. This issue is both a soundness and a Duty to Cooperate issue. At this stage HBF do not believe the Council has done enough to try and meet all its needs, or explored every and all option to do so.

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

24. HBF strongly disagree with the conclusion in para 3.84 which says:

“It is the Council’s view that there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development. While there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough.

HBF would argue that the current housing crisis and the inability of Sandwell meet its own needs (the Plan is looking to plan for only a third of the identified housing need) provide just such exceptional circumstances to necessitate a Green Belt review, which must include the consideration of both employment and housing sites.

25. NPPF (para 20) is clear that “Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development”. Para 11 of the NPPF states that “all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects”.

26. HBF cannot see how a plan that provides for only a third of its housing requirement standard method baseline (and HBF argue the housing requirement itself should be higher) can meet the requirements to be positively prepared and set out a clear long term vision for the area which is the purpose of plan-making. NPPF para 60 clearly states that “to support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.”

27. HBF believes the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing consider is a factor that constitutes the exception circumstances that justify Green Belt release.

28. HBF support ambitious growth aspirations in Sandwell. HBF highlight the need to consider the interaction between employment and housing. An increase in the number of jobs can it itself generate a requirement for additional housing, and failure to provide housing can have negative impacts on the economic and social wellbeing of the area. The Plan must recognise and reflect this reality.

29. The Plan need to ensure there is a sufficiency of Housing Land Supply (HLS) to meet the housing requirement, ensure the maintenance of a 5 Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT) performance measurements. HBF cannot see how achieving these aims is possible without Green Belt release. It is noted that this may in turn also effect the spatial strategy for the Local Plan.

30. HBF also suggest the Council should give explicit consideration to whether BNG development is acceptable within the Green Belt and/or if Green Belt boundaries need to be revised accommodate schemes that deliver off-site BNG, and possibly even on-site biodiversity gains.

31. Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

32. HBF has been involved in a significant amount of work, being led by the Future Homes Hub, on BNG preparedness for some time and note that it is somewhat unfortunate that the timing of the release of the draft Planning Practice guidance from DLUHC and the Draft DEFRA BNG Guidance has seen this information released midway through your consultation period.

33. HBF note that there is a new information for the Council to work though and consider the implications of, in order to make the necessary changes to the Biodiversity Net Gain policy, so that it complies with the latest policy and guidance as it finalised.

34. The BNG PPG has been published in draft form to allow for “familiarisation” and as such some details may change between now and the implementation date in January 2024. Similarly, HBF understand the DEFRA Guidance is still being refined before the implementation date, and indeed may be further refined once mandatory BNG is working in practice, to reflect any early lessons learnt. Further additional guidance on phased developments is also expected.

35. There are clearly some areas of the Sandwell Local Plan BNG policy and guidance that will need revising and updating, particularly because the (draft) PPG is clear that there is no need for Local Plan policies to repeat national guidance. For example, HBF would suggest criteria two and eight are not necessary as they are merely repeating national policy.

36. It will be important for the Council to fully consider the PPG and DEFRA guidance once it has been formally published, which HBF notes will be in January 2024, after the close of this consultation period. Although no significant changes to the approach to BNG are expected, further clarity may be needed on some of the finer details, and some amendments and additional advice and guidance are anticipated.

37. It is the HBF’s opinion that the Council should not deviate from the Government’s requirement for biodiversity net gain as set out in the Environment Act. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery.

38. Any requirements to go beyond 10% BNG needs to be clearly demonstrated with evidence including considering the implications of the policy approach as part of the whole plan viability appraisal. In particular, HBF would question how the viability of more than 10% BNG can be established when the market for off-site credits, and therefore the costs of delivering the 10% mandatory BNG system are still emerging.

39. HBF note that work undertaken by DEFRA to inform the national percentage BNG requirement found that a 20% net gain requirement would add c.19% to the net gain costs, over and above the minimum requirement of 10%. The report concluded that:

“While this suggests that varying the level of net gain between 5% and 20% has very limited impact on the outcome, there is a trade-off between cost implications for developers and the likelihood of net gain being delivered at a national level (e.g. less costly/likely at 5% net gain compared to 10%, and vice versa for 20%). Our chosen policy approach, which sets out that 10% is the right level to demonstrate net gain, considers this trade-off among other issues.”

40. HBF also notes that the proposed policy wording and supporting text in the Local Plan will need to reflect both that the Environment Act which requires 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, and the emerging policy, guidance and best practice on how Mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain will be implemented. There is an important policy distinction to made between the national mandatory requirements and any optional further requests from LPAs to go further and faster. In particular the 10% national target is non-negotiable from a viability perspective, but policies seeking over 10% can be challenged on viability grounds. This distinction needs to be recognised within the Local Plan.

41. HBF suggest particular care is needed in terminology to ensure the Sandwell policy reflects the national policy and guidance. For example, on-site and off- site biodiversity is referred to as units, and the statutory national credit system of last resort is referred to as credit. It is important for the wording of the policy to accurately reflect the legalisation and guidance.

42. HBF question the wording of criteria six, as it should be for the BNG plan to set out what happens if monitoring shows any BNG measure are ineffective. For large and complex sites where the development is phased, the guidance is clear that the 10% must be delivered at the end of the development, and this may not result in 10% BNG on each phase.

43. It is also important to note that Local Nature Recovery Strategies are new initiative, and one has yet to be prepared that covers Sandwell. As the LNRS emerges it will be important for this Local Plan to be kept under review and further public consultation on the interaction between the two documents and/or changes to Local Plan policy to reflect the LNRS may be needed.

Policy SNE3 – Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

44. HBF would question how the Council arrived at the requirement for 3 replacement trees for everyone lost and what (if any) assumptions have been relation to the size and standard of trees. HBF considers that a three for one replacement policy could impact on the land uptake for any development and may have implications for the density of developments, which in turn has the potential to have an impact on the viability of developments.

45. HBF suggest further flexibility is needed in the policy, for example hedgerow removal may be an essential to gain access to a site, but BNG policies which require 10% net gain from the pre-development baseline so any loss would already have to be compensated. HBF suggest the Council should give more thought to how the suite of environmental policies are intended to work together so that developers are completely clear what is expected of them, and to ensure that the policies do not serve to make development undeliverable. The interrelationships between the BNG policy and other environmental policies needs to be fully considered and explained.

Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience

46. The HBF supports the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is
standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers. The Councils do not need to set local energy efficiency standards in a Local Plan policy because of the higher levels of energy efficiency standards for new homes set out in the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and proposals for the 2025 Future Homes Standard, which are currently out for consultation.

47. HBF also draws the Council’s attention to the recent Ministerial Statement on this issue which says “the Government does not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings regulations. The proliferation of multiple, local standards by local authority area can add further costs to building new homes by adding complexity and undermining economies of scale.” See https://questions- statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-12-13/HCWS123

Policy SCC2 – Energy Infrastructure

48. HBF is concerned about mandatory requirements to connect to district heating networks. HBF considers that it is important that this is not seen as a requirement and is instead implemented on a flexible basis. Heat networks are one aspect of the path towards decarbonising heat, however, currently the predominant technology for district-sized communal heating networks is gas combined heat and power (CHP) plants. Over 90% of district networks are gas fired. As 2050 approaches, meeting the Government’s climate target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero will require a transition from gas-fired networks to renewable or low carbon alternatives such as large heat pumps, hydrogen or waste-heat recovery but at the moment one of the major reasons why heat network projects do not install such technologies is because of the up-front capital cost. The Council should be aware that for the foreseeable future it will remain uneconomic for most heat networks to install low-carbon technologies. This may mean that it is more sustainable and more appropriate for developments to utilise other forms of energy provision, and this may need to be considered.

49. Government consultation on Heat Network Zoning also identifies exemptions to proposals for requirements for connections to a heat network these include where a connection may lead to sub-optimal outcomes, or distance from the network connection points and impacts on consumers bills and affordability.

50. Furthermore, some heat network consumers do not have comparable levels of satisfaction as consumers on gas and electricity networks, and they pay a higher price. Currently, there are no sector specific protections for heat network consumers, unlike for people on other utilities such as gas, electricity or water. A consumer living in a building serviced by a heat network does not have the same opportunities to switch supplier as they would for most gas and electricity supplies.

51. The Council’s proposed policy approach is unnecessary seeks to go beyond the 2021 Part L Interim Uplift and the Future Homes Standard without justification. It is the Government’s intention to set standards for energy efficiency through the Building Regulations. The key to success is
standardisation and avoidance of individual Council’s specifying their own policy approach to energy efficiency, which undermines economies of scale for product manufacturers, suppliers and developers.

52. The Council should be aware that the long awaited consultation on the Future Homes standard was published on Dec 13th 2023 and consultation closes in 6 March 2024. The consultation documents can be found online at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-homes-and- buildings-standards-2023-consultation

Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

53. HBF is concerned about any policies which mandate on-site renewable energy generation. HBF considers that it is important that this is not seen as a requirement and is instead implemented on a flexible basis. HBF recognises that there may be potential for renewable energy generation on- site, however, it may be more sustainable and efficient to use larger scale sources rather than small-scale, it is also noted this policy also takes no account of the fact that over time energy supply from the national grid will be decarbonised.

Policy SHW1– Health Impact Assessments


54. HBF is unclear why the Health Impact Assessment is seeking to assess if a development “will provide a range of housing types and tenures that meet the needs of all sectors of the population including for older people and those with disabilities requiring varying degrees of care; extended families; low-income households; and those seeking to self-build as set out in Polices SHO3, SHO4 and SHO5”. This matter is already adequately addressed in the specific housing policies and should not need to be repeated in a HIA.

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

55. In relation to criteria one, HBF’s detailed comments in relation to the amount of housing needed in Sandwell can be found in our response to policy SD1: Development Strategy. In summary, HBF request that the standard method LHN should be the minimum starting point for establishing the housing requirement and the Council should then fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement, including the need to provide a range and choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing. HBF suggests that these considerations should result in a higher housing requirement for Sandwell which set be set out in the Local Plan. Only then should consideration around deliverability and housing land supply come into play, the housing requirement should be established first.

56. In relation to criteria two, HBF note that the Council is looking to phase the plan and delivery of the housing requirement. For the plan to be effective and justified, a clear explanation of this approach and the reasoning behind for it is needed. As HBF is of the view that the overall housing requirement for Sandwell should be higher, it follows that our view is that the numbers in each phase should be higher too.

57. HBF supports the principal of discounting the housing land supply assumptions to take account of non-implementation rates. We note that site with planning permission include a lapse rate of 5% other commitments are SHLAA are discounted by 10% and occupied employment land discounted by 15%, but these figures should be clearly evidenced. HBF also notes that no allowance is made for non-delivery of windfall sites and we believe one is needed. HBF would question if the discount rates should in fact be higher especially for sites that are currently occupied in employment use. The anticipated loss of current employment sites to housing further underlines the need for housing and employment to be considered together, and for the potential implications of not meeting with the housing and employment need of the borough to present the exceptional circumstances required to justify Green Belt release.

58. Para 7.4 of the Plan states that “A balanced range of sites has been provided, in terms of size, location and market attractiveness, which will help to maximise housing delivery over the Plan period. Across the borough, 10% of identified supply in the Plan and in the most recent Brownfield Register is on sites no larger than 1ha, which is in accordance with the requirement set out in the NPPF at paragraph 069.”

59. The NPPF requires Local Plans to identify land to accommodate at least 10% of the housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare, unless there are strong reasons why this cannot be achieved. HBF has undertaken extensive consultation with its small developer members. One of the chief obstacles for small developers is that funding is extremely difficult to secure without a full, detailed, and implementable planning permission. Securing an implementable planning permission is extremely difficult if small sites are not allocated. Without implementable consents lenders are uneasy about making finance available or the repayment fees and interest rates they set will be very high. Small developers, consequently, need to invest a lot of money and time up-front in the risky business of trying to secure an allocation and a planning permission, and this is money that many small developers do not have.

60. HBF would therefore wish to see the 10% small sites allowance delivered through allocations. Indeed, we would advocate that a higher percentage of small sites are allocated if possible. Such sites are important for encouraging the growth in SME housebuilders who will tend to develop these sites but rarely see the benefits that arise from the allocation of sites in a local plan. Up until the 1980s, small developers accounted for the construction of half of all homes built in this country resulting in greater variety of product, more competition, and faster build-out rates. Since then, the number of small companies has fallen by 80%.

61. HBF also note that support for small and medium builders need not be limited to only small sites of less than 1Ha. SMEs also deliver on other types of non- strategic sites (for example up to 100 units). The inclusion of additional non- strategic allocations would expand the range of choice in the market, and be of a scale that can come forward and making a contribution to housing numbers earlier in the plan period.

62. In relation to criteria three, HBF notes that NPPF (para 71) only permits an allowance for windfall sites if there is compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available and will continue to be a reliable source of supply. HBF are also of the view that any buffer provided by windfall sites should be in addition to the buffer added to the housing need figures derived from the Standard Method to provide choice and competition in the land market. However, by including windfalls within the Plan’s housing requirement supply, any opportunity for windfalls to provide some additional housing numbers and flexibility is removed. Windfalls do not provide the same choice and flexibility in the market as additional allocations.


63. Criteria 3 indicates that regular monitoring will be undertaken annually of housing delivery, but this does not tally with the Monitoring Framework at the end of the Plan. It should also be possible to see from Housing Trajectory how much reliance is being made on windfalls, or from when. To be both justified and effective the Housing Trajectory should include break down the housing numbers into different sources of supply. HBF are of the view that any allowance for windfall should not be included until the fourth year of a housing trajectory, given the likelihood that dwellings being completed within the next three years will already be known about (as they are likely to need to have already received planning permission to be completed within that timeframe).

64. HBF also question the need for Criteria 6 about BNG to be repeated here within the policy (and in other policies elsewhere in the Plan) when this matter has already been addressed elsewhere within the Plan, and the Plan should be read as a whole. To repeat this only this policy requirement here seems repetitious and confusing. HBF comments on BNG can be found in response to Policy SNE2 which is the appropriate place for them to be considered.
HBF does not believe it there is any need to repeat the requirements of policy SNE2 here.

65. Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

66. As outlined above HBF are concerned about the Councils reliance on windfall in place of allocating housing sites. HBF also question whether it is appropriate to treat council owned land differently in policy terms from any other land. Consideration of who the applicant or landowner is, is not normally considered a to be a planning matter. The allocation of sites and the granting of permission for windfall housing should be considered on their planning merits and the contribution they can make to sustainable development, not who is the owner of the land.

67. HBF contend there is need for greenfield development in Sandwell to address the housing crisis and meet the housing requirement, some of these greenfield sites may need to be on Green Belt land. If monitoring showed underperformance of housing delivery additional housing will need to brought forward which could include allowing additional green field sites. The policy should be amended to account for this possibility.

68. It should be noted that HBF also support the need for additional greenfield allocations to meet the housing requirement.

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

69. This policy requires a density of 100 dwellings per hectare for areas of ‘very high-density’ housing areas, 45 dwellings in ‘high accessible areas’ and 40+ for ‘moderate area’. Although the Table Six uses 100+, 45+ and 40+, so there is a need for consistency between the two.


70. Is it unclear from the policy wording if this policy only applies to allocated sites, or all development over 10 units. It is also unclear how a developer would know which target applied to their development and which standard to apply on a site not allocated in the Plan. The Plan needs to better explain and justify its approach.

71. HBF would also question how realistic such high densities are, noting that the setting of residential density standards should be undertaken in accordance with the NPPF (para 125). HBF would also question how this policy links into other policies in the Plan including the policies that seek to protect family housing, resist HMOs, limit tall buildings, prevent intensification, resist windfalls, and require a range and mix of housing. All of these policies may prevent densification. Indeed, even the amount of land now required for on- site BNG delivery may impact on the density that is delivered.

72. HBF suggest that density needs to be considered on a site by site basis to ensure schemes are viable, deliverable and appropriate for the site, and policy needs to include some flexibility if needed to enable it to respond to site specific circumstances.

73. HBF would question of the density proposed are realistic deliverable and viable as the deliverability of high-density residential development in Sandwell will be dependent upon the viability of brownfield sites and the demand for high density city centre living post Covid-19. It is important that delivery of the housing requirement does not rely overly ambitious intensification of dwellings.

74. HBF also question why there is need for a specific mention of 4+ bedroom houses in Criteria 6 of the policy as the wording of the policy as this presupposes no need for four bed houses in the evidence which may not be the case. The plan should also be read as a whole and the matter of responding to housing need it terms of size and type of units is already covered elsewhere in the Plan.

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

75. HBF welcomes the recognition that the delivery of affordable housing in Sandwell may raise issues of viability. Viability must be an integral part of the plan-making process, and the findings of the viability appraisal should have helped inform and test policy development. HBF are particularly concerned about the disconnect between the Nov 2023 viability study and the policies in the Sandwell Local Plan.

76. Para ES17 of the Aspinall Verdi, Nov 2023, Viability Report says “Based on our residential market research, we recommend that the policy should be differentiated by housing market zone and greenfield/brownfield land. This reflects the range of values across Sandwell and the different risks/costs associated with greenfield and brownfield development. This approach optimises the ability of SMBC to deliver affordable housing and fund infrastructure (through land value capture) with-out undermining delivery.


ES 18 The table below sets out our recommendations for the affordable housing targets, derived from the viability analysis herein. These targets assume no grant. These are in line with Sandwell’s affordable housing policy.

New Value Zones
Affordable Housing Greenfield
(baseline 25%) Brownfield
Affordable Housing (baseline 25%)
High Value Zone 25% 25%
Medium Value Zone 15% 10%
Lower Value Zone 10% 0%”

77. Policy SH04 however seeks 25% affordable housing where viable and does not differentiate between greenfield and brownfield sites. The policy therefore does not reflect the evidence and the evidence does not reflect the policy.

78. By way of another example, para ES19 of the study says:

“In the Lower Value zones where the affordable housing threshold for viability is below 10% the Council could rely on the NPPF paragraph 64 (February 2019) which requires that, ‘planning policies… should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership’ (subject to exemptions for: a) Build to Rent homes (see below); b) specialist accommodation for specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students); c) custom self[1]build; or d) is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception
site).

We suggest SMBC could therefore keep the affordable housing target at 10% in-line with national policy and consider other proactive interventions in the market to deliver the housing. SMBC will need to be more proactive to deliver housing and regeneration in these areas. In this respect consideration could be given to, inter alia:
• facilitating development on Authority owned land e.g., with deferred land payments and/or overage;
• direct development of housing by SMBC (for lower profit margins);
• partnering with Registered Providers;
• establishing an Urban Development Company to act as master- developer and de-risk sites;
• delivery of brownfield/regeneration sites (e.g., in the strategic centres) through partnership and delivery funding schemes;
• use of grant funding for remediation of Brownfield land and soft-loans etc.

79. HBF do not recognise this interpretation of the NPPF or the approach to Viability in plan-making being suggested by the consultants. NPPF and PPG are clear that if whole plan viability testing shows a contribution for affordable housing is not viable, then Local Plan policy should not seek to impose one. The policies need amending to ensure they reflect the viability realities of delivering development in Sandwell. To meet the tests of soundness the plan must be viable and deliverable. It is simply not possible to ignore evidence which shows the policies in the Plan would make development unviable.

80. HBF have further concerns about some of the other detail in the Viability Assessment as it has not considered a number of key costs and requirements. For example, HBF information suggests that complying with the current new part L is costing £3500 per plot. The Future Homes Standard Part L in 2025 is anticipated to cost up to £7500+ per plot. There will also be the addition of the Building Safety Levy that is coming in pay for cladding. This will be a per plot basis around the UK, and initial values are around £1500- £2500 per plot. These costs appear to have not been considered in the viability appraisal.

81. Other factors that need to be taken into account include increasing the costs of materials and labour due to inflation and the costs of mandatory BNG, which are still emerging as the off-site market is yet to be established. Although the initial price of statutory credits is now known this national fallback option has been deliberately highly priced to discourage their use. Whilst this intention is understandable, at present the lack of functioning local markets for off-site credits causes viability problems because HBF members experience to date suggests that any scheme that needs to rely on statutory credits becomes unviable. HBF have numerous concerns about the whole plan viability study, including the omission of some key policy costs. For example, a realistic and evidenced allowance for mandatory BNG needs to be includes within the viability assessment of the Local Plan.

82. The costs of BNG should have been considered as part of the planning obligations and should be specified as a single specific item, no rolled into any total policy costs. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity net gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment, some of which are unknown at this time. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery. As this is an emerging policy area and the market for off-site provision, and statutory credits are not yet known, any figure used for BNG costs will need to be kept under review as BNG implementation progresses and a greater understanding of actual costs become available. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment should clearly set out how it considered the implications of mandatory BNG and how it arrived at the most up to date BNG costs information available to use.

83. At a very basic level viability can be improved by reducing costs or increasing values. Sometimes, therefore changing the type of affordable housing provided can help to improve viability of a specific site, and the plan should recognise this. In this situation there could be a change of the percentages of different types of affordable housing provided, but the headline figure of how much affordable housing is provided would remain the same. Flexibility in the policy is important to allow for these kind of considerations.


84. The geographical distribution of development may impact on the Plan’s ability to deliver affordable housing where it is most needed. HBF notes that the level of open-market housing provided may also impact on the amount of affordable housing that can be developed.

85. It will be also be important to understand if there any geographically specific viability considerations, such as whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in particular areas in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing in that location in a way that remains viable. Similarly, brownfield city centre sites tend to be most suited for apartments or retirement living. There will therefore be a need to include green fields allocations which are more likely to deliver family housing and a higher percentage of affordable housing, in order to provide flexibility in the housing land supply and ensure a range of housing types and tenures is provided. This adds further weigh to the need to consider Green Belt release(s).

86. The HBF does not comment on individual sites, other than to say the Plan should provide for a wide range of deliverable and developable sites across the area in order to provide competition and choice and a buffer to ensure that housing needs are met in full. The soundness of strategic and non- strategic site allocations, whether brownfield or greenfield, will be tested in due course at the Local Plan Examination.

87. Policy SHO4- Delivering Wheelchair Accessible and Self/custom build Housing

88. This policy seeks to require all new residential developments to meet M4(2) (Accessible and adaptable dwellings) of Building Regulations and development of 10 or more units to provide 15% which meet M4(3) (Wheelchair user dwellings) on schemes of more than 20 homes.

89. The requirements to meet Part M4(2) will be superseded by changes to residential Building Regulations. The Government response to ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’ states that the Government proposes to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through the Building Regulations. The requirement to address this issue is planning policy is therefore unnecessary.

90. HBF are of the view that this matter should be left to Building Regulations, however if a policy were to be needed, the wording needs to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards. M43a sets out standards for wheelchair adaptable housing, where M43b relates to wheelchair accessible housing which can only be required on affordable housing where the Council has nomination rights. Any such requirements would also need to be fully considered from a viability perspective.

91. The PPG states:



“What accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?

Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual’s needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement – see paragraph 011 below.

Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied.”

Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
Revision date: 19 05 2016

92. The PPG sets out some of the circumstances where it would be unreasonable to require M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings. Such factors include flooding, typography and other circumstances. HBF suggest that flexibility is needed in the application of these standards to reflect site specific characteristics, and the policy wording should reflect this. HBF do not believe this policy is sound without this flexibility, as it fails to comply with national policy and is not effective or justified.

93. HBF also note that the Aspinall Verdi Viability Study 2023 says “We also propose a nuanced adjustment in SMBC's M4(3) accessibility policy, emphasising a tailored approach that considers the unique characteristics of different value zones, thereby addressing cost mitigation. Specifically, we recommend that 15% of units situated in medium and higher value zones adhere to M4(3) accessibility standards, while no such obligation is imposed on units located in the lower value zones. This approach not only ensures the equitable allocation of resources but also aligns with the distinct requirements and priorities within each value zone.”

94. However, this recommendation appears not to have been actioned and incorporated into the policy. There should be no need for developers to have to go through the process and cost of a site-specific viability appraisal when the evidence at the plan-making stage has already shown it to be unviable.


95. In relation to Self-Build and Custom Build Plots, the policy requires sites of 100 or more dwellings, to provide at least 5% as serviced plots for self and custom build if there is evidence of demand. If after six months of a thorough a proportionate marketing exercise the plot remains unsold, the requirements falls away.

96. HBF does not consider that requiring major developments to provide for self- builders is appropriate. Instead, the HBF advocates for self and custom-build policies that encourage self and custom-build development by setting out where it will be supported in principle. The HBF considers that Councils can play a key role in facilitating the provision of land as set in the PPG. This could be done, for example, by using the Councils’ own land for such purposes and/or allocating sites specifically for self and custom-build home builders- although this would need to be done through discussion and negotiation with landowners.

97. It is considered unlikely that the provision of self and custom build plots on new housing developments can be co-ordinated with the development of the wider site. At any one time, there are often multiple contractors and large machinery operating on-site from both a practical and health and safety perspective, it is difficult to envisage the development of single plots by individuals operating alongside this construction activity.

98. HBF agree that if demand for plots is not realised, it is important that plots should not be left empty to the detriment of neighbouring properties or the whole development. The timescale for reversion of these plots to the original housebuilder should be as short as possible from the commencement of development because the consequential delay in developing those plots presents further practical difficulties in terms of co-ordinating their development with construction activity on the wider site. There are even greater logistical problems created if the original housebuilder has completed the development and is forced to return to site to build out plots which have not been sold to self & custom builders. Therefore, if the current policy requirements are retained HBF would support the suggestion that any unsold plots remaining after the 6-month marketing period revert to the original developer.

Policy SHO6- Financial viability Assessments for Housing

99. As the whole plan viability methodology uses typologies, this means there may be individual sites that are not viable, for example if the costs or vales of a specific site fall outside the parameters used of a typology that was tested. Some site will be on the very margins of viability and other sites may already be unviable even without a change of circumstances. HBF therefore support the recognition of the potential ned for flexibility in relation to site specific viability issues.

Policy SID1 - Promotion of Fibre to the Premises and 5G Networks


100. There is no need for the first section of this policy on Fibre to the Premises broadband because this matter has been addressed through the Part R update to building Regulations that came in last year on 26 December 2022, which ensures development provides gigabit ready physical infrastructure.

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

101. HBF are supportive of the use of ‘Building for a Healthy Life’ as best practice guidance but suggest its use should remain voluntary rather than becoming a mandatory policy requirement. Building for a Healthy Life is not really a ‘standard’ to be achieved, but rather a toolkit for considering design and thinking about the qualities of successful places.

Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

Nationally Described Space Standard

102. HBF does not support the introduction of the optional Nationally Described Space Standards though policies in individual Local Plans. If the Council wanted to do this, they will need robust justifiable evidence to introduce the NDSS, as any policy which seeks to apply the optional nationally described space standards (NDSS) to all dwellings should only be done in accordance with the NPPF1, which states that “policies may also make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”.

103. The NPPF2 requires that all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence, which should be adequate, proportionate and focussed tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned. The PPG identifies the type of evidence required to introduce such a policy. It states that ‘where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:

• Need – evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
• Viability – the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan’s viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.

1 para 130f & Footnote 49
2 Para 31


• Timing – there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions’.

104. HBF also remind the Council that there is a direct relationship between unit size, cost per square metre (sqm), selling price per sqm and
affordability. The Council’s policy approach should recognise that customers have different budgets and aspirations. An inflexible policy approach to NDSS for all new dwellings will impact on affordability and effect customer choice.
Well-designed dwellings below NDSS can provided a good, functional home. Smaller dwellings play a valuable role in meeting specific needs for both open market and affordable home ownership housing.

105. An inflexible policy approach imposing NDSS on all housing removes the most affordable homes and denies lower income households from being able to afford homeownership. The introduction of the NDSS for all dwellings may mean customers purchasing larger homes in floorspace but with bedrooms less suited to their housing needs with the unintended consequences of potentially increasing overcrowding and reducing the quality of their living environment. The Council should focus on good design and usable space to ensure that dwellings are fit for purpose rather than focusing on NDSS.

106. HBF considers that if the Government had expected all properties to be built to NDSS that they would have made these standards mandatory not optional.

107. If the proposed requirement for NDSS is carried forward, then the Council should put forward proposals for transitional arrangements. The land deals underpinning residential sites may have been secured prior to any proposed introduction of the NDSS. These sites should be allowed to move through the planning system before any proposed policy requirements are enforced. The NDSS should not be applied to any reserved matters applications or any outline or detailed approval prior to a specified date.

108. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

109. This policy also seeks to introduce a water efficiency standard of 110 litres/person/day. HBF note that Part G Building regulations already stipulates 125lpppd normal conditions and 110lpppd in water stressed areas. Therefore, HBF question whether there is a need for this to be referred to within the Local Plan as it is already required by other regulatory frameworks.

110. The policy should be deleted.


Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

111. HBF notes that we are in the midst of a Housing Crisis. Housing delivery is therefore a key challenge facing Sandwell Borough. To address the housing crisis the Council needs to allocate enough sites to meet the housing requirement and provide choice and flexibility in supply. This will require the allocation of a mix and range of sites in a variety of locations. The policies in the Plan with then near careful monitoring to ensure they are delivering the housing. The Sandwell Local Plan must ensure the delivery of new housing to meet both open market and affordable housing needs.

112. HBF note that the Issue and Options consultation document suggested that that Council was of the view that Sandwell was so constrained it may only be able to provide 9,492 against an identified need of 30,300 new dwellings between 2021 and 2041, less than a third of what is needed. The Reg 18 consultation version is now seeking providing 11,167 homes against a requirement of 29,773 homes by 2041. HBF is unclear of the reasoning and justification for this change.

113. The issue of housing is critically important and needs urgently addressing through the plan-making process. HBF believes that the Council needs to explore any and all options to meet the housing need and requirement of Sandwell. This must include full consideration of the current Housing Crisis and if it results in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would require the need for a Green Belt review. A plan that seeks to meet only third of the need does not deliver is simply not good enough and does represent an effective use of the plan-led system.

114. HBF suggest more flexibility is needed within the plan, so that it is able to respond to any changing circumstances. HBF do not support the inclusion of policies within a Local Plan that merely triggers a review of the Local Plan if monitoring shows housing delivery is not occurring as expected. Such a policy does nothing to address the housing crisis or undersupply of homes. There are other more effective and immediate measures that could be introduced into policy that would enable the Council to address housing under deliver, much more quickly than would be possible through the production of another plan, or plan review.

115. It is important that houses are brought forward, and the matter addressed as soon as possible, if under delivery is observed. HBF would suggest, as a minimum, explicit reference should be made within the Plan’s policy to the potential to bring forward supply earlier. However, as the housing need and requirement figures for the Plan are minimum (not maximum) figures the Council could also specifically identify reserve sites, particular sites that could/would be brought forward sooner to address any under delivery whatever the reason for that under performance. This could be a shortfall in market housing permissions granted and/or completions, affordable housing permissions granted and/or completions and any failure against the Housing Delivery Test or local plan monitoring. More is needed on how and when monitoring will be undertaken and more is needed on what action(S) will be taken when if monitoring shows under delivery of housing.

116. There remains a need to address issues that are wider-than-local matters in a joined-up manner under the Duty to Cooperate. The HBF notes that Sandwell was closely involved in the production of the Black Country Plan (BCP), alongside the other three Black Country councils, but that work on the joint BCP officially ceased in October 2022. The HBF notes that the BCP website says “it is with regret that we are unable to reach agreement on the approach to planning for future development needs within the framework of the Black Country Plan”. The statement on the website continues that “Local Plans for the four Black Country Councils will now provide the framework for the long- term planning of the Black Country. The Black Country Plan 2039 work programme will end, and we will now transition to a process focused on Local Plans. The issues of housing and employment land need will now be addressed through individual Local Plans for each of the authorities. The Councils will co- operate with each other and with other key bodies as they prepare their Local Plans." This suggests compliance with the Duty to Cooperate may be a key challenge for meeting the legal requirements of plan-making in Sandwell.

117. HBF suggest that there is a need for housing monitoring to be undertaken across the wider region. If other areas are providing housing to meet Sandwell’s need, Sandwell will need to be monitoring this delivery to ensure its needs are being met. However, HBF firmly believe Sandwell should be doing more to address its own needs, including Green Belt release.

118. The HBF would encourage the Council to fully consider the housing needs of the Borough and robustly consider the need for additional housing in the housing requirement before then considering how much of the housing requirement can be met within the Borough, and how much may be unmet. It is important for the housing requirement to reflect the housing needs and growth aspirations of the Borough and not be restricted by capacity considerations, which should be considered after the housing requirement has been set.

119. HBF suggest that the monitoring framework at the end of the Plan needs to be expanded. The Council will need to monitor the delivery of housing and publish progress against a published Housing Trajectory Housing monitoring should be undertaken on a site-by-site basis. Therefore, the detailed housing trajectory including for specific sites should be inserted included within the Plan.

120. HBF note that as we are in the midst of a housing crisis, it is very important that the Council ensures that the Local Plan delivers all the housing that is being planned for. Sandwell should also monitor the delivery of any unmet need by neighbouring authorities and actively participate in local plan consultations and examinations to ensure the need for other authorities to meet their need is robustly supported in neighbouring Local Plans.

Thank you for consulting with Birmingham City Council on your Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18). Overall, Birmingham City Council is supportive of the approach taken within the Draft Local Plan and the following points provide further comment and detail on specific strategic and cross-boundary issues.

As previously stated, the City Council has had a strong working relationship with Sandwell alongside the other Black Country Authorities regarding planning matters for many years, particularly as the two authorities share a considerable joint boundary. This has been recently illustrated by the successful adoption of the Smethwick to Birmingham Corridor Framework SPD which will help to maximise mutually beneficial development opportunities across the boundary along that corridor. In addition, the two local planning authorities continue to work closely alongside the other local authorities which make up the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA), to identify ways in which housing and employment land shortfalls can be met across the wider HMA since such shortfalls emerged (following the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan in 2017).
Birmingham is currently progressing its own Local Plan with consultation on the Preferred Options document due to be carried out during Summer 2024. Consultation on the Issues and Options for the Birmingham Local Plan identified further significant potential housing and employment land shortfalls for the City, and this is likely to continue to be reflected when consultation on the Preferred Options is carried out.

Chapter 2 – Spatial Strategy

The Standard Methodology for calculating housing needs for Sandwell identifies that land for 29,773 homes is required by 2041. The Spatial Strategy chapter sets out the context of how the development choices for Sandwell have been made. These choices, and the finite land constraints experienced in a predominantly urban Borough such as Sandwell, means that only land for 11,167 homes can be identified, leaving a significant shortfall and unmet housing need of 18,606 homes. Similarly, Sandwell’s draft plan has also identified a shortfall of 189 hectares of employment land compared to its projected need as set out in its Employment Development Needs Assessment.

The Spatial Strategy sets out the options explored (paras 2.19-2.30) to minimise the shortfalls experienced including consideration green belt and greenfield sites. The Borough has very few large open spaces and very little green belt land (mainly in Sandwell Valley) and, due to its built-up nature, these areas are important to biodiversity, health and wellbeing. The City Council therefore agrees with the development choices being made within the draft Plan, and the constraints experienced within Sandwell, which has resulted in this significant shortfall.

Through evidence provided for its new Local Plan, Birmingham City Council has also identified an initial estimated shortfall of 78,415 homes across the city for the proposed Plan period of 2022-2042. The City Council still has further work to do to identify further potential sources of housing land supply and will ensure that opportunities within its administrative area will be truly maximised prior to any shortfall being exported to other areas. It is also important that Sandwell, like Birmingham, continues to strive to accommodate as much housing and employment as possible to meet its own needs by making effective use of land and maximising densities.

However, even with proactive measures to increase supply in place, it is still highly likely that shortfalls will remain in both local authority areas going forward. It is therefore essential for close working to continue between the two authorities and across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA to try and address the shortfalls as much as possible across the wider HMA area.

Chapter 3 – Development Strategy

The Development Strategy includes a section on how Sandwell has carried out its Duty to Co-operate obligations in the preparation of the Local Plan so far (Paras. 3.12-3.19). Given the development pressures and the housing and employment land shortfalls being experienced in the Borough (and those within Birmingham), it is crucial that Sandwell continues to work closely with the City Council as well as the other surrounding local authorities which make up the HMA, to identify and implement an agreed approach to tackle how such shortfalls are to be accommodated to ensure the soundness of both Local Plans.

The City Council agrees that Sandwell has worked openly and constructively with neighbouring authorities to help provide as much certainty as possible about how and where its full housing and employment land needs will be delivered as set out within this section. It supports the commitment to ongoing engagement with its neighbours, building on the partnership approach developed across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area.
This commitment also extends to working with neighbours to bring forward land for employment and housing that sits adjacent to existing administrative boundaries and working in partnership to ensure infrastructure needs are met in full across administrative boundaries. As mentioned above, given that Sandwell shares a considerable joint boundary with Birmingham and the successful adoption of the joint SPD for the Smethwick to Birmingham Regeneration Corridor, this commitment is particularly welcomed to bring forward much need development and regeneration opportunities to this part of the conurbation. In relation to this point, the City Council is therefore also supportive of the inclusion of Smethwick as one of five Regeneration Areas as part of the Development Strategy within the Draft Local Plan (Policy SDS2). This will help to promote and cement the development and regeneration opportunities on the boundary with Birmingham which will have mutual regeneration benefits for both authorities with a focus around the development of the new Midland Metropolitan Hospital (which will serve communities on either side of the boundary).

Summary

In summary, Birmingham City Council is supportive of the approach being taken by Sandwell in developing its Local Plan and will also continue to support on-going collaborative working across the HMA and economic market area in addressing wider housing and employment needs. Given that Sandwell and Birmingham are both anticipating potentially large shortfalls in housing and employment land in their Local Plans, it is therefore important that the two local authorities continue to work closely, as well as with surrounding local authorities in the HMA, to identify and implement an agreed approach to tackle how such shortfalls are to be accommodated to ensure the soundness of both Plans.

In addition, it will be necessary to promote and encourage further work across these wider market areas to provide a strategic approach to the supply and delivery of housing and employment needs in future years to mitigate for the potential unmet needs across the conurbation. As stated in previous correspondence but worth repeating, this may require and include further studies across the wider West Midlands area as well as Statements of Common Ground with, and between, relevant local authorities as a roadmap for meeting shortfalls through potential local plan allocations elsewhere.

We look forward to continued engagement with you through Duty to Cooperate arrangements as both Local Plans progress towards adoption.

Thank you for consulting with Birmingham City Council on your Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18). Overall, Birmingham City Council is supportive of the approach taken within the Draft Local Plan and the following points provide further comment and detail on specific strategic and cross-boundary issues.

As previously stated, the City Council has had a strong working relationship with Sandwell alongside the other Black Country Authorities regarding planning matters for many years, particularly as the two authorities share a considerable joint boundary. This has been recently illustrated by the successful adoption of the Smethwick to Birmingham Corridor Framework SPD which will help to maximise mutually beneficial development opportunities across the boundary along that corridor. In addition, the two local planning authorities continue to work closely alongside the other local authorities which make up the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (HMA), to identify ways in which housing and employment land shortfalls can be met across the wider HMA since such shortfalls emerged (following the adoption of the Birmingham Development Plan in 2017).
Birmingham is currently progressing its own Local Plan with consultation on the Preferred Options document due to be carried out during Summer 2024. Consultation on the Issues and Options for the Birmingham Local Plan identified further significant potential housing and employment land shortfalls for the City, and this is likely to continue to be reflected when consultation on the Preferred Options is carried out.

Chapter 2 – Spatial Strategy

The Standard Methodology for calculating housing needs for Sandwell identifies that land for 29,773 homes is required by 2041. The Spatial Strategy chapter sets out the context of how the development choices for Sandwell have been made. These choices, and the finite land constraints experienced in a predominantly urban Borough such as Sandwell, means that only land for 11,167 homes can be identified, leaving a significant shortfall and unmet housing need of 18,606 homes. Similarly, Sandwell’s draft plan has also identified a shortfall of 189 hectares of employment land compared to its projected need as set out in its Employment Development Needs Assessment.

The Spatial Strategy sets out the options explored (paras 2.19-2.30) to minimise the shortfalls experienced including consideration green belt and greenfield sites. The Borough has very few large open spaces and very little green belt land (mainly in Sandwell Valley) and, due to its built-up nature, these areas are important to biodiversity, health and wellbeing. The City Council therefore agrees with the development choices being made within the draft Plan, and the constraints experienced within Sandwell, which has resulted in this significant shortfall.

Through evidence provided for its new Local Plan, Birmingham City Council has also identified an initial estimated shortfall of 78,415 homes across the city for the proposed Plan period of 2022-2042. The City Council still has further work to do to identify further potential sources of housing land supply and will ensure that opportunities within its administrative area will be truly maximised prior to any shortfall being exported to other areas. It is also important that Sandwell, like Birmingham, continues to strive to accommodate as much housing and employment as possible to meet its own needs by making effective use of land and maximising densities.

However, even with proactive measures to increase supply in place, it is still highly likely that shortfalls will remain in both local authority areas going forward. It is therefore essential for close working to continue between the two authorities and across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA to try and address the shortfalls as much as possible across the wider HMA area.

Chapter 3 – Development Strategy

The Development Strategy includes a section on how Sandwell has carried out its Duty to Co-operate obligations in the preparation of the Local Plan so far (Paras. 3.12-3.19). Given the development pressures and the housing and employment land shortfalls being experienced in the Borough (and those within Birmingham), it is crucial that Sandwell continues to work closely with the City Council as well as the other surrounding local authorities which make up the HMA, to identify and implement an agreed approach to tackle how such shortfalls are to be accommodated to ensure the soundness of both Local Plans.

The City Council agrees that Sandwell has worked openly and constructively with neighbouring authorities to help provide as much certainty as possible about how and where its full housing and employment land needs will be delivered as set out within this section. It supports the commitment to ongoing engagement with its neighbours, building on the partnership approach developed across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area.
This commitment also extends to working with neighbours to bring forward land for employment and housing that sits adjacent to existing administrative boundaries and working in partnership to ensure infrastructure needs are met in full across administrative boundaries. As mentioned above, given that Sandwell shares a considerable joint boundary with Birmingham and the successful adoption of the joint SPD for the Smethwick to Birmingham Regeneration Corridor, this commitment is particularly welcomed to bring forward much need development and regeneration opportunities to this part of the conurbation. In relation to this point, the City Council is therefore also supportive of the inclusion of Smethwick as one of five Regeneration Areas as part of the Development Strategy within the Draft Local Plan (Policy SDS2). This will help to promote and cement the development and regeneration opportunities on the boundary with Birmingham which will have mutual regeneration benefits for both authorities with a focus around the development of the new Midland Metropolitan Hospital (which will serve communities on either side of the boundary).

Summary

In summary, Birmingham City Council is supportive of the approach being taken by Sandwell in developing its Local Plan and will also continue to support on-going collaborative working across the HMA and economic market area in addressing wider housing and employment needs. Given that Sandwell and Birmingham are both anticipating potentially large shortfalls in housing and employment land in their Local Plans, it is therefore important that the two local authorities continue to work closely, as well as with surrounding local authorities in the HMA, to identify and implement an agreed approach to tackle how such shortfalls are to be accommodated to ensure the soundness of both Plans.

In addition, it will be necessary to promote and encourage further work across these wider market areas to provide a strategic approach to the supply and delivery of housing and employment needs in future years to mitigate for the potential unmet needs across the conurbation. As stated in previous correspondence but worth repeating, this may require and include further studies across the wider West Midlands area as well as Statements of Common Ground with, and between, relevant local authorities as a roadmap for meeting shortfalls through potential local plan allocations elsewhere.

We look forward to continued engagement with you through Duty to Cooperate arrangements as both Local Plans progress towards adoption.

Thank you for inviting comments on the Draft Sandwell Local Plan Review: Stage 2. Overall, we support this plan with many of the proposals referenced, fully assisting with the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) goals and aspirations to create a more prosperous and better connected West Midlands which is fairer, greener and healthier and those within the agreed Core Strategy of the new West Midlands statutory Local Transport Plan (WMLTP5), the draft Six Big Moves and work on the Area Strategies. We especially welcome the positive ambition for improving transport across Sandwell, which outlines new opportunities within the coming years, and its bold intent for improving the transport system.

This version of the Sandwell Local Plan has also addressed many of our issues highlighted in the Issues and Options stage, or in previous responses to the Black Country Plan and this is very welcomed.

Many of the transport proposals referenced will assist in delivering wider economic growth aspirations including providing over 185 hectares of employment land and 29,773 new homes by 2041 (but appreciating the shortfalls in meeting these figures) together with continuing to help reduce transport impacts on people and places including supporting decarbonisation. We would therefore like to continue this strong partnership working in delivering on both WMLTP5 outcomes and in shaping the transport elements contained within the Sandwell Local Plan.

This response by Transport for West Midlands (TfWM), who are the transport arm of the WMCA and the region’s Local Transport Authority, consists of comments on the general strategic direction of the Local Plan, as well as some specific technical comments on various modes including public transport services, smart and active travel and the Key Route Network (KRN).

These comments, which predominantly focus on chapter 11 Transport, are now outlined below, with a focus on the questions posed in the consultation. However, we have also provided comments on other chapters of the local plan, which have implications on our transport network including housing, employment and local centres.
Introduction Section

Paragraph 60 under the header “Sandwell’s Spatial Portrait” it refers to the Strategic Road Network. However, this does not acknowledge the Major Road Network or Key Route Network that operates within Sandwell.
When describing the road network across Sandwell, it should be noted that the WMCA have recently begun a review of the Key Route Network (KRN) and subject to approval, the following changes will be implemented and will affect Sandwell. These being:

• The removal of the B4171 Birmingham Road from its junction with A4100 Henderson Way (Rowley Regis) to its junction with A459 Castle Hill (Dudley)
• NEW KRN: Sandon Road from its junction with A4030 Bearwood Road (Smethwick) to its junction with A4040 Barnsley Road (Birmingham)

Capturing opportunities through our levelling up zones as part of the ground-breaking Deeper Devolution Deal should also be noted, especially for those across the wider Black Country.

Therefore, making sure the Sandwell Local Plan picks up on these changes would be welcomed.

11. Transport Chapter

TfWM strongly welcomes reference to the importance of regional transport links being made and how the borough may impact other areas. We must point out however, that our ‘West Midlands Local Transport Plan 5 Core Strategy: Reimagining Transport in the West Midlands’ has now been approved, and while other elements of the suite of Local Transport Plan 5 (WMLTP5) documents have yet to be approved including our Six Big Moves and Area Strategies, these should all be approved by the end of 2024. Once all elements of the WMLTP5 are endorsed by the WMCA Board, Movement for Growth will be superseded by the WM LTP5.

Additionally, as a general comment whilst decarbonisation is mentioned within the Climate Change chapter, a key objective of our WM LTP5 is to decarbonise our transport system. We would therefore strongly encourage greater consideration of decarbonisation throughout all of the transport-related policies and in particular, be mindful of the work WMCA is undertaking as part of Adept’s Live Lab 2 programme with the Centre of Excellence for the Decarbonisation of local Roads (CEDR).

Introduction section

In the introduction section of the transport chapter (11), there appears to be parts of the KRN missing from Figure 13. This may be due to the mapping layers used but we would like clarification that the KRN is correctly designated on Sandwell’s highway network.

Furthermore, on page 17, paragraph 34 (and last bullet point) should be changed to say “Wednesbury to Brierley Hill Metro Extension via Dudley – this will create a direct public transport route from Wednesbury to the Wolverhampton to Walsall Birmingham New St rail line at the Dudley Port interchange”.

Additionally, on page 23 (section 61) this should read “West Coast Main Line” and not West Coast Mainline as is currently the case.

Policy STR1 – Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network

We strongly welcome this policy and broadly agree with it. However, our comments on Sandwell’s issues and options document still stand, where we requested stronger acknowledgement to exploring road space re-allocation for active travel and public transport. Our assessment of the challenges being faced by the region suggests this will be difficult to realise unless there are conscious efforts to reduce overall car dependency.

We would further welcome the plan capturing our ‘15 minute neighbourhood’ concept, together with exploiting the opportunities at regional interchanges to ensure that people can access other services (e.g. health and leisure) by public transport, with this being our ‘45 minute region’ concept.

Paragraph 11.17 should also reference and fully reflect the new West Midlands LTP Core strategy. And likewise, paragraph 11.20 should reference the Bus Service Improvement Plan which outlines a number of positive bus measures being introduced over the next few years to increase patronage and deliver on modal share targets.

While several measures in this local plan are clearly moving in a positive direction towards achieving this ambition, only by continuing to work in partnership, in areas like local plans/transport plans, we can collaboratively be “bolder” in the actions we take to support and drive behaviour change and respond to those difficult challenges, which in turn will then deliver on shared local, regional and national ambitions using a range of transport, land use and wider public policy levers.

While we fully agree that the impacts of Covid 19 have had significant impacts on patronage levels and taking several years to recover, which is talked about in the opening paragraph for this policy, we would welcome some statistics on this and the tone to be framed in a more positive manner, to not diminish the importance of public transport and the opportunities which lie ahead for us. But appreciating that bus services have been particularly impacted by rising fuel and inflationary costs as well as driver shortages and threatening their operational costs and viability. But with continued funding through the transport levy, from our local authority partners we remain positive in delivering a strong public transport network.

Whilst we further appreciate indirect references to our KRN Action Plans, elements of these are now considered (in parts) outdated, and we would welcome a greater emphasis placed on good partnership working with TfWM to deliver on these elements.

We further welcome reference to Park and Ride facilities where appropriate, but noting TfWM should be involved in any conversations regarding any development work which explores new Park and Ride locations, to ensure they are strategically located, take advantage of the links between the SRN and KRN, and help to reduce the number of private vehicle journeys.

It would also be helpful to have reference to Strategic Road Network Designated Routes for Unplanned Events (DRUEs). These routes could be indicated within Figure 13 and referenced in paragraph 11.31.

Finally, we welcome reference to coaches and their role in providing affordable long-distance connectivity. However, there is no policy or action detailing the promotion of coaches which we feel should be included.

Policy STR2 – Safeguarding the Development of the Key Route Network (KRN)

This is a strong policy and we fully welcome this, together with continued partnership working to develop strategies for the KRN. The KRN is important for making journeys across our region and will we continue working closely with Sandwell to ensure that this network:

• Provides safer and reliable journey times to ensure a consistent customer experience.
• Reflects the ‘Sustainable Transport User Hierarchy’ (as referenced in our 6 Big Moves) and rebalancing the needs of people, place, and vehicles.
• Ensures the KRN is resilient to existing and future challenges, and adaptable to emerging innovations to capitalise on future opportunities.

In terms of public transport, we welcome the importance placed on this mode but we recommend the narrative be strengthened around journey numbers rather than trips, which TfWM can provide on request.

In paragraph 11.23 the RTCC is the Regional Transport Coordination Centre and not the Regional Transport Control Centre, so please alter this.

In paragraph 11.24 reference is further made of providing “fast” public transport. Whilst this was likely intended to suggest that public transport could compete with private transport in terms of journey time, we would not encourage the use of this word. The Regional Road Safety Partnership is working toward Vision Zero and a safe system approach and believes all road users have a responsibility to use the network safely, so more appropriate wording like “reliable”, “dependable” or “consistent” public transport is recommended.

Finally, in paragraph 11.27 it mentions collaboration of all four authorities in their role as LHAs in managing the network efficiently. Presumably this is referring to the four Black Country Authorities, but we would also welcome the importance of Sandwell working collaboratively with its neighbouring Local Highway Authorities such as Birmingham City Council and National Highways.

Policy STR3 – Managing Transport Impacts of New Development

It is welcoming to see a stronger stance being applied to achieving accessibility for new development and the joined-up approach this policy lends itself to, which in turn, will contribute to the reduction of private vehicle journeys and good built-in public transport and active travel alternatives for all new developments.

While still no direct reference is made to the ‘Triple Access System’ of accessibility which includes: physical mobility, digital connectivity, and land use planning nor reference to our Big Move 2: Accessible and Inclusive Places, we can see this policy pays consideration to helping provide enhanced accessibility whilst also addressing the negative impacts of mobility on people and places. Through the Black Country LTP Area Strategy, we will further hope together, be able to capture some of these elements.

Under this policy, we would also like to ensure that all new development includes safe active travel infrastructure that makes connections to wider cycling and walking networks, as well as providing sustainable access and infrastructure to Park and Ride sites.

Provision of secure cycle parking at new developments is also important with infrastructure being aligned to LTN1/20 and Manual for Streets 2 guidance. The justification section could also provide more details of the risk exposure to cyclists and pedestrians, especially where the KRN provides facilities for fast, high-volume traffic. Providing near miss data (especially at junctions or where collisions involve cyclists and pedestrians) as well as undertaking spatial analysis (which appreciates the top deciles of areas of deprivation) will further be important, as these account for over 50% of all Killed and Seriously Injured in the region, with a reasonable proportion occurring in Sandwell. This data will then help justify a policy for these issues and TfWM can support in obtaining this data insight.

Policy STR4 – The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics

We welcome our previous comments on freight and logistics now being incorporated under a separate policy in its own right. We therefore welcome this policy, and the role new technologies could play in delivering more efficient, and sustainable alternatives, together with the use of rail to fulfil the increase in freight / HGV journeys, alongside that of e-commerce vehicles.

Incorporating a policy which supports new infrastructure on existing railway land, to grow and improve the existing local rail network is welcoming but the policy should also ensure it safeguards new depots or stabling sidings which would then support additional, and longer trains.

There is omission however of policies for suitable HGV parking provision to cater for the area’s anticipated use, including as appropriate stop over provision, and amenity facilities to serve the needs of HGV drivers.

Under this policy, the safety of pedestrians should also be captured, as 68% of fatal and serious collisions are a result of heavy goods vehicles.

While in the justification section it promotes the use of e-cargo bikes, low emission vehicles and the use of micromobility to transport goods, emphasing this in the policies would further be welcomed, especially for last mile journeys.

Finally, under this policy we would suggest reemphasising the need for greater consideration being placed on time-based policy for freight vehicles using the KRN and other roads, so that there are fewer clashes between peak commuter traffic and freight movements.

Policy STR5 – Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking

This policy is strongly welcomed, but its justification should take note that our KRN represents a significant number of journeys being made and is inclusive of bike journeys. Our ambitions focus heavily on delivering a segregated cycle network that matches the KRN, either directly, or via parallel routes, to serve our region’s centres, and so it is promising to see the proposed cycle routes delivering on this ambition.

Exploring further where there could be opportunity for innovation in this space would also be welcomed such as side road zebra crossings, table junctions or shared streets, with policies promoting the trialing of these.

Policy STR6 – Influencing the Demand for Travel and Travel Choices

Again, we fully welcome many of these policies and are extremely supportive of those measures which prioritise sustainable and active travel options which help contribute to a more reliable performance along our KRN and local roads.

Adding a policy which focuses on the importance of the reallocation of road space and providing greater priority at junctions to sustainable transport users may be worth exploring under this section, to strengthen this policy concerning demand for travel.

Yet it should be noted for new Park and Ride sites (where these maybe explored), our Park and Ride Strategy states “we will give priority to key intercept locations, rather than local park and ride expansions”. In fact, we put measures in place to discourage people from making short car trips to those local station / stops and encourage people to walk, wheel or use public transport instead, and ensure any car parking is available for people only who are travelling from further afield with investment in sustainable modes of travel being the first priority. This approach is taken, as over two thirds of our current users are travelling 2 miles or less.

Based on this evidence and our own policies in this area, the policy relating to park and ride should be re-worded to say: “identifying appropriate intercept park and ride sites on current public transport routes to ease traffic flows into centres and surrounding areas” and we should not be expanding local park and ride sites in already busy local, residential areas.

The policy could also be elaborated further concerning the need for more appropriate traffic calming measures and modal filters along residential roads. This would improve road safety and discourage cut-through driving.

The work undertaken by TfWM’s Behaviour Change Hub could also be touched upon through providing key travel planning information, advice and travel clinics as well as support where there is disruption.
Policy STR7 – Network Management

We are supportive of this policy and are happy to support Sandwell MBC in this duty through the sharing of TfWM assets and resources, as well as exploring innovative approaches together.

Policy STR8 – Parking Management
While many of these policies on parking management are strongly welcomed, there are no policies which promote parking provision for alternatives to car ownership, such as the use of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) car clubs or car sharing as examples.

Parking issues are also not specific to town centre car parks but are issues along key corridors such as the KRN. Therefore, parking should be seen as a bigger concern, beyond just town centres.

Within our LTP Core Strategy, we promote the managing of car parking more carefully (both in terms of availability and price). While we appreciate removing car parks all together and using the land for other uses, or raising car parking prices can often be contentious at first, they will often encourage more people to use public transport in the longer term. Where many places have undertaken these policies and raised revenue for reinvestment in more sustainable modes of travel, more positive results for both high streets and the wider locality have been achieved so we feel this policy could be strengthened much further.

There is further nothing relating to the enforcement of pavement parking laws to give that space back to people walking or wheeling or better enforcement of parking, moving traffic offences and Traffic Regulation Orders together with the digitisation of these to make them more accessible to the wider public or to enable more efficient loading and deliveries, noting proposals in the government’s Plan for Drivers documentation. This should also coincide with a simplification of on-street waiting and loading restrictions across Sandwell – and an agreed alignment across the West Midlands – to ensure drivers are not confused. This will help make enforcement easier and ensure greater compliance from road-users, ensuring there are fewer disruptions on our road networks caused from indiscriminate parking. If the policy section could capture these additions, we feel this could make a significant difference.

Finally considering a workplace parking levy to encourage more people to leave their cars at home when they commute could also be something the local plan explores.

Policy STR9 – Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

While we welcome the suggested policies proposed under this section including accommodating Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) charging networks, more fundamental shifts in behaviours, including a reduction in car usage will also be required. It should be further noted that ZEVs tend to be larger and heavier and produce higher levels of PM2.5 than conventional cars and many models require more space for parking, and therefore we should not seek to incentivise individuals to use an ZEV, over public transport and active travel modes.

It will also be important these policies align to WMCAs (Draft) ZEV Charging and Refueling Strategy, where Sandwell Council was a key partner in its development. This includes ensuring the location of EV charging points are strategically located.

Finally, TfWM would like to note that EV chargers can often be seen as part of the ever growing “street furniture clutter”. Therefore, with the importance of road space reallocation, priority should always be given to active travel and rapid transit before accommodating EV charging on the KRN and local road networks.

Policy STR10 – Transport Innovation and Digital Connectivity
The comments regarding how traffic signals can respond to levels of congestion and prioritise sustainable transport modes is supported. Yet at the same time, we would welcome further information that discusses the proven benefit of this at M5 J1 and how getting signals on UTC allows greater direct influence from signal engineers to support the network at times of need, via integration with Sandwell UTC and greater coordination with the RTCC.


Other transport related comments
In terms of traffic modelling, the growth estimated from the data TfWM have received in the uncertainty log for our models from local authorities (the log which records housing and employment developments) is considerably different from that of national forecasts. This was first an issue based on the WBHE business case work, and while we have developed an approach to deal with this, we believe we need to re-look at this in the new year. The Black Country Authorities including Sandwell are aware of these issues and it will be important to continue working closely with TfWM’s Transport Planning Team (with this function now being brought in-house). Especially in terms of the certainty of development so we can better control the process and requirements and fully align our transport schemes with those of new development coming forward.
Other chapter comments

3. Development Strategy
Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy

Under this policy header, the plan expresses a need to ensure growth is sustainable by allocating housing in locations with the highest levels of sustainable transport access to residential services (retail provision, schools, healthcare facilities, fresh food, employment etc).

Whilst fully supporting this, we feel this could be even stronger in that it should seek to ensure that all new development is designed to encourage sustainable travel and that it doesn't make transport worse in any way.


6. Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell
Policy SHW3 – Air Quality

While TfWM fully welcomes air quality being captured in this chapter, we would welcome embedding policies relating to air quality in all of the transport-related policies as well, due to the high percentage of responsibility that transport holds for air pollutants and policies throughout the local plan which favour growth in places which support sustainable modes and reduces the need to travel.

Also, whilst climate adaptation and ensuring the transport system is responding to climate impacts is picked up in chapter 15: Development Management, we need to ensure we reduce our carbon footprint and climate adaption is focused upon concerning transport in more detail, and not linked only to design but captured more generally.

7. Sandwell Housing
Policy SH03 - Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

Within the bullet points (for section 3 of the policy) we strongly feel a minimum of 50 dwellings per hectare and not 45 is recommended as a minimum. In many other local plans across England, 50 – 60 is often applied.

The local plan may also want to consider higher minimum housing densities for areas located along or close to high frequency public transport corridors or near to transport hubs.

Additionally, developing a public transport accessibility criteria for residential developments – depending on their location to high frequency transport corridors, stations and centres may further be of value in the local plan. We are aware of Greater Manchester Combined Authorities Places for Everyone Plan which maximises the number of people living in the most accessible places, helping to increase the proportion of trips made by walking, cycling and public transport, and reducing the demand for car-based travel.

Setting standards therefore to deliver on density appropriate developments at certain locations which reflect the relative accessibility of the site by walking, cycling and public transport and the need to achieve efficient use of land may add value to this local plan. And TfWM would therefore be happy to work with Sandwell MBC on this additional policy, if they feel it is appropriate.

8. Sandwell’s Economy
While we have no specific policies we would change in this section, we strongly welcome policy SEC5, in terms of access to labour markets. Yet accessibility could also be captured in the Strategic Employment Areas policies and Local Employment Areas, given that Sandwell has higher levels of non-car ownership than the rest of the West Midlands, so we need to ensure that all new employment is accessible by sustainable and active travel modes, for as many people to access as possible.

9. Sandwell’s Centres
Policy SCE1 - Sandwell's Centres
Similar to our comments concerning residential developments, in the general policy for centres across Sandwell, public transport accessibility to differing tiered centres could further be considered, with a criteria in place to ensure that they are well served, by the core bus network. Similar public transport accessibility criteria’s have been developed for other local plans – ensuring varying hierarchies of centres are serves by appropriate public transport provision and could be something Sandwell Council may want to consider developing within its local plan.

Conclusion

Overall, we very much welcome the sustainable transport ambitions set out in Sandwell’s Local Plan for improved connectivity via public transport and active travel infrastructure and we can clearly see many measures in this local plan moving in a positive direction to achieve our WM LTP5 ambitions.

Clearly many of our comments from the last version of the local plan have been included and we hope our above policy suggestions and comments, may further help strengthen the plan, and we welcome these being included in the final stage of the local plan. Our work with you on the Area Strategy for the Black Country will further help to improve the relationship between the Sandwell Local Plan and the development and delivery of transport strategy across Sandwell - be it concerning those key regional transport schemes like rapid transit and our core bus networks or in ways to support more local behaviour change and those measures that can help people move around more sustainably in their local neighbourhoods.

3. Development Strategy

3.12-3.19 Duty to Co-operate

It is recognised that Sandwell’s geography provides particular challenges as regards meeting identified housing and employment land needs within its own boundaries. The shortfalls identified are significant, and the impact on other authorities within the Housing Market Area are expected to be considerable. As a general principle, Sandwell Council is encouraged to fully explore all reasonable options in order to meet as much of its own identified need as possible.

The South Warwickshire authorities note that any overspill of unmet housing or employment needs brings with it a need for additional infrastructure in the areas accommodating this overspill, in order to meet the needs of residents and businesses. As such, it is anticipated that any future considerations regarding accommodating overspill within the South Warwickshire area will also need to address these additional infrastructure needs.

3.77-3.85 Green Belt

It is acknowledged that the Green Belt in Sandwell protects a relatively limited area of valuable open space within a heavily urbanised area. As such, it is agreed that it would not be appropriate to seek to release Green Belt land for development in Sandwell.

7. Sandwell’s Housing

7.12-7.13 Windfall Development

Given the shortfall in housing sites for allocation, Sandwell Council should act to maximise the amount of new housing that can come forward on windfall sites, and in particular, on existing residential sites. This could be through the development of design codes which set out ways to appropriately densify existing residential areas, for example through infill, additional storeys, sub-division, or replacement dwellings.

7.14-7.22 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

The principle of establishing minimum densities for new housing, based on location and proximity to services and public transport, is supported. However, it is suggested that the baseline densities are in some cases inappropriately low, given the existing development pattern. It would be expected that many of Sandwell’s historic Victorian terraces would have densities well in excess of 40 dph, which demonstrates that family housing can be successfully accommodated while optimising densities.

It is also anticipated that calculating the appropriate density for an application site could be complicated and subject to challenge from applicants. There is potential ambiguity existing around whether a particular facility should be used to determine accessibility, what mode of transport to use, and what distances could be reasonably covered by that mode of transport. It would be clearer and simpler if the Council included on its policies map zones where different minimum densities would apply. For example using buffer distances from public transport and town centres.

8. Sandwell’s Economy

8.7-8.11 Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs
Given the shortfall in available employment land, Sandwell Council is encouraged to ensure that efficient use is made of the land that is available. While it may not be possible to require a minimum density as happens with housing land, there may be other ways to maximise the economic benefit from employment land.

The draft Local Plan contains locally specific policies and strategic / non-strategic site allocations to support the housing and employment requirements across Sandwell for the plan period of 2022 to 2041. We note that when adopted, this Local Plan will

replace the Black Country Core Strategy (adopted in 2011), the Sandwell Site Allocations and Development Plan Document (the SAD, adopted in 2012) and Area Action Plans for West Bromwich, Smethwick and Tipton. We also note that the Local Plan will incorporate elements of former supplementary planning documents as appropriate and will include details from the West Bromwich Masterplan and Interim Planning Statement.

National Highways agree in principle to the vision and objectives of the Draft Local Plan.

Housing and employment requirements

Based on our review of the Regulation 18 consultation, we note that the housing and employment requirement has changed slightly since the ‘Issues and Options’ consultation. The draft Local Plan consultation document outlines that there is a requirement to deliver 185 hectares of employment land and 29,773 dwellings over the plan period up to 2041. We note that the housing and employment requirement have primarily been identified based on the National Standard method on housing projections and Economic Development Need Assessment (EDNA) respectively.

While the housing demand stands at 29,773 dwellings, supply for 11,167 dwellings is expected to come through the adoption of the upcoming Local Plan, thereby leaving an unmet need for 18,606 homes. We appreciate that the Council will liaise with the neighbouring authorities to help accommodate some of Sandwell’s unmet housing needs through their own housing provision. National Highways welcomes further information on this once the Council identifies the working arrangement and we look forward to understanding the impacts from these developments on the SRN in the area as you progress into Regulation 19.

The quantum of employment land intended to be delivered through the Local Plan is 42ha, with a shortfall of 143ha. We note that the housing and employment supply identified in the Draft Local Plan has considered the existing planning applications, sites under construction, and windfall allowance.

We note that a Sustainability Appraisal process has been undertaken to streamline the different housing and employment growth options and acknowledge that the allocation of sites has taken into consideration the location, availability of greenfield/ brownfield sites, and sustainability elements through a ‘Balanced Green Growth’ approach. We note that the new development allocations are focussed within the Regeneration Areas and Centres, which is likely to lead to a more efficient use of land and in improving the sustainable travel options.

Sustainable transport

We acknowledge that the Draft Local Plan has specifically focussed on policies to tackle climate change by reduction in carbon emissions, improving sustainable modes of transport, development of energy efficient buildings, etc.

Policy STR3 sets out the need for planning applications to demonstrate how the development ensures adequate accessibility and connectivity, measures to improve sustainable transport, and requirement to produce a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan where necessary, and we welcome this. References have been made in Policy STR3 on how developers are expected to create an environment that encourages walking, cycling and public transport when designing their schemes.

Policies STR4 (The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics), STR5 (Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking) and STR6 (Influencing the Demand for Travel and Travel Choices) sets guidelines on improving the sustainable transport. We appreciate the effort taken in developing these policies and consider this to be aligned with the expectations set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Highways’ Net Zero Strategy.

Potential impact on the SRN

Based on our review of the Draft Local Plan and the Policies Map, we have identified a few sites from that may have the potential to impact the operation of the SRN in the area. The table overleaf (Table 1) contains the list of potential new housing sites that are likely to have an impact on the SRN in terms of traffic and / or boundary related matters. Please note that we have not included the employment sites in this table as the anticipated land-use and size of developable area are unavailable at this stage. Nonetheless, impacts are expected from employment sites identified in Policy SEC 1- 2,3,5,7,9 and 10 as a minimum.

Should the housing sites listed in Table 1 proceed to the final Local Plan, further assessment work may be required to ascertain the impact on the SRN and to determine the need for any mitigation if required. Whilst we have identified the immediate SRN junctions in close proximity to the housing site allocations where a likely impact is anticipated, it should be noted that the assessments should not be limited to these junctions only and a wider extent needs to be considered based on the scale of the proposed development.

Table 1: List of potential new housing allocations in the Sandwell Draft Local Plan (2022 – 2041) likely to have an impact on the SRN in the area (See attachment)

Impact Assessment

Any potential site that is anticipated to have an impact on the SRN in the area is recommended to be subject to consultation with National Highways, and appropriately assessed in line with the Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 01/2022 to determine the extent of their potential impacts on the SRN in the area. Depending on the scale of likely impact on the SRN in the area, the applicant/developer may need to identify suitable mitigation measures (if required). It is to be noted that the cumulative impact of the proposed site allocations also needs to be assessed in line with the Circular for understanding the likely traffic impacts on the SRN in the area in terms of capacity & safety and identifying any possible mitigation measures (if required).

We wish to continue to liaise with Sandwell MBC during the development of the Local Plan to understand which sites will be allocated and the potential impacts of these allocations on the SRN. National Highways recommends that a robust transport evidence base in the form of a Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) be produced to support the development of the Local Plan. To support this key piece of work we would recommend the setting up of a Transport Working Group, who can work with Sandwell MBC as the Local Planning Authority to agree the methodology, assessments and infrastructure requirements to support the Plan’s development and adoption.

Black Country Transport Modelling Report (2023)
We note that the Black Country Transport Modelling Report (2023) has been submitted as an evidence base to support the Local Plan and includes the draft scenario assessment, and we welcome this. We acknowledge that the modelling exercise will further be revised in the future as the Local Plan progresses and we look forward to hearing more on this in the Regulation 19 consultation. We have undertaken a high level review of this report and have the following comments:

1. There isn’t enough information available to understand the list of development allocations considered for the modelling exercise. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 of the report indicate the level of population and employment growth on a high-level basis, however no supporting appendices are available that list the development allocations included. Table 2-1 provides a list of the transport schemes coded within the model, and note that M5 J1 has been included in this list as a highway scheme. However, no further detail on the scope/extent of improvement is available. National Highways request clarification.

2. Table 2.1 details the transport schemes added to form the DS network. Several schemes were not included due to agreement between BCLA and the consultants, “…due to negligible impact on the network.” National Highways request some justification/documentation of these decisions.

3. Based on the information set out in section 1 of the report, it is to be understood that the modelling exercise was undertaken to support the Black Country Plan allocations proposed at the time. Also, the modelling report is dated 10 Jan 2023 and therefore, it's highly unlikely that the current set of development allocations proposed in Sandwell and Dudley Draft LP has been included within the development uncertainty log of this PRISM model. National Highways request clarification.

4. Assumptions are only discussed where they differ from the RC work detailed in the previous stage. Our technical partners, are therefore unable to review the unchanged parameters such as highway generalised cost, PT fare, values of time, vehicle operating cost and bus speed etc.. National Highways request this information is provided.

5. Highway model convergence: delta and link cost stability is achieved, but link flow stability (>98% of link with link flow change <1% for 4 successive iterations) appears to be still improving (Tables 3-3 and 3-4). Stopping conditions appear to be too lenient.

6. Observation on numbers of iterations: the DM scenario appears to reach convergence much quicker than the equivalent DS scenario. This is counter intuitive, as the DM and DS have the same levels of development, with the DS having additional transport schemes. Additional capacity usually aids convergence. National Highways request further information from the model appliers.

7. Highway network statistics: average speeds (calculated by veh-km/veh-hr) decline between the RC and DM and the DM and DS. National Highways request some justification/commentary from the model appliers.

8. Flow difference plots. We note the commentary on page 29 and agree. National Highways request results of investigations into the model noise be supplied.

9. Journey time results seem to show that DS has slightly worse network performance than DM, which would benefit from explanation from the model appliers and National Highways requests this. Some large differences also support the previous comments about model noise.

10. If possible, National Highways requests the models are made available for review.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Part 1

Policy STR 1 has identified the need for improvements at M5 J1 and J2 to be delivered during the plan period. Following the identification of the improvement measures, we welcome you to have discussions with National Highways at an early stage.

We note that an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – Part 1 (Infrastructure Assessment Need) has been submitted along with the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan. Part 1 of the IDP reflects an understanding of baseline infrastructure capacity and needs within Sandwell and ensures that the implications of future growth upon infrastructure are understood. We understand that Part 2 of the IDP will include an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule and will be published alongside the upcoming Regulation 19 Pre- submission version of the Local Plan. We appreciate that National Highways will be consulted on any infrastructure improvements identified for the SRN in the area and we look forward to engaging with you at the early stage itself.

For information, there is currently no committed funding for this area within the RIS2 and RIS3 planned period and therefore we are keen to understand the monetary implications and what can and cannot be achieved via developer contributions.

Duty to Cooperate

For any developments which have an impact on neighbouring Local Authorities (LA) National Highways advises a joined-up approach in which National Highways, Sandwell and the other LAs attend joint meetings with the future developer or applicants. This will ensure that the interests of all parties are protected, and a combined solution is derived.

National Highways will actively work with Sandwell MBC to develop and draft a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) to deal with any strategic cross boundary issues as the Local Plan progresses.

Officers of the Council note the content of the draft Local Plan and in particular those issues highlighted in the Duty to Cooperate letter received on the 17th August 2023, namely meeting unmet housing need, meeting unmet employment need, as well as some transport issues.

Officers of the Council have read the Balanced Green Growth strategy which Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has developed and acknowledge that this strategy currently leaves a shortfall of 18,606 homes and 143 hectares of employment land. It is also noted that the expectation remains that some of this shortfall will be met under the Duty to Cooperate across the Housing Market Area and the Functional Economic Market Area.
Bromsgrove District Council remains committed to the Duty to Cooperate and will continue to engage in discussions.

Bromsgrove is an authority which is heavily constrained by Green Belt and any significant future development for either housing or employment needs will require removing land from the Green Belt. With the current uncertainties around the role that Green Belt land is expected to play for future development needs, caused by the as yet unconfirmed reforms to the NPPF originally announced in December 2022, officers of the Council are unable to comment further at this stage as to the validity or otherwise of the approach taken by Sandwell MBC with this draft Local Plan.

As stated above the Council will continue to engage under the Duty to Cooperate and in due course will welcome further discussions on the approach taken by Sandwell MBC and we look forward to investigating further any cross boundary infrastructure requirements required.

Vision and Spatial Strategy for Sandwell
3.2 Turning to the proposed vision for Sandwell, the second to last paragraph on page 35 of the consultation document, seeks to ensure that by 2041:
“There is a wide range of housing available to Sandwell residents, aiming to help meet housing needs, designed to support green living and suitable for adaptation to benefit all sections of the community. Affordable, social, and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them. New developments are located within attractively landscaped areas, with access to district and low-cost energy and heating projects, sustainable drainage designed to improve the local environment as well as provide reliable protection against flooding and run-off and all necessary services and facilities within walking and cycling distance or a short bus ride away.”
3.3 Wain Estates support the broad intentions of this part of the vision, with regards to helping to meet the wide range of housing needs within Sandwell, supporting green living and being located in close proximity to local services and facilities via sustainable transport modes. However, within the associated Priorities, Strategic Objectives and Policies set out within Table 3 to support this vision, there is no recognition of the chronic shortage in housing provision to date and how a marked change in strategy will be required to try and address both the historic shortfalls and future demands. Instead, Objective 6 – Housing to Meet all Needs is relatively generic and indicates there is no proposed change in approach or strategy for new development, particularly the provision of housing.
3.4 Reference is then made to the relevant emerging policies which support the capability to meet this objective and help deliver the vision for Sandwell. Wain Estates are of the view that if these policies are progressed as proposed, they do not provide the capability to meet objective 6 and the provision of housing to meet all needs, including the borough’s chronic shortfall in both affordable and market housing, which is a fundamental part of the proposed vision for Sandwell.
3.5 The principle emerging policy which demonstrates this inability to meet the basic housing needs of Sandwell, as established via their own objectively assessed needs (OAN) is Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy. This emerging policy proposes to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the 2022 -2041 plan period. However, this 11,167 figure is minimal when compared to the identified housing need of 29,773 new homes throughout the same time period, identifying a shortfall of 18,606 homes.
3.6 As a percentage, the proposed supply in the draft plan represents just 38% (rounded) of the borough’s total housing needs. This is unacceptable, in both the immediate context and historic undersupply, but also when looking at the wider national level and Government objectives enshrined within the NPPF, particularly at paragraph 60 which requires the supply of homes to be “significantly boosted” and importantly that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed and to ensure the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed. Due to this, difficult decisions need to be made with regards to the proposed spatial strategy, including consideration of Green Belt land release, without which is artificially restricting the development potential within Sandwell.
3.7 The starting point of a new Local Plan cannot be the continued chronic under-provision of housing, such that the exist delivery issues will be further exacerbated. As evidenced by the latest Housing Delivery Test Result (2021 measurement, the updated version due for January 2023) – being at just 52%, one of the lowest in the county and automatically evoking the “presumption in favour” and “titled planning balance” when it comes to determining applications. This coupled with the latest Five-Year Housing Land Supply Figures released in October 2023, which have only worsened since the previous year, dropping from 3,092 homes (1.6 years) to 2,850 homes (1.57 years) provides clear evidence that the current spatial strategy is not fit for purpose. This historic underperformance in meeting housing needs, also needs to be viewed within the context of the NPPF’s emphasis on needing to boost the supply of housing, and the clear upward direction of travel of national policy in this respect.
3.8 To help address this shortfall, emerging Policy SH03 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility seeks to provide substantial uplifts to minimum density requirements to maximise on the most efficient use of land. This has resulted in a range from 40dph, to 45dph to 100dph in West Brom, this are much higher than the typical 25-30dph figures. The policy notes that further detailed design requirements will come forward in relation to these densities as part of future Sandwell Design Codes. However, with the growing pressures on development to provide more than just housing, such as the 10% BNG (with onsite provision as a preference), accessibility requirements such as the minimum of 15% provision of part M4(3) dwellings for developments of 10 or more dwellings (emerging Policy SH05), the need for sites of 2ha or larger to provide new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population on site (emerging Policy SH4W) all place additional demand for space on site, which may mean that the high minimum density standards cannot be met, resulting in an even lower number of housing units being capable of being provided within Sandwell.
3.9 To further help to address the shortfall, Sandwell are proposing to utilise the Duty-to- Cooperate with neighbouring authorities within the same Housing Market Area, or with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. The details of which are to be provided in the Draft Plan Statement of Consultation – which is to be elaborated upon further at the Publication Stage of the plan. This is despite the fact that Birmingham City Council has already said that it does not have enough space to meet its own housing need and might not have enough space to meet its own employment land needs.
3.10 Sandwell note that this approach may only address a small proportion of the identified housing shortfall and therefore if this position remains then further work will be undertaken as appropriate to identify how this shortfall can be addressed. This position is reflected in the supporting Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which concludes that,
“On balance, Option E is identified as the best performing option, assuming that a large proportion of growth under this option would be on previously developed land and within the existing centres, with the benefits in terms of regeneration meaning this option slightly out-performs Option D, although both would not deliver sufficient housing to satisfy the identified need.”
3.11 As part of a wider consortium, Wain Estates has instructed the “Falling Even Shorter: an updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area” report (copy enclosed at Appendix 4). This report finds that the wider HMA has a shortfall of between 34,742 and 40,676 homes up to 2031, 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040 based on each Council’s most up-to- date supply evidence. This shortfall will only be exacerbated by Sandwell’s approach, with other HMA authorities likely to be able to make a very limited contribution to Sandwell’s shortfall.
3.12 It therefore is clear that the additional work identified in the SA will be required to meet the housing shortfall, the historic approach to the spatial strategy is being undertaken as part of the emerging local plan, a strategy which was in place for the currently adopted Local Plan, which has resulted in the chronic under delivery of both market and affordable housing.
3.13 Wain Estates are of the view that the scale of Sandwell’s own shortfall alone, beyond considering the unmet needs of the wider HMA, amount to exceptional circumstances for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries. This additional work should therefore begin now and a fresh approach to assessing the capacity for housing within the borough should be undertaken, which includes an assessment of Green Belt sites for potential release.
3.14 The site on land north of Wilderness Lane is a clear example of the availability of such sites, which are not technically constrained, are in an accessible location, provide the ability to offer enhanced access to the open countryside for recreation purposes and also provide housing in the least sensitive areas of the Green Belt (whilst retaining the majority of it), adjacent to existing built form – in this case situated along Wilderness Lane.
3.15 At present, it is concluded that the overall vision and spatial strategy proposed by the emerging SLP would not be effective in meeting the tests for soundness, as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF. In particular, criterion (a) which requires plans to be:
“Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
3.16 The council by their own admission have submitted a strategy which falls substantially short of providing a strategy which meets their OAN, which should be seen as a minimum requirement within the extract above. Even in meeting the substantially short figures there is a reliance on maximising out housing densities, in an era where development pressures to deliver supporting features beyond just housing – BNG, sustainability measures etc often restrict this capability. The duty-to-cooperate is also proposed to be utilised to account for this unmet need, but there is no clear strategy or commitment from neighbouring authorities that this would be achievable in part or as a whole. This is therefore not a sustainable approach to development and will inevitably result in the very purpose of the SLP – being to promote growth in planned manner, falling away, likely resulting in mass speculative development, in order for housing needs to be met.
3.17 Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances for reviewing Sandwell’s Green Belt boundaries. A further review of the Green Belt is therefore necessary in order to assess how the boundaries should be amended to maximise the potential for the most sustainable sites.
3.18 An example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, 40% affordable housing, a countryside park and associated infrastructure. This application is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.19 Turning more specifically to emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth and the elements which make up the proposed housing supply of 11,167 new homes, Wain Estates also have significant concerns regarding the sources which make up this already insufficient number of homes.
3.20 Within Table 5 of the above emerging policy, the first source of the housing land supply is made up of sites currently under construction (1,060 homes), with planning permission or prior approval (998 homes) and sites with other commitments (61 homes)1. Therefore, 2,119 homes included within the figures, are made up of the current supply.
3.21 The second source is made up of housing allocations, comprising occupied employment land (2,234 homes), other (3,094 homes), sites with planning permission (1,545 homes) and sites under construction (78 homes). Therefore, 1,623 homes included within the housing allocations are made up of current / existing supply (calculated by adding together sites with existing planning permission and sites under construction). Of the remaining allocations, despite the occupied employment land (2,234 homes) having a 15% discount figure applied, in recognition of the fact that there can be multiple delivery constraints, this in itself does not mean that there is capability of the full 2,234 homes to be delivered given that these sites are in active use for employment.
3.22 It has also been demonstrated through the previous Black Country Plan that such approaches are not effective for delivering housing. As part of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) a total of 16,182 homes were allocated on occupied employment land. Based on the Urban Capacity Review Update (May 2021) only 679 (4.2%) of those homes have been delivered to date (with less than five years of the plan period remaining).

1 10 units are also included for Gypsy and Traveller pitches, but this element of the supply is not discussed as part of these representations

3.23 Furthermore, as recognised in our previous representations, not only is the delivery of housing on such sites questionable, but it also reduces the ability for the Council to provide a sufficient supply of employment sites, of which the Council recognise there are also not enough being provided for as part of the emerging SLP. Paragraph 8.11 of the emerging SLP notes that, 143ha of the employment land need arising in Sandwell cannot be met solely within the Borough, and that the unmet need is to be exported to neighbouring authorities, as part of ongoing duty-to-cooperate work, which is yet to be secured.
3.24 It is good practice to ensure that any elements of housing supply included in a council’s figures, are suitable, available, and achievable of being viably developed. Wain Estates are of the view that there has not been enough evidence provided for the proposed allocations on occupied employment land, as a robust element of the housing supply.
3.25 Taking the above into account, only 3,094 homes (see Table 5 Housing Land Supply Sources within emerging Policy SH01) are allocated which are not made up of existing commitments or situated on occupied employment land, this is a very minor figure when compared to both the proposed delivery of 11,167 net new homes over the plan period and even more so when compared to the actual housing need of 29,773 new homes.
3.26 Looking into more detail at some of the proposed allocations, as recognised by the Council when looking at Appendix B of the SLP, they are also not without their constraints and limitations, further demonstrating that the indicative capacity could be further reduced, resulting in an even lower number of housing allocations. For example:
• SH2 (SA 12) Land adjacent to Asda, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury is proposed for 62 homes, but it has access issues which need to be overcome in order to be deliverable, questioning the suitability of this allocation.
• SH26 (66) Lower City Road, Oldbury is proposed for 73 homes but has constraints including land remediation and site assembly issues, there also only appears to be interest from some land owners looking to bring the site forward, so also potential ownership issues to overcome, questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SH25 (SA 65) Bradleys Lane / High Street, Tipton proposed for 189 homes however, this site also has site assembly and land contamination issues to be overcome, it also requires the current owners to find a place to relocate their business before development can come forwards, again questioning the suitability and availability of this land to support an allocation.
• SM2 SA199 Lion Farm Oldbury, is proposed for a mix of uses, including the provision of 200 homes. However, it relies on relocation of 6 sports pitches to the south of borough, which is arguably not a minor feat. This brings into question the availability and achievability of the land to support an allocation.
• SM1 SA 91 Chances Glass Works, is proposed for a mix of uses including 276 homes, this is a heritage led regeneration project given its recognised constraints which are a Grade II listed building, Scheduled Ancient Monument and Galton Valley Conservation Area, the complexity of such a project brings into question the timescales and the potential delivery of the proposed housing numbers, given the statutory protections given to these heritage constraints, again questioning the suitability and achievability of this site to support an allocation.
3.27 The third part of the housing supply is made up of windfall units, a total of 1,868 are being proposed. However, the delivery of this level of homes is questioned when the restrictive nature of windfall provision within the SLP is assessed. Often and as recognised within the NPPF, the provision of windfall units can help contribute to meeting anticipated housing supply needs, where this aligns with compelling evidence, they can provide a reliable source of supply (paragraph 71). Emerging Policy SH01 Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth, does indeed include for an element of windfall provision – some 1,868 homes over the plan period. However, the delivery of such windfall units will be highly restricted given the limitations placed within emerging Policy SH02 – Windfall developments. The policy allows for windfall development on previously developed land without exception, but for greenfield sites, windfall development is only allowed subject to certain conditions. These conditions are:
• That the site is not protected as community open space or
• The site is council owned land surplus to requirements or
• The development of the site will bring an under-used piece of land back into beneficial use and will not harm the environmental, ecological, or historic value of the site and the wider area, in accordance with other relevant policies in the SLP
3.28 The justification text to the policy notes that windfall sites are likely to include surplus public land, small non-conforming employment uses and some residential intensification sites where appropriate. However, greenfield sites are only permitted where they conform with the bulleted list above. Such restrictions are overly onerous and severely limit the capability for windfall sites on greenfield land to come forwards. This is also not in conformity with the definition of windfall development contained within the NPPF (Appendix M – Glossary), which simply states that windfall sites are sites not specifically identified in the development plan. Again, placing unnecessary restrictions on the delivery of housing, for a number that is already significantly below the required capacity.
3.29 The fourth part of the housing supply is made up of additional floorspace in centres (219 homes). This element makes up a very small part of the overall proposed supply figures. It demonstrates the limitations that emerge from seeking to maximise land on brownfield sites, and the misconception that such spaces are often not being utilised to the best of their ability.
3.30 Overall, the elements which make up the already under-delivering housing land supply as part of the emerging SLP are seen to be questionable.
• Firstly, there is a large reliance on existing commitments, as sites with planning permission or already under construction to make up the housing numbers.
• Secondly, the level of allocations which are included on occupied employment sites is high and such sites are known to be slow at delivering and riddled with issues which slow down or prevent the development for more vulnerable residential uses, in addition to the fact they will result in a loss of employment floorspace, for which there is a recognised need within the borough.
• Thirdly, the proposed allocations themselves are not without issues to overcome – such as access, site assembly, land ownership and remediation – which are not insubstantial.
• Finally, the overly restrictive nature of the windfall housing policy means there is a severe limit as to where such sites can come forward and on what type of land, despite the NPPF not stipulating such limitations exist.
3.31 In light of the above, Wain Estates are of the view that exceptional circumstances exist in terms of both the scale of unmet need and the likely under delivery of the proposed supply. It is therefore essential that Sandwell reviews its Green Belt boundaries, to ensure it meets its housing needs in the least sensitive locations.
3.32 It is well evidenced that greenfield land will deliver much quicker than brownfield land, where issues of land assembly and remediation severely delay the delivery of housing. It should also be acknowledged that removing land from the Green Belt can also be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and the accessibility of remaining Green Belt land as well as providing improvements to Green Infrastructure (GI) provision. Overall, the Council must “turn on all taps of supply” if it is to meet its housing needs.
3.33 As emphasised throughout this representation, an example of this is the land north of Wilderness Lane site, for up to 150 homes, a countryside park and enhancements to existing biodiversity and Green Infrastructure within the area. This site is currently being determined by the LPA (LPA ref: DC/23/68822), demonstrating both developer intention and deliverability to bring the site forward and how cumulative amendments to the Green Belt can form an important and necessary contribution to meeting the current and future housing needs of Sandwell.
Limitations to Affordable Housing Provision for Sandwell
3.34 Turning to affordable housing, which is a key issue in terms of the housing supply within the borough, whereby a chronic shortfall has been identified and has historically only worsened. The 25% requirement figure contained within emerging Policy SH04 represents a 5% increase on the existing requirement, which has not been delivering to the levels expected. This demonstrates that the Council must increase its overall supply, in order to increase the supply of affordable housing.
3.35 Indeed the proposals for land north of Wilderness Lane site include the provision 40% affordable housing, this can viably be done given the site’s greenfield nature. On brownfield sites where additional remediation costs are to be factored into viability considerations, meeting increased and even the basic affordable housing requirements is challenging, demonstrating why Green Belt release of greenfield sites would further assist in meeting the chronic shortfall in both market and specifically affordable housing needs within Sandwell.
3.36 Reference within the policy also notes the aspiration of providing affordable housing through a range of schemes delivering up to 100% funding through grant and other financial sources. However, as reflected in the wording of the policy, this is just that – aspirational. It is likely to be particularly difficult given the already stretched nature of government funding and the lengthy process of applying for such funding.
3.37 Wain Estates suggest that further evidence of the delivery of such schemes coming forward or having funding secured needs to be included within the evidence base to support this policy, in order to make it more robust and increase the chances of such developments coming forward.
3.38 Appendix 1 of the previous representations submitted (see Appendix 1 of this document) contains an Affordable Housing Statement which assesses this issue in further detail.
Exceptional Circumstances for Green Belt Release
3.39 The purpose of plan-making is to be positively prepared and set out a long term vision for the area, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable (paragraph 16 of the NPPF). A plan that only provides for around a third of its housing requirement, using the standard method baseline, cannot possibly meet these purposes or deliver the minimum requirement for housing. This is simply not acceptable and does not represent an effective use of the plan-led system.
3.40 Wain Estates consider that the Council’s inability to meet their own housing need in the midst of a housing crisis, is an important factor that constitutes the exceptional circumstances that justify Green Belt release. As this is a housing focused representation, employment needs are not explored in detail, however it is clear from reviewing the proposed plan that it proposes not only significant unmet housing need but also a significant unmet employment need. This will only be exacerbated by the anticipated loss of current employment sites for housing, as identified within emerging policy SH01 and the 2,234 homes proposed to come forward as allocations on occupied employment land. The adverse consequences of not meeting the basic housing or employment needs, demonstrate the exceptional circumstances which are required to justify Green Belt release.
3.41 The approach to Green Belt boundary reviews is set out in the NPPF at paragraphs 141 and 142. Paragraph 141 states that the policy making authority need to “examine fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development” before concluding if exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. It then goes on to state account needs to be taken for whether the strategy:
“(a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
(b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
(c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”
3.42 As discussed previously, all three of these elements have been included within the proposed spatial strategy, however, are not without their own constraints and when combined, still fall woefully short of meeting the minimum requirements of the identified OAN for Sandwell. This alone demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist for Sandwell to review its Green Belt boundaries. The release of land within the Green Belt needs to be further explored, to allow for plan-led development in the future, particularly when also coupled with the inability to also meet required employment land needs. For this reason, Wain Estates suggest a further review of the Green Belt is undertaken, to identify the most sustainably located sites, in line with paragraph 142 of the NPPF.
3.43 A clear example of such a site is land North of Wilderness Lane, which is currently pending determination for up to 150 new homes, a countryside park, 40% affordable housing provision and associated infrastructure. The accompanying Green Belt Assessment contained within the LVA supporting the application, concludes that the harm to the Green Belt arising from development on the site would be low. Development of the site would maintain the physical and visual separation of the different parts of the wider suburban area and would have a very limited effect on encroachment on the countryside. Spatial and visual openness would be minimally affected. The significant new Wilderness countryside park will provide new public access to local people, and the habitat value of the site will be enhanced. The compensatory improvements to the land remaining in the Green Belt would be significant. Whilst we recognise that the LVA has been produced for the purposes of a planning application, it demonstrates that the contribution of the site to the purposes of the Green Belt is limited, and it is suitable for release and allocation for residential development.
Proposed Amendments to the Green Belt Policy
3.44 Emerging Policy SDS6 provides guidance for the approach to Sandwell’s Green Belt, which will be applied to any development proposed in the Green Belt once the plan is adopted.
3.45 Criterion 2 of the policy notes that: “Sandwell green belt’s nature conservation, landscape, heritage and agricultural value will be protected and enhanced.” Wain Estates draw issue with this wording, as it implies that the Green Belt is a designation of both environmental and heritage value, this is not the case, it is a spatial designation for which there can also be both environmental and heritage features and designations within it. This type of wording adds confusion to the purposes of the Green Belt and the value placed upon its protection. This is recognised in the supporting text to the policy at paragraph 3.84 which states that:
“While green belt is not itself a reflection of landscape quality or value, large parts of the local green belt are also identified as being of significant historic, environmental and landscape importance.”
3.46 Wain Estates suggest that the policy wording is amended to make clearer the difference between the spatial designation and the purposes of the Green Belt and the distinction between this and environmental and heritage designations, whilst recognising their potential concurrent nature.
3.47 Criterion 3 of the policy states that:
“Opportunities will be taken to improve the value and recreational role of the green belt in Sandwell Valley:
a. through improving safe accessibility for all users;
b. by providing facilities for active and passive recreation (if this preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”
3.48 It must be recognised that in order to improve the value and recreational role of the Green Belt in Sandwell, development will likely need to occur. Land within private ownership is not accessible to the public for these purposes, enhancing access will only come as a compensatory improvement as part of future development proposals through planning applications.
3.49 Providing such improvements would form part of a two-way process of negotiation as part of future planning applications, with the provision of housing potentially acting as an enabler, to allow the council to meet the enhanced recreational role of the Green Belt. This also supports Sandwell’s wider vision, which seeks to increase accessible open spaces, such spaces need to come from somewhere, the Green Belt is a key facilitator for this, however it will not come forward of its own accord.

A substantial shortfall and need to find a definitive solution.
The strategy as presented leaves a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings that cannot be accommodated in the Council’s administrative area. This is a substantial number of homes and represents a substantial number of people and families that will go without homes should a definitive solution not be found.
Bloor would like to implore Sandwell Council to engage with the other authorities within the HMA to find a location to secure the delivery of these 18,606 dwellings. As will be demonstrated below, the housing shortfall has reached critical levels across the HMA and the onus is on the authorities where the housing need cannot be met to secure the support of the authorities with land available, including Green Belt land, to assist.
Meeting the needs of all part of the population
The pressure to find a definitive solution to address the housing shortfall, is only further emphasised by the fact that the delivery of affordable housing on those sites within the Sandwell administrative area will fall woefully short of the affordable housing need identified. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment Report (March 2021) identified a need for 4,605 social rented properties and 1,913 shared ownership dwellings (accounting for nearly 24% of the total housing requirement. The release of Green Belt sites in the HMA to meet the overspill from both Sandwell and Dudley will deliver not only market, but much need affordable homes for those parts of the population that most need it.
Supporting Economic Growth
Delivering the right number of homes, in the right location is an important component in fostering economic growth. For Sandwell, this means securing the delivery of homes as close to and /or in locations well connected to Sandwell as possible. The obvious locations being Bromsgrove to the south and South Staffordshire to the west, when you account for the adjoining authorities not having the capacity to assist with meeting Sandwell’s need. It is Bloor’s view that the starting point should be sites on the edge of the conurbation to provide homes close to where the demand arises which can provide a range of homes for the existing and future workforce; supporting indigenous economic growth and inward investment opportunities.
Shortfall in housing land across the HMA
The shortfall of land for housing is not unique to Sandwell and is a long-established concern within the HMA.
Birmingham Development Plan
The Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”) was adopted in January 2017 and was the first authority in the HMA to conclude it could not meet its housing need within its administrative area. Policy PG1 – Overall Levels of Growth, advised that 89,000 dwellings are required during the course of the plan period (2011 to 2031) to meet the growth requirements of the City. However, only 51,100 additional dwellings can be accommodated within the City’s administrative area. This leaves a shortfall of 37,900 homes including 14,400 affordable homes (that will need to be delivered elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area). The BDP stipulated that Birmingham’s unmet need was to be met by other authorities in the HMA as and when they produced individual Local Plans. This has not happened.
Birmingham City Council has now commenced a review of its Local Plan and consulted on Issues and Options for a draft Plan concluding in December 2022. The Issues and Options document advised that the Standard Method housing requirement for the period 2020 to 2042 is 149,286 dwellings. The Issues and Options consultation document suggests that the total capacity for development within the built up area of the City is 70,871 dwellings. This relies upon all SHLAA sites coming forward for development and the provision of a significant number of windfalls (the windfall sum is 11,675 dwellings). This would result in a housing shortfall of 78,415 dwellings.
Black Country Core Strategy Review
Previously, the four Black Country authorities had been preparing a joint Plan although this has now subsequently been abandoned in favour of the preparation of individual Plans for each authority. Notwithstanding the above, the Preferred Options Black Country Plan proposed a housing requirement based upon the Standard Method which was the sum of the four individual authority housing requirements. The housing requirement for the four authorities was 76,076 dwellings, however, there was only an identified capacity of 47,837 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be directed to other authorities. Now, each authority will calculate its own housing requirement using the standard method calculation. The requirement in Dudley is 11,954 dwellings however, Dudley claims it only has capacity to accommodate 10,876 of these leaving a shortfall of 1,076. The positions in Wolverhampton and Walsall have not yet been published although it is anticipated that there will be a further shortfall in what is required against the capacity within these two authorities, which will broadly align with the shortfall previously identified in the Black Country Core Strategy review when added to the shortfall from Dudley and Sandwell.
Total shortfall
If the housing shortfall figure identified in Policy PG1 of the BDP and the emerging shortfalls in both the Dudley and Sandwell Preferred Options are added together it totals 57,582 dwellings. If the shortfall arising in Dudley and Sandwell is added to the emerging shortfall identified in the Birmingham Issues and Options this increases to 98,097 dwellings. As noted above, this has the potential to increase even further when any shortfall arising in Wolverhampton and Walsall is added.
Duty to Cooperate and who can assist in meeting the housing shortfall arising from Sandwell
Paragraph 24 of the Framework confirms that Local Planning Authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. Paragraph 26 goes on to state that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary and where development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular area could be met elsewhere. The level of unmet need arising within HMA is one such area where the Duty to Cooperate should be employed in order to determine where this unmet need should be directed.
Having regard to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area there are 14 authorities within it which include Birmingham, the four Black Country authorities and 9 other surrounding authorities. In light of the shortfall arising in Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell this effectively leaves 11 remaining authorities where the need could be distributed.
Turning to each of the remaining authorities it is highlighted above that there is potentially a shortfall that will arise in both Wolverhampton and Walsall when they come to publish their Preferred Options Local Plan. Redditch Borough is effectively built up to its boundary and already has to look to its adjoining neighbour, Bromsgrove, in order to accommodate its housing need. It would be unable to accommodate any further unmet. Similarly, Tamworth had to look to its adjoining neighbours of Lichfield and North Warwickshire in order to meet its current housing requirement in its adopted Local Plan. It too would be unlikely to be able to accommodate any unmet need arise. Cannock Chase’s capacity is restricted due to environmental constraints including the Cannock Chase’s SAC and AONB. A small part of Stratford-upon-Avon District falls within the Housing Market Area whilst North Warwickshire have previously committed to delivering 3,790 dwellings to meeting Birmingham’s needs up to 2031 in its adopted Local Plan (2021). Solihull’s Local Plan is currently at examination and is on hold awaiting publication of the updated Framework and currently proposes approximately 2,000 dwellings to meet the needs of Birmingham. If the Plan progress towards adoption in its current form there would be no scope to seek any increase in the size of the contribution from Solihull until such time as they commenced a further review.
This effectively leaves Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove as the three remaining authorities that would be able to make any meaningful contribution to meeting housing needs arising in the wider HMA. However, a review of what these local authorities has been proposing to help meet the housing shortfall across the HMA falls woefully short of what is needed.
South Staffordshire have previously proposed to accommodate 4,000 dwellings to meet the needs arising in the Black Country. Lichfield were proposing around 2000 homes before withdrawing their plan. Bromsgrove has yet to publish a draft plan and so it is yet to state how many dwellings it may be prepared to accommodate. Collectively this equates to less than 12,000 (plus the homes that Bromsgrove may provide) and on the face of it will fall woefully short of addressing the housing need of local people and families across the HMA.
The outcome of the above is that there is a significant unmet housing need arising principally from Birmingham and Sandwell, with Walsall and Wolverhampton likely to add to this, and at the current time there is no agreement or clear strategy between the 14 HMA authorities as to where or how this unmet need is to be met. Furthermore, in the few authorities that have the ability to assist in meeting the overspill, full opportunity of the land available around the conurbation to assist with meeting the housing overspill is not being taken.
It is clear from the above that the emerging position across the HMA is one where there is a significant housing need that exists, but where certain authorities, such as Sandwell, cannot currently meet its needs in full. Bloor contend that these un-met needs must be met by the HMA authorities in the next round of plans that are now being prepared. If this need is not met in full, it risks giving rise to a number of significant knock on effects on the delivery and provision of housing across the greater Birmingham area. These impacts include:
• worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
• worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
• economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
• the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.
Next Steps
In light of the Council's need and the significant shortfall that the Council is faced with, Bloor urge the Council to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including Bromsgrove, to seek agreement on how and where this unmet housing need is going to be delivered. Meeting the housing needs of the HMA cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and that a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the HMA’s housing needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including affordable homes.
It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall in Sandwell should be those authorities closest to them. Bromsgrove and South Staffordshire are the closest authorities with a meaningful ability to address the shortfall and with land available adjacent to the conurbation. The Bromsgrove plan review is still at an early stage and there is still plenty of scope to hold meaningful discussions to provide land to meet the needs arising in Sandwell.

A substantial shortfall and need to find a definitive solution.
The strategy as presented leaves a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings that cannot be accommodated in the Council’s administrative area. This is a substantial number of homes and represents a substantial number of people and families that will go without homes should a definitive solution not be found.
Folkes would like to implore Sandwell Council to engage with the other authorities within the HMA to find a location to secure the delivery of these 18,606 dwellings. As will be demonstrated below, the housing shortfall has reached critical levels across the HMA and the onus is on the authorities where the housing need cannot be met to secure the support of the authorities with land available, including Green Belt land, to assist.

Meeting the needs of all part of the population
The pressure to find a definitive solution to address the housing shortfall, is only further emphasised by the fact that the delivery of affordable housing on those sites within the Sandwell administrative area will fall woefully short of the affordable housing need identified. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment Report (March 2021) identified a need for 4,605 social rented properties and 1,913 shared ownership dwellings (accounting for nearly 24% of the total housing requirement. The release of Green Belt sites in the HMA to meet the overspill from both Sandwell and Dudley will deliver not only market, but much need affordable homes for those parts of the population that most need it.

Supporting Economic Growth
Delivering the right number of homes, in the right location is an important component in fostering economic growth. For Sandwell, this means securing the delivery of homes as close to and /or in locations well connected to Sandwell as possible. The obvious locations being Bromsgrove to the south and South Staffordshire to the west, when you account for the adjoining authorities not having the capacity to assist with meeting Sandwell’s need. It is Folkes consider that the starting point should be sites on the edge of the conurbation to provide homes close to where the demand arises and that can provide a range of homes, including more executive homes for the owners of new businesses.

Shortfall in housing land across the HMA
The shortfall of land for housing is not unique to Sandwell and is a long-established concern within the HMA.

Birmingham Development Plan
The Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”) was adopted in January 2017 and was the first authority in the HMA to conclude it could not meet its housing need within its administrative area. Policy PG1 – Overall Levels of Growth, advised that 89,000 dwellings are required during the course of the plan period (2011 to 2031) to meet the growth requirements of the City. However, only 51,100 additional dwellings can be accommodated within the City’s administrative area. This leaves a shortfall of 37,900 homes including 14,400 affordable homes (that will need to be delivered elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area). The BDP stipulated that Birmingham’s unmet need was to be met by other authorities in the HMA as and when they produced individual Local Plans. This has not happened.
Birmingham City Council has now commenced a review of its Local Plan and consulted on Issues and Options for a draft Plan concluding in December 2022. The Issues and Options document advised that the Standard Method housing requirement for the period 2020 to 2042 is 149,286 dwellings. The Issues and Options consultation document suggests that the total capacity for development within the built up area of the City is 70,871 dwellings. This relies upon all SHLAA sites coming forward for development and the provision of a significant number of windfalls (the windfall sum is 11,675 dwellings). This would result in a housing shortfall of 78,415 dwellings.

Black Country Core Strategy Review
Previously, the four Black Country authorities had been preparing a joint Plan although this has now subsequently been abandoned in favour of the preparation of individual Plans for each authority. Notwithstanding the above, the Preferred Options Black Country Plan proposed a housing requirement based upon the Standard Method which was the sum of the four individual authority housing requirements. The housing requirement for the four authorities was 76,076 dwellings, however, there was only an identified capacity of 47,837 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be directed to other authorities. Now, each authority will calculate its own housing requirement using the standard method calculation. The requirement in Dudley is 11,954 dwellings however, Dudley claims it only has capacity to accommodate 10,876 of these leaving a shortfall of 1,076. The positions in Wolverhampton and Walsall have not yet been published although it is anticipated that there will be a further shortfall in what is required against the capacity within these two authorities, which will broadly align with the shortfall previously identified in the Black Country Core Strategy review when added to the shortfall from Dudley and Sandwell.

Total shortfall
If the housing shortfall figure identified in Policy PG1 of the BDP and the emerging shortfalls in both the Dudley and Sandwell Preferred Options are added together it totals 57,582 dwellings. If the shortfall arising in Dudley and Sandwell is added to the emerging shortfall identified in the Birmingham Issues and Options this increases to 98,097 dwellings. As noted above, this has the potential to increase even further when any shortfall arising in Wolverhampton and Walsall is added.

Duty to Cooperate and who can assist in meeting the housing shortfall arising from Sandwell
Paragraph 24 of the Framework confirms that Local Planning Authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. Paragraph 26 goes on to state that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary and where development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular area could be met elsewhere. The level of unmet need arising within HMA is one such area where the Duty to Cooperate should be employed in order to determine where this unmet need should be directed.
Having regard to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area there are 14 authorities within it which include Birmingham, the four Black Country authorities and 9 other surrounding authorities. In light of the shortfall arising in Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell this effectively leaves 11 remaining authorities where the need could be distributed.
Turning to each of the remaining authorities it is highlighted above that there is potentially a shortfall that will arise in both Wolverhampton and Walsall when they come to publish their Preferred Options Local Plan. Redditch Borough is effectively built up to its boundary and already has to look to its adjoining neighbour, Bromsgrove, in order to accommodate its housing need. It would be unable to accommodate any further unmet. Similarly, Tamworth had to look to its adjoining neighbours of Lichfield and North Warwickshire in order to meet its current housing requirement in its adopted Local Plan. It too would be unlikely to be able to accommodate any unmet need arise. Cannock Chase’s capacity is restricted due to environmental constraints including the Cannock Chase’s SAC and AONB. A small part of Stratford-upon-Avon District falls within the Housing Market Area whilst North Warwickshire have previously committed to delivering 3,790 dwellings to meeting Birmingham’s needs up to 2031 in its adopted Local Plan (2021). Solihull’s Local Plan is currently at examination and is on hold awaiting publication of the updated Framework and currently proposes approximately 2,000 dwellings to meet the needs of Birmingham. If the Plan progress towards adoption in its current form there would be no scope to seek any increase in the size of the contribution from Solihull until such time as they commenced a further review.
This effectively leaves Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove as the three remaining authorities that would be able to make any meaningful contribution to meeting housing needs arising in the wider HMA. However, a review of what these local authorities has been proposing to help meet the housing shortfall across the HMA falls woefully short of what is needed.
South Staffordshire have previously proposed to accommodate 4,000 dwellings to meet the needs arising in the Black Country. Lichfield were proposing around 2000 homes before withdrawing their plan. Bromsgrove has yet to publish a draft plan and so it is yet to state how many dwellings it may be prepared to accommodate. Collectively this equates to less than 12,000 (plus the homes that Bromsgrove may provide) and on the face of it will fall woefully short of addressing the housing need of local people and families across the HMA.

The outcome of the above is that there is a significant unmet housing need arising principally from Birmingham and Sandwell, with Walsall and Wolverhampton likely to add to this, and at the current time there is no agreement or clear strategy between the 14 HMA authorities as to where or how this unmet need is to be met. Furthermore, in the few authorities that have the ability to assist in meeting the overspill, full opportunity of the land available around the conurbation to assist with meeting the housing overspill is not being taken.
It is clear from the above that the emerging position across the HMA is one where there is a significant housing need that exists, but where certain authorities, such as Sandwell, cannot currently meet its needs in full. Folkes contend that these needs must be met by the HMA authorities in the next round of plans that are now being prepared. If this need is not met in full, it risks giving rise to a number of significant knock on effects on the delivery and provision of housing across the greater Birmingham area. These impacts include:
• worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
• worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
• economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
• the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.

Next Steps
In light of the Council's need and the significant shortfall that the Council is faced with, Folkes urge the Council to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including South Staffordshire, to seek agreement on how and where this unmet housing need is going to be delivered. Meeting the housing needs of the HMA cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and that a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the HMA’s housing needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including affordable homes.
It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall in Sandwell should be those authorities closest to them. South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove are the closest authorities with a meaningful ability to address the shortfall and with land available adjacent to the conurbation. South Staffordshire is still to submit its plan for examination and there is still scope to hold meaningful discussions to provide land to meet the needs arising in Sandwell.

Housing Delivery
The proposed development strategy in the Local Plan identifies a housing requirement of 29,773 dwellings to meet the minimum Standard Method housing needs figure. It is, however, advised that there is only available capacity to deliver 11,167 of these dwellings in the Plan area, leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. There are only two solutions for addressing the shortfall. Either Sandwell need to allocate additional sites within its administrative area, or the Council need to reply upon neighbouring authorities allocating land for development to meet the unmet housing need.
There is no evidence to suggest that neighbouring authorities will be able to provide significant support to meet Sandwell’s housing shortfall. Indeed there is a significant shortfall in the wider Housing Market Area due to a shortfall of housing sites. As a consequence Sandwell should actively make additional housing allocations in the meeting Local Plan.
The housing shortfall arising in Sandwell is reflected elsewhere in the Housing Market Area with the matter of unmet need arising specifically from Birmingham City well established. The Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”) was adopted in January 2017. Policy PG1 – Overall Levels of Growth, advised that 89,000 dwellings are required during the course of the plan period (2011 to 2031) to meet the growth requirements of the City. However, only 51,100 additional dwellings can be accommodated within the City’s administrative area. This leaves a shortfall of 37,900 homes including 14,400 affordable homes (that will need to be delivered elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area). The BDP stipulated that Birmingham’s unmet need should be met by other authorities in the HMA as and when they produced individual Local Plans. This has not happened.
Birmingham City Council has now commenced a review of its Local Plan. The City Council undertook Issues and Options consultation on a draft Plan in November and December 2022. The Issues and Options document advised that the Standard Method housing requirement for Birmingham for the period 2020 to 2042 is 149,286 dwellings. The Issues and Options consultation document suggests that the total capacity for development within the built up area of the City is 70,871 dwellings. This relies upon all SHLAA sites coming forward for development and the provision of a significant number of windfalls (the windfall sum is 11,675 dwellings). This would result in a housing shortfall in the City of 78,415 dwellings.
Birmingham City will clearly be unable to support the delivery of Sandwell’s housing needs.
The other Black Country authorise are in a similar position. Previously, the four Black Country authorities had been preparing a Joint Plan which has now been abandoned in favour of the preparation of individual Plans for each authority. Notwithstanding the above, the Preferred Options Black Country Plan proposed a housing requirement based upon the Standard Method which was the sum of the four individual authority housing requirements. The housing requirement for the four authorities was 76,076 dwellings, however, there was only an identified capacity of 47,837 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be directed to other authorities.
Following the abandonment of the Black Country Plan each authority will calculate its own housing requirement using the standard method calculation. The requirement in Dudley is 11,954 dwellings however, Dudley claims it only has capacity to accommodate 10,876 of these leaving a shortfall of 1,076. The positions in Wolverhampton and Walsall have not yet been published although it is anticipated that there will be a further shortfall in what is required against the capacity within these two authorities, particularly in light of the shortfall that arose at the Black Country Plan Preferred Option stage.
The remaining Black Country authorities are unlikely to be able to assist Sandwell in delivering its unmet housing needs.
If the housing shortfall figure identified in Policy PG1 of the BDP and the emerging shortfalls in both the Dudley and Sandwell Preferred Options are added together it totals 57,582 dwellings. If the shortfall arising in Dudley and Sandwell is added to the emerging shortfall identified in the Birmingham Issues and Options this increases to 98,097 dwellings. As noted above, this has the potential to increase even further when any shortfall arising in Wolverhampton and Walsall is added.
Having regard to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area there are 14 authorities within it which include Birmingham, the four Black Country authorities and 9 other surrounding authorities. In light of the shortfall arising in Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell this effectively leaves 11 remaining authorities where the need could be distributed.
Turning to each of the remaining authorities Redditch Borough is effectively built up to its boundary and already has to look to its adjoining neighbour, Bromsgrove, in order to accommodate its housing need. It would be unable to accommodate any further unmet need. Similarly, Tamworth had to look to its adjoining neighbours of Lichfield and North Warwickshire in order to meet its current housing requirement in its adopted Local Plan. It too would be unlikely to be able to accommodate any unmet need.
Cannock Chase’s capacity is restricted due to environmental constraints including the Cannock Chase SAC and AONB. A small part of Stratford-upon-Avon District falls within the Housing Market Area whilst North Warwickshire have previously committed to delivering 3,790 dwellings to meeting Birmingham’s needs up to 2031 in its adopted Local Plan (2021).
Solihull’s Local Plan is currently at examination and is on hold awaiting publication of the updated Framework and currently proposes approximately 2,000 dwellings to meet the needs of Birmingham. If the Plan progress towards adoption in its current form there would be no scope to seek any increase in the size of the contribution from Solihull until such time as they commenced a further review. This effectively leaves Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove as the three remaining authorities that would be able to make any meaningful contribution to meeting housing needs arising in the wider HMA.
Lichfield has recently withdrawn its Local Plan and is now preparing a new Local Plan, whilst Bromsgrove had commenced a review of its Local Plan having undertaken Issues and Options consultation in 2018 with no programme for when the Preferred Options Local Plan is intended to be published for consultation. South Staffordshire have also consulted on a Pre-submission version of its Local Plan concluding in December 2022 that makes a contribution of just 4,000 dwellings to the overall shortfall. Sandwell should, therefore identify additional sites for housing within its own administrative area.
Land at St Brades Close, Tividale
Our clients land at St Brades Close should be allocated for residential developments to support housing delivery. It is in a highly sustainable location, immediately adjoining in an existing residential area. It is in close proximity to Oakham Primary School and the Portway Lifestyle Centre. There are a variety of services and facilities located on the A4123 – New Birmingham Road, to the north east that are within easy walking distance. Indeed, Oldbury Town Centre is approximately 1 mile from the site. Oldbury Town Centre provides a variety of services and facilities as well as employment opportunities.
The extent of the site being promoted for development means that there will be no functional harm to the area of public open space in this location. Indeed, the area is in private ownership in any event.
The topography in the area is challenging. As a consequence the Representor has commissioned DTA Transport Consultants to undertake an assessment of the access to the site and the ability to deliver roads of an adoptable standard as part of any residential development. The results of this work are attached at Appendix 2. DTA have concluded that a safe and convenient access to the site and a scheme can be serviced by roads of adoptable quality.
Ecology surveys have been undertaken to support the promotion of the site. It will be ensured that any development on the site achieves a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain. The Representor has been in discussions with neighbouring landowners regarding the opportunity to enhance the wider sites ecological resource. As part of the development of this site ecological improvement and a management plan can be established for the wider area helping to safeguard and enhance its ecological potential.
There is the opportunity to create vehicular access from public roads to a smaller car park in close proximity to the site, making the wider site more accessible to the elderly and disabled to enjoy the benefits of the BBCWT land that currently is challenging to access. This is a significant social benefit.
Antisocial behaviour on site has been prevalent for many years, including substantial littering (including shopping trolleys to the east side adjoin A4123), people driving scrambler bikes and quad bikes across the site along with underage drinking, dog fowling amongst other issues. There was a fire on the site in 2022 that needed to be extinguished by the fire service. A closer presence of local homeowners and greater pedestrian access to the area would lead to heightened the natural surveillance of the wider site helping to reduce such incidents.
My client would work with the Council to ensure that all technical matters addressed and that the site will appropriately deliver biodiversity net gain. If the site is allocated for development it will be deliverable in the short term and deliver market and affordable housing in a highly sustainable location.

A substantial shortfall and need to find a definitive solution.

The strategy as presented leaves a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings that cannot be accommodated in the Council’s administrative area. This is a substantial number of homes and represents a substantial number of people and families that will go without homes should a definitive solution not be found.

Redrow would like to implore Sandwell Council to engage with the other authorities within the HMA to find a location to secure the delivery of these 18,606 dwellings. As will be demonstrated below, the housing shortfall has reached critical levels across the HMA and the onus is on the authorities where the housing need cannot be met to secure the support of the authorities with land available, including Green Belt land, to assist.

Meeting the needs of all part of the population

The pressure to find a definitive solution to address the housing shortfall, is only further emphasised by the fact that the delivery of affordable housing on those sites within the Sandwell administrative area will fall woefully short of the affordable housing need identified. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment Report (March 2021) identified a need for 4,605 social rented properties and 1,913 shared ownership dwellings (accounting for nearly 24% of the total housing requirement). The release of Green Belt sites in the HMA to meet the overspill from both Sandwell and Dudley will deliver not only market, but much need affordable homes for those parts of the population that most need it.

Supporting Economic Growth

Delivering the right number of homes, in the right location is an important component in fostering economic growth. For Sandwell, this means securing the delivery of homes as close to and / or in locations well connected to Sandwell as possible. The obvious location being South Staffordshire, when you account for the adjoining authorities not having the capacity to assist with meeting Sandwell’s need. It is Redrow’s view that the starting point should be sites on the edge of the conurbation to provide homes close to where the demand arises and that can provide a range of homes, including more executive homes for the owners of new businesses.

Shortfall in housing land across the HMA

The shortfall of land for housing is not unique to Sandwell and is a long-established concern within the HMA.

Birmingham Development Plan

The Birmingham Development Plan (“BDP”) was adopted in January 2017 and was the first authority in the HMA to conclude it could not meet its housing need within its administrative area. Policy PG1 – Overall Levels of Growth, advised that 89,000 dwellings are required during the course of the plan period (2011 to 2031) to meet the growth requirements of the City. However, only 51,100 additional dwellings can be accommodated within the City’s administrative area. This leaves a shortfall of 37,900 homes including 14,400 affordable homes (that will need to be delivered elsewhere within the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area). The BDP stipulated that Birmingham’s unmet need was to be met by other authorities in the HMA as and when they produced individual Local Plans. This has not happened.

Birmingham City Council has now commenced a review of its Local Plan and consulted on Issues and Options for a draft Plan concluding in December 2022. The Issues and Options document advised that the Standard Method housing requirement for the period 2020 to 2042 is 149,286 dwellings. The Issues and Options consultation document suggests that the total capacity for development within the built up area of the City is 70,871 dwellings. This relies upon all SHLAA sites coming forward for development and the provision of a significant number of windfalls (the windfall sum is 11,675 dwellings). This would result in a housing shortfall of 78,415 dwellings.

Black Country Core Strategy Review

Previously, the four Black Country authorities had been preparing a joint Plan although this has now subsequently been abandoned in favour of the preparation of individual Plans for each authority. Notwithstanding the above, the Preferred Options Black Country Plan proposed a housing requirement based upon the Standard Method which was the sum of the four individual authority housing requirements. The housing requirement for the four authorities was 76,076 dwellings, however, there was only an identified capacity of 47,837 dwellings leaving a shortfall of 28,239 dwellings to be directed to other authorities. Now, each authority will calculate its own housing requirement using the standard method calculation. The requirement in Dudley is 11,954 dwellings however, Dudley claims it only has capacity to accommodate 10,876 of these leaving a shortfall of 1,076. The positions in Wolverhampton and Walsall have not yet been published although it is anticipated that there will be a further shortfall in what is required against the capacity within these two authorities, which will broadly



align with the shortfall previously identified in the Black Country Core Strategy review when added to the shortfall from Dudley and Sandwell.


Total shortfall

If the housing shortfall figure identified in Policy PG1 of the BDP and the emerging shortfalls in both the Dudley and Sandwell Preferred Options are added together it totals 57,582 dwellings. If the shortfall arising in Dudley and Sandwell is added to the emerging shortfall identified in the Birmingham Issues and Options this increases to 98,097 dwellings. As noted above, this has the potential to increase even further when any shortfall arising in Wolverhampton and Walsall is added.

Duty to Cooperate and who can assist in meeting the housing shortfall arising from Sandwell

Paragraph 24 of the Framework confirms that Local Planning Authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. Paragraph 26 goes on to state that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary and where development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular area could be met elsewhere. The level of unmet need arising within HMA is one such area where the Duty to Cooperate should be employed in order to determine where this unmet need should be directed.

Having regard to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area there are 14 authorities within it which include Birmingham, the four Black Country authorities and 9 other surrounding authorities. In light of the shortfall arising in Birmingham, Dudley and Sandwell this effectively leaves 11 remaining authorities where the need could be distributed.

Turning to each of the remaining authorities it is highlighted above that there is potentially a shortfall that will arise in both Wolverhampton and Walsall when they come to publish their Preferred Options Local Plan. Redditch Borough is effectively built up to its boundary and already has to look to its adjoining neighbour, Bromsgrove, in order to accommodate its housing need. It would be unable to accommodate any further unmet. Similarly, Tamworth had to look to its adjoining neighbours of Lichfield and North Warwickshire in order to meet its current housing requirement in its adopted Local Plan. It too would be unlikely to be able to accommodate any unmet need arise. Cannock Chase’s capacity is restricted due to environmental constraints including the Cannock Chase’s SAC and AONB. A small part of Stratford-upon-Avon District falls within the Housing Market Area whilst North Warwickshire have previously committed to delivering 3,790 dwellings to meeting Birmingham’s needs up to 2031 in its adopted Local Plan (2021). Solihull’s Local Plan is currently at examination and is on hold awaiting publication of the updated Framework and currently proposes approximately 2,000 dwellings to meet the needs of Birmingham. If the Plan progress towards adoption in its current form there would be no scope to seek any increase in the size of the contribution from Solihull until such time as they commenced a further review.

This effectively leaves Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove as the three remaining authorities that would be able to make any meaningful contribution to meeting housing needs arising in the wider HMA. However, a review of what these local authorities has been proposing to help meet the housing shortfall across the HMA falls woefully short of what is needed.

South Staffordshire have previously proposed to accommodate 4,000 dwellings to meet the needs arising in the Black Country. Lichfield were proposing around 2000 homes before withdrawing their plan. Bromsgrove has yet to publish a draft plan and so it is yet to state how many dwellings it may be prepared to accommodate. Collectively this equates to less than



12,000 (plus the homes that Bromsgrove may provide) and on the face of it will fall woefully short of addressing the housing need of local people and families across the HMA.

The outcome of the above is that there is a significant unmet housing need arising principally from Birmingham and Sandwell, with Walsall and Wolverhampton likely to add to this, and at the current time there is no agreement or clear strategy between the 14 HMA authorities as to where or how this unmet need is to be met. Furthermore, in the few authorities that have the ability to assist in meeting the overspill, full opportunity of the land available around the conurbation to assist with meeting the housing overspill is not being taken.

It is clear from the above that the emerging position across the HMA is one where there is a significant housing need that exists, but where certain authorities, such as Sandwell, cannot currently meet its needs in full. Redrow contend that these needs must be met by the HMA authorities in the next round of plans that are now being prepared. If this need is not met in full, it risks giving rise to a number of significant knock on effects on the delivery and provision of housing across the Greater Birmingham area. These impacts include:

• worsening affordability as demand outstrips supply,
• worsening delivery and provision of affordable housing,
• economic impacts on the working age population as those adults who are able to work may not have suitable accommodation to live in thus resulting in increased commuting distances, worsening impacts on congestion and air quality, and
• the inability to attract workers into the HMA could have significant repercussions for the wider economy if the right type of houses are not available for those wanting to live and work in the conurbation.

Next Steps

In light of the Council's need and the significant shortfall that the Council is faced with, Redrow urge the Council to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including South Staffordshire, to seek agreement on how and where this unmet housing need is going to be delivered. Meeting the housing needs of the HMA cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and that a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the HMA’s housing needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including affordable homes.

It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall in Sandwell should be those authorities closest to them. South Staffordshire as one the closest authorities with a meaningful ability to address the shortfall and with land available adjacent to the conurbation should be a preferred location for directing additional growth.

Officers of the Council have read the Balanced Green Growth strategy which Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has developed and acknowledge that this strategy currently leaves a shortfall of 18,606 homes and 143 hectares of employment land. It is also noted that the expectation remains that some of this shortfall will be met under the Duty to Cooperate across the Housing Market Area and the Functional Economic Market Area.

Redditch Borough Council remains committed to the Duty to Cooperate and will continue to engage in discussions. Redditch BC is an authority which is constrained by Green Belt and any significant future development for either housing or employment needs will require removing land from the Green Belt. With the current uncertainties around the role that Green Belt land is expected to play for future development needs, caused by the as yet unconfirmed reforms to the NPPF originally announced in December 2022, officers of the Council are unable to comment further at this stage as to the validity or otherwise of the approach taken by Sandwell MBC with this draft Local Plan.

As stated above the Council will continue to engage under the Duty to Cooperate and in due course will welcome further discussions on the approach taken by Sandwell MBC and we look forward to investigating further any cross boundary infrastructure requirements required.

It is welcome that good progress has been made with the SLP under the current Plan system, that it is underpinned by work undertaken to prepare the Black Country Plan (BCP), particularly the shared evidence base and associated policy development, and that the SLP timetable is aligned with the emerging WLP and Plans for other neighbouring authorities. This is important given the need to progress a regional solution to addressing unmet housing and employment land needs, a significant proportion of which originate in Sandwell.

It is recognised that Sandwell Council have fully explored all opportunities within the Borough to maximise development capacity, including increased densities and sites in centres, whilst protecting viable employment land and premises as necessary, given the evidenced shortfall of employment development land across the Black Country Functional Economic Market Area (BC FEMA). It is accepted that it will not be possible to meet all development needs within the Borough, and that it is necessary for Sandwell to ask other authorities if they are able to contribute towards meeting Sandwell needs through the allocation of land in their Local Plans.

The current Wolverhampton position on housing and employment land need and supply is set out in the Wolverhampton Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2022, the Black Country Economic Development Needs Assessment (BC EDNA) 2023 and the Draft BCP (2021). On the basis of the December 2022 consultation version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Leader of the Council committed to excluding any green belt land from development allocations in the emerging Wolverhampton Local Plan (WLP).

Taking into account potential capacity on non-green belt land in the Draft BCP, and an extended Plan period to 2042, the WLP is likely to generate a shortfall of around 11,500 homes and 50 ha of employment development land.

In terms of employment development land, the BC EDNA concludes that the BC FEMA as a whole has a shortfall of 152ha, however contributions secured through current Statements of Common Ground between the BC FEMA authorities and Shropshire and South Staffordshire Councils have potential to provide 133.6 ha towards BC FEMA needs, which would reduce that shortfall to 18.4 ha.

Given the existing housing and employment development land shortfalls set out above, Wolverhampton will not be in a position to provide land within the emerging WLP to meet either housing needs arising in Sandwell, or employment development land need arising in the BC FEMA.

Regarding housing, it is recommended that Sandwell Council continues to engage with the work of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) officer group and the programme of work contained within the Statement of Common Ground as circulated by South Staffordshire Council in 2022. Clearly, given the scale of the Sandwell shortfall, a regional approach is required. Any solution should be based on an understanding of the pattern of functional and physical relationships across the GBBCHMA including migration and travel to work data so that, where practicable, needs are addressed as close as possible to where they arise.

Regarding employment development land, it is recommended that Sandwell should continue to work together with the other BC authorities to close the BC FEMA employment development land shortfall through ongoing DtC activity, with a focus on those areas having a strong or moderate functional economic relationship with the Black Country (as defined in the BC EDNA), and other areas where there is evidence of a functional relationship.

The City Council is a member of the West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB) which helps member authorities to meet their DtC obligations regarding strategic waste management. WMRTAB has submitted responses to the Sandwell Local Plan consultation on behalf of the member authorities which cover technical issues regarding strategic waste management.

The draft Local Plan contains locally specific policies and strategic / non-strategic site allocations to support the housing and employment requirements across Sandwell for the plan period of 2022 to 2041. We note that when adopted, this Local Plan will

replace the Black Country Core Strategy (adopted in 2011), the Sandwell Site Allocations and Development Plan Document (the SAD, adopted in 2012) and Area Action Plans for West Bromwich, Smethwick and Tipton. We also note that the Local Plan will incorporate elements of former supplementary planning documents as appropriate and will include details from the West Bromwich Masterplan and Interim Planning Statement.

National Highways agree in principle to the vision and objectives of the Draft Local Plan.

Housing and employment requirements

Based on our review of the Regulation 18 consultation, we note that the housing and employment requirement has changed slightly since the ‘Issues and Options’ consultation. The draft Local Plan consultation document outlines that there is a requirement to deliver 185 hectares of employment land and 29,773 dwellings over the plan period up to 2041. We note that the housing and employment requirement have primarily been identified based on the National Standard method on housing projections and Economic Development Need Assessment (EDNA) respectively.

While the housing demand stands at 29,773 dwellings, supply for 11,167 dwellings is expected to come through the adoption of the upcoming Local Plan, thereby leaving an unmet need for 18,606 homes. We appreciate that the Council will liaise with the neighbouring authorities to help accommodate some of Sandwell’s unmet housing needs through their own housing provision. National Highways welcomes further information on this once the Council identifies the working arrangement and we look forward to understanding the impacts from these developments on the SRN in the area as you progress into Regulation 19.

The quantum of employment land intended to be delivered through the Local Plan is 42ha, with a shortfall of 143ha. We note that the housing and employment supply identified in the Draft Local Plan has considered the existing planning applications, sites under construction, and windfall allowance.

We note that a Sustainability Appraisal process has been undertaken to streamline the different housing and employment growth options and acknowledge that the allocation of sites has taken into consideration the location, availability of greenfield/ brownfield sites, and sustainability elements through a ‘Balanced Green Growth’ approach. We note that the new development allocations are focussed within the Regeneration Areas and Centres, which is likely to lead to a more efficient use of land and in improving the sustainable travel options.

Sustainable transport

We acknowledge that the Draft Local Plan has specifically focussed on policies to tackle climate change by reduction in carbon emissions, improving sustainable modes of transport, development of energy efficient buildings, etc.

Policy STR3 sets out the need for planning applications to demonstrate how the development ensures adequate accessibility and connectivity, measures to improve sustainable transport, and requirement to produce a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan where necessary, and we welcome this. References have been made in Policy STR3 on how developers are expected to create an environment that encourages walking, cycling and public transport when designing their schemes.

Policies STR4 (The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics), STR5 (Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking) and STR6 (Influencing the Demand for Travel and Travel Choices) sets guidelines on improving the sustainable transport. We appreciate the effort taken in developing these policies and consider this to be aligned with the expectations set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Highways’ Net Zero Strategy.

Potential impact on the SRN

Based on our review of the Draft Local Plan and the Policies Map, we have identified a few sites from that may have the potential to impact the operation of the SRN in the area. The table overleaf (Table 1) contains the list of potential new housing sites that are likely to have an impact on the SRN in terms of traffic and / or boundary related matters. Please note that we have not included the employment sites in this table as the anticipated land-use and size of developable area are unavailable at this stage. Nonetheless, impacts are expected from employment sites identified in Policy SEC 1- 2,3,5,7,9 and 10 as a minimum.

Should the housing sites listed in Table 1 proceed to the final Local Plan, further assessment work may be required to ascertain the impact on the SRN and to determine the need for any mitigation if required. Whilst we have identified the immediate SRN junctions in close proximity to the housing site allocations where a likely impact is anticipated, it should be noted that the assessments should not be limited to these junctions only and a wider extent needs to be considered based on the scale of the proposed development.

Table 1: List of potential new housing allocations in the Sandwell Draft Local Plan (2022 – 2041) likely to have an impact on the SRN in the area (See attachment)

Impact Assessment

Any potential site that is anticipated to have an impact on the SRN in the area is recommended to be subject to consultation with National Highways, and appropriately assessed in line with the Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 01/2022 to determine the extent of their potential impacts on the SRN in the area. Depending on the scale of likely impact on the SRN in the area, the applicant/developer may need to identify suitable mitigation measures (if required). It is to be noted that the cumulative impact of the proposed site allocations also needs to be assessed in line with the Circular for understanding the likely traffic impacts on the SRN in the area in terms of capacity & safety and identifying any possible mitigation measures (if required).

We wish to continue to liaise with Sandwell MBC during the development of the Local Plan to understand which sites will be allocated and the potential impacts of these allocations on the SRN. National Highways recommends that a robust transport evidence base in the form of a Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) be produced to support the development of the Local Plan. To support this key piece of work we would recommend the setting up of a Transport Working Group, who can work with Sandwell MBC as the Local Planning Authority to agree the methodology, assessments and infrastructure requirements to support the Plan’s development and adoption.

Black Country Transport Modelling Report (2023)
We note that the Black Country Transport Modelling Report (2023) has been submitted as an evidence base to support the Local Plan and includes the draft scenario assessment, and we welcome this. We acknowledge that the modelling exercise will further be revised in the future as the Local Plan progresses and we look forward to hearing more on this in the Regulation 19 consultation. We have undertaken a high level review of this report and have the following comments:

1. There isn’t enough information available to understand the list of development allocations considered for the modelling exercise. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 of the report indicate the level of population and employment growth on a high-level basis, however no supporting appendices are available that list the development allocations included. Table 2-1 provides a list of the transport schemes coded within the model, and note that M5 J1 has been included in this list as a highway scheme. However, no further detail on the scope/extent of improvement is available. National Highways request clarification.

2. Table 2.1 details the transport schemes added to form the DS network. Several schemes were not included due to agreement between BCLA and the consultants, “…due to negligible impact on the network.” National Highways request some justification/documentation of these decisions.

3. Based on the information set out in section 1 of the report, it is to be understood that the modelling exercise was undertaken to support the Black Country Plan allocations proposed at the time. Also, the modelling report is dated 10 Jan 2023 and therefore, it's highly unlikely that the current set of development allocations proposed in Sandwell and Dudley Draft LP has been included within the development uncertainty log of this PRISM model. National Highways request clarification.

4. Assumptions are only discussed where they differ from the RC work detailed in the previous stage. Our technical partners, are therefore unable to review the unchanged parameters such as highway generalised cost, PT fare, values of time, vehicle operating cost and bus speed etc.. National Highways request this information is provided.

5. Highway model convergence: delta and link cost stability is achieved, but link flow stability (>98% of link with link flow change <1% for 4 successive iterations) appears to be still improving (Tables 3-3 and 3-4). Stopping conditions appear to be too lenient.

6. Observation on numbers of iterations: the DM scenario appears to reach convergence much quicker than the equivalent DS scenario. This is counter intuitive, as the DM and DS have the same levels of development, with the DS having additional transport schemes. Additional capacity usually aids convergence. National Highways request further information from the model appliers.

7. Highway network statistics: average speeds (calculated by veh-km/veh-hr) decline between the RC and DM and the DM and DS. National Highways request some justification/commentary from the model appliers.

8. Flow difference plots. We note the commentary on page 29 and agree. National Highways request results of investigations into the model noise be supplied.

9. Journey time results seem to show that DS has slightly worse network performance than DM, which would benefit from explanation from the model appliers and National Highways requests this. Some large differences also support the previous comments about model noise.

10. If possible, National Highways requests the models are made available for review.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Part 1

Policy STR 1 has identified the need for improvements at M5 J1 and J2 to be delivered during the plan period. Following the identification of the improvement measures, we welcome you to have discussions with National Highways at an early stage.

We note that an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – Part 1 (Infrastructure Assessment Need) has been submitted along with the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan. Part 1 of the IDP reflects an understanding of baseline infrastructure capacity and needs within Sandwell and ensures that the implications of future growth upon infrastructure are understood. We understand that Part 2 of the IDP will include an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule and will be published alongside the upcoming Regulation 19 Pre- submission version of the Local Plan. We appreciate that National Highways will be consulted on any infrastructure improvements identified for the SRN in the area and we look forward to engaging with you at the early stage itself.

For information, there is currently no committed funding for this area within the RIS2 and RIS3 planned period and therefore we are keen to understand the monetary implications and what can and cannot be achieved via developer contributions.

Duty to Cooperate

For any developments which have an impact on neighbouring Local Authorities (LA) National Highways advises a joined-up approach in which National Highways, Sandwell and the other LAs attend joint meetings with the future developer or applicants. This will ensure that the interests of all parties are protected, and a combined solution is derived.

National Highways will actively work with Sandwell MBC to develop and draft a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) to deal with any strategic cross boundary issues as the Local Plan progresses.

Duty to Cooperate

The Draft SLP notes that there is significant movement of waste into and out of Sandwell as follows:

‘13.20 The BCWS waste projections also considered net waste imports. Around 1.35 million tonnes of waste were received at permitted waste sites (including landfill sites) and operational incinerators in Sandwell in 2021 (BCWS Table 2.10). The total imports into Sandwell originating from the West Midlands Region was 746 tonnes, representing 68% of the total waste received.

[N.B. WMRTAB notes paragraph 2.8.7 of the updated Black Country Waste Study for Sandwell states that 'The total imports into Sandwell originating from the West Midlands region (excluding the waste originating in Sandwell) was 746,000 tonnes’ and so the ‘746’ value included in paragraph 13.20 shown above is an error.]

13.21 More than 80% of the waste received at permitted waste facilities in Sandwell (excluding incinerators) in 2021 by tonnage originated within the former West Midlands region (BCWS Appendix J, Table J4). However, the originating authority of 29.5% of this waste is not known. 15% of the waste is recorded as originating from within the Black Country, and 15% from Birmingham.

13.22 Similarly, more than 80% of the waste received at permitted sites in England which was recorded as having originated in Sandwell in 2021 (by tonnage) did not travel beyond the former West Midlands region. Outside the West Midlands, the East Midlands, Southwest and East of England were the three largest importers of waste into Sandwell, importing 9% of total waste.

13.23 In 2021 nearly 608kt of waste originating in Sandwell were exported to permitted sites in England and Wales.’

The distribution of waste arising in Sandwell to authorities in the West Midlands is set out in Figure 2.3 of the updated Back Country Waste Study for Sandwell (2023) 2 which is set out below: (See attached Letter)

In light of the above, WMRTAB notes that meaningful dialogue between Sandwell and other Waste Planning Authorities is likely to be important to ensure it meets its obligations under the Duty to Cooperate.

The Sandwell Duty to Cooperate (DtC) Statement (published November 2023),3 paragraph 61 ‘Effect of new development on waste disposal’, notes that ‘The Council has been involved in waste discussions through the West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (RTAB), a body set up to support and promote cooperation between Waste Planning Authorities (WPAs) and others. The Council sent DtC letters out to those Waste Planning Authorities where waste movements were above the agreed thresholds for waste movements. Letters were set out on the 19th April 2023 and were followed up on the 25th May 2023. Staffordshire, Dudley and Walsall Councils consider the matter to be significant enough to warrant a SoCG, whereas Cheshire East and Chester Council would like further discussions on the matter’.

It is understood that engagement related to ensuring compliance with the DtC is ongoing and that application of the WMRTAB Duty to Cooperate protocol has revealed that there are very few waste movements to WPAs which exceed the 20% threshold for movement to one authority and there are no movements within the last year that exceed the 40% threshold. At this stage WMRTAB notes that whilst a DtC statement4 has been prepared this does not set appear to out the purpose of the DtC correspondence that has taken place so far and whether there were any outcomes, particularly in terms of whether the Local Plans of other areas allowed for, or would allow for, the meeting of any future unmet waste management capacity requirements that currently exist or might exit in the future in Sandwell. The inclusion of such information is not essential, however WMRTAB wish to draw attention to the Planning Inspectorate ‘Procedure Guide for Local Plan Examinations’ which includes the following (with emphasis added):

‘Has evidence to demonstrate compliance with the Duty to Co-operate been prepared?
1.15. In order to demonstrate compliance with the duty to co-operate (section 33A of the PCPA), the most helpful approach is for the LPA to submit a statement of compliance with the duty. The statement of compliance should identify any relevant strategic matters and how they have been resolved – or if they have not, why not. It should detail who the LPA has co-operated with and on which strategic matter(s), the nature and timing of the co-operation (e.g. by including meeting notes), and the outcomes of the co-operation, including how it has influenced the plan’

In any event it is recommended that the outcomes of the application of WMRTAB protocol to identifying strategic waste movements be documented. In this regard WMRTAB notes that it is important that information within the evidence base concerning the need for Duty to Cooperate engagement (and, if required, nature, reason and any outcomes of the engagement) is included to allow consultees to comment on whether engagement with other Waste Planning Authorities is necessary and, if it has taken place, whether this has been sufficient to meet the legislative requirements. WMRTAB appreciates that any dialogue may be ongoing and, in any event, is pleased to confirm that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is an active member of WMRTAB and an officer from the Council regularly attends the group’s meeting and contributes to its work. WMRTAB has therefore facilitated discussion between Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and other neighbouring waste planning authorities to assist with meeting its Duty to Cooperate (DtC) on matters pertaining to the planning for waste management.

Planning for Sufficient Waste Management Capacity
Paragraphs 13.17 to 13.28 set out estimated arisings and whether capacity gaps (surpluses) will exist in future. This is essentially the key findings of the ‘Updated waste needs assessment to support preparation of emerging Local Plans for each Black Country Authority – Sandwell’. This report provides an updated assessment of the likely future waste management capacity gaps (and surpluses) for Sandwell based on 2021 data. WMRTAB notes that a previous study had been prepared in 2022 for the Black Country following advice from WMRTAB that waste needs assessments should be based on the latest available data. WMRTAB notes that more recent data, for 2022, is now available via the Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator 2022 that was published in November.

WMRTAB notes that paragraph 13.17 of the Draft SLP states that ‘under current projections, the quantity of waste Sandwell is projected to manage increases from
1.75 mt in 2021 to 2.2 mt in 2040 – 41, equating to an increase of 26% or 1.2% per annum. An ongoing emphasis on waste reduction has seen a 7.5% reduction in waste per household since 2006 - 07 and this trend could have a significant influence on future waste growth. However, there are emerging changes in the need for different types of waste management capacity’.

Paragraph 13.20 of the Draft SLP states that ‘the BCWS waste projections also considered net waste imports. Around 1.35 million tonnes of waste were received at permitted waste sites (including landfill sites) and operational incinerators in Sandwell in 2021 (BCWS Table 2.10). The total imports into Sandwell originating from the West Midlands Region was 746 tonnes, representing 68% of the total waste received’. WMRTAB supports the recognition of Sandwell’s role in managing waste from other areas.

[see comment about the ‘746’ error above – this should read 746,000]

Paragraph 13.39 further notes that the ‘quantity of waste Sandwell is projected to manage (included imported waste) is predicted to increase from 1.75 million tonnes (mt) in 2021 to 2.1 mt in 2040-41, equating to an increase of 23% or 1.1% per annum. However, this does not appear consistent with data in paragraph 13.17 which states (inconsistencies highlighted):

‘Under current projections, the quantity of waste Sandwell is projected to manage increases from 1.75 mt in 2021 to 2.2 mt in 2040 – 41, equating to an increase of 26% or 1.2% per annum. An ongoing emphasis on waste reduction has seen a 7.5% reduction in waste per household since 2006 - 07 and this trend could have a significant influence on future waste growth. However, there are emerging changes in the need for different types of waste management capacity.’

WMRTAB recommends that the figures highlighted are checked to ensure they are consistent, or an explanation of the inconsistency is provided. In any event WMRTAB supports the approach to recognising waste imports in calculation of arisings to be planned for.

Future waste management ‘capacity gaps’ for the Black Country (Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton and Walsall) are identified over the plan period. The Draft SLP states, at paragraph 13.26, that Table 4.9 of the Black Country Waste Study (BWCS) ‘predicts that the following additional waste management capacity will need to be delivered in the Black Country between 2021 and 2041 to maintain net self- sufficiency’:

a. re-use / recycling (non-hazardous municipal waste) – 813 kt to 4tpa [Note that a value of ‘4 tonnes per annum’ suggests that data is being presented with ‘spurious precision’ which national policy advises against].
b. energy recovery (residual municipal waste) – 335 to 663 kt tpa’

The BCWS (updated 2023) (Updated waste needs assessment to support preparation of emerging Local Plans for each Black Country Authority – Sandwell) identifies a range of waste management capacity gaps for recycling, recovery and landfill calculated using the following three scenarios:

Existing capacity is set out in paragraph 2.6.3 of the updated BCWS as follows: ‘in 2021 the capacity of permitted waste sites in Sandwell was estimated to be:
• Recycling and Recovery – 922,000 tonnes per annum
• Transfer – 394,000 tonnes per annum
• Inert Landfill – 0 cubic metres/ 0 tonnes
• Non-Hazardous Landfill – 5.6 million cubic metres/ 4.8 million tonnes
• Hazardous Landfill – 0 cubic metres/ 0 tonnes

…..This gives a total baseline capacity of around 6.1 million tonnes’.

The capacity gaps are identified in the updated BWCS as follows:

The commentary relating to Table 3.9 is set out in the following paragraphs which state (with emphasis added):

‘3.5.25 Table 3.9 shows us that the waste management capacity gaps over the Plan Period are more apparent for recycling sites under WMS option 2 and 3 as more waste is sent for recycling in line with government targets. There is also a capacity deficit for recovery sites up until 2025 over all three options, more so for WMS3; however, after 2025 extra recovery capacity comes online and there is no longer a recovery deficit. Given the internal increase in waste sent for recycling, and the reduced requirement on waste sent for recovery, it is expected that waste imported for recovery to be slightly higher under WMS2 than WMS3. Under WMS3 the internal demand for recovery capacity is higher with less waste sent for recycling, but the recovery projections for C&D waste are higher under WMS2 option. There is sufficient disposal capacity over most of the plan period under all three options, in particular under WMS2 and WMS3 as less waste is sent for disposal. From 2039 onwards however, WMS1 has a disposal deficit closely followed by WMS2 and WMS3 in 2040’.

3.5.26 Housing growth will put pressure on existing household waste management capacity, and as this is largely managed outside Sandwell under current contractual arrangements this is an important focus going forward. Sandwell may also need to accommodate some of the waste capacity requirements of other waste planning authorities, especially as they are a net importer of waste, putting greater pressure on an already saturated waste management infrastructure capacity.

3.5.27 There are limited options for residual waste disposal with few quarries in Sandwell likely to come forward for restoration by infilling with inert or non-hazardous waste during the Plan Period. There are also limited options for CD&E waste recycling and organic waste treatment; there are no composting or anaerobic digestion facilities within the area.


3.5.28 In order to achieve ‘net self-sufficiency’ Sandwell would be expected to provide for extra waste capacity of the types it can in theory accommodate (e.g. re-use, recycling, MRS, energy recovery, waste treatment, inert and non- hazardous landfill) to make up for the types of waste capacity it cannot accommodate because of being a largely built-up area (e.g. composting, AD, hazardous landfill).

WMRTAB notes that capacity gaps are therefore identified in the updated BWCS, however it has the following observations:

1. Due to the use of different terms, it is not absolutely clear how the capacity gaps identified in Table 3.9 translate to the capacity it is stated could be accommodated (in theory) in Sandwell in paragraph 3.5.28; and,
2. while the capacity gaps are clearly set out on the updated BWCS they are not clearly stated in the Draft SLP.

WMRTAB recommends that the Draft SLP should clearly state and indicate how the quantum of additional capacity, of each different waste management capacity type is being planned for by the SLP. In particular, the SLP should state clearly what the future requirement for landfill capacity will be and how that requirement is to be met. This should include any expectation that waste to be managed by landfill will be exported to other areas.

Notwithstanding the fact that the maintenance of net self-sufficiency (in terms of provision for waste management) appears to have been taken into account in the estimates of capacity gaps, it is not included as an objective within the Draft SLP. For the avoidance of doubt, WMRTAB consider that such an objective should be clearly included within the SLP.

Locations for Waste Management
WMRTAB notes that no specific sites for new waste management facilities have been allocated in the Draft SLP. Paragraph 13.47 (Identification of Preferred Sites) states: ‘it is not proposed to allocate specific sites for waste in the Local Plan because no new sites likely to be deliverable within the plan period have been identified, apart from sites that already have planning permission (NPPF, 16, 35, Annex 2). To have sufficient confidence to allocate a site, it would need to be actively promoted for a waste management use by the Council, a landowner and / or a commercial waste operator’.

However, paragraph 13.38 of the Draft SLP states: ‘The identification and delivery of new waste management facilities will make a significant contribution towards meeting new capacity requirements set out above and will meet the aims and objectives of the Plan.’

Policy SWA3 states: ‘The preferred locations for waste management facilities are the Local Employment Areas shown on the Sandwell Local Plan Policies Map.’

Paragraph 13.57 goes into further detail explaining that (with emphasis added): ‘Several broad locations suitable for the development of new waste management facilities in Sandwell have been identified in Table 13 of Policy SWA3’

WMRTAB acknowledge that the choice of the ‘Preferred Areas’ identified in the BWCS ‘as being most suited to the development of new waste recovery, treatment, and transfer infrastructure’ was based on a series of locational considerations and constraints to identify the most appropriate likely future location for new waste facilities.

WMRTAB understand Sandwell has undertaken numerous Call for Sites exercises during the preparation of the current Local Plan and as part of its involvement in the former Black Country Plan.

WMRTAB acknowledges that the approach of not allocating specific sites reflects the local circumstances/nature of the Black Country whereby waste sites frequently feature within general employment areas across the urban area and these are located within large urban areas that are constrained in terms of opportunities for new developments overall. WMRTAB recommends that the approach, of not allocating specific sites and relying on general areas and areas of employment land, be robustly justified within the evidence base.

Landfill
Although at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, non-hazardous landfill is still an important type of waste management that needs to be planned for and WMRTAB notes that there is little consideration of this matter in the Draft SLP, with no mention how non-hazardous landfill would be planned for.

A report prepared for WMRTAB on landfill in the West Midlands indicates the following for 2019:

There are five landfill sites for inert, non-hazardous & hazardous waste in the Black Country. At the end of 2019, active inert landfill capacity was estimated at 690,000 (m3), non-hazardous LF capacity estimated at 11,666,401 (m3) and non-hazardous LF capacity with SNRHW cell estimated at 418,953 (m3). Landfill sites have been allocated in Walsall which allow a further increase inert landfill capacity of 3,000,000 (m3) in future.

WMRTAB notes that it is important that the future management of waste requiring disposal is planned for in the SLP and recognises that this should be resolved via the ongoing Duty to Cooperate engagement.

Waste management development considerations
WMRTAB generally supports the development considerations set out in Policies SWA1, SWA2, SWA3, SWA4 and SWA5 in relation to employment areas, minimising harm to human health and the environment, and other impacts of waste management proposals such as on surrounding buildings, resources and constraints on development.

WMRTAB suggests that the meaning of Policy SWA1-Waste Infrastructure Future Requirements could be clarified. Currently this states (with emphasis added):

‘Waste Infrastructure Future Requirements:

1. Proposals for relevant, major development shall evidence how its operation will minimise waste production, as well as facilitating the re-use and recovery of waste materials including, for example, through recycling, composting and energy from waste.
2. Waste operators will be expected to demonstrate that the greenhouse gas emissions from the operations involved and associated transport of waste from source to processing facility have been minimised, in line with national and local targets for the transition to a net zero carbon economy.
3. Proposals for waste management facilities will be supported based upon the following principles;
a. managing waste through the waste hierarchy in sequential order. Sites for the disposal of waste will only be permitted where it meets a need which cannot be met by treatment higher in the waste hierarchy;
b. promoting the opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises and encouraging the co-location of waste developments that can use each other’s waste materials;
c. ensuring that sufficient capacity is located within Sandwell to accommodate the waste capacity requirements during the plan period and reducing the reliance on other authority areas;
d. enabling the development of recycling facilities across Sandwell, including civic amenity sites, and ensuring that there is enough capacity and access for the deposit of municipal waste for re-reuse, recycling, and disposal;
e. waste must be disposed of, or be recovered in, one of the nearest appropriate facilities, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health;
f. ensuring new waste management facilities are located and designed to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts on the townscape and landscape, human health and well-being, nature conservation and heritage assets and amenity;
g. working collaboratively with neighbouring authorities with responsibilities for waste who import waste into, or export waste out of, Sandwell, to ensure a co-operative cross boundary approach to waste management is maintained.

Firstly, regarding clause 1, the term ‘relevant major development’ has not been defined. WMRTAB suggest additional clarity could be provided within the SLP to make it clearer what ‘relevant major development’ consists of and so therefore what type of proposal would this part of the policy apply to. Point 1. Also states that there is a need to demonstrate how ‘operation’ of the facility will ‘minimise waste production’, however, the construction phase seems to have been not considered within the policy whereas this is frequently a source of significant quantities of waste.

Part 2 of the policy expects that greenhouse gas emissions will be minimised ‘in line with national and local targets for the transition to a net zero carbon economy’, however there is no indication of what these targets are and so it is recommended that information be included to provide clarity and in turn allow proper implementation of the policy.

WMRTAB strongly supports part 3, clause ‘g’ of the policy, however the extent to which Sandwell will rely on other areas in future to meets its needs and how it is meeting the capacity requirements of other areas it is not clear with the Draft SLP (see comments above concerning the Duty to Cooperate) but WMRTAB recognises that this should be resolved via the ongoing Duty to Cooperate engagement activity.

Safeguarding
Paragraph 13.39 of the Draft SLP states that the ‘The Sandwell Local Plan is a strategic plan and therefore it focuses on safeguarding strategic waste sites.
The approach of protecting existing/safeguarding waste facilities from other development which may impact on their operation is implemented by Policy SWA2 (Waste Sites). WMRTAB notes that this is an important consideration, especially in an area where it is difficult to find suitable land for waste management development. In addition, it is further noted, in paragraph 13.25, that: ‘The Council will look to identify development sites for waste infrastructure, with priority placed upon the safeguarding of existing and allocated sites for continued use.’

Policy SWA2 states that (with emphasis added):
1. Sandwell will safeguard all existing strategic and other waste management facilities from inappropriate development, to maintain existing levels of waste management capacity and meet Strategic Objective 17, unless it can be demonstrated that:
a. there is no longer a need for the facility; and
b. capacity can be met elsewhere; or
c. appropriate compensatory provision is made in appropriate locations elsewhere in the Black Country; or
d. the site is required to facilitate the strategic objectives of the Sandwell.

2. This policy will also apply to all new waste management sites that are implemented within the lifetime of the plan.

New development near existing waste facilities

3. Proposals for housing and other potentially sensitive uses will not be permitted near to or adjacent to an existing waste management site where there is potential for conflict between the uses,


a. unless a temporary permission for a waste use has expired, or the waste management use has otherwise ceased, and the site or infrastructure is considered unsuitable for a subsequent waste use;
b. or redevelopment of the waste site or loss of waste infrastructure would form part of a strategy or scheme that has wider environmental, social and / or economic benefits that outweigh the retention of the site or infrastructure for the waste use and alternative provision is made for the displaced waste use;
c. or a suitable replacement site or infrastructure has otherwise been identified and permitted.
4. Waste Site Impact Assessments will be expected to demonstrate that at least one of the above criteria applies. Applications should also identify any 'legacy' issues arising from existing or former waste uses, and how these will be addressed through the design of the development and the construction process.

WMRTAB generally supports the approach in the Draft SLP to safeguarding existing waste management capacity but has the following observations:

• Clause 1 of Policy SWA2 mentions ‘other waste sites’ but it is not clear what these are. Should this make it clear that this means all other waste sites which are allowed to operate by planning legislation?
• The identified ‘strategic waste sites’ and ‘other waste sites’ appear to have the same level of safeguarding protection and so it is unclear why a distinction has been made between strategic and other waste sites. If the intention is to safeguard all waste sites, regardless of whether they are considered strategic or not, then WMRTAB recommend that the policy states this clearly.
• Clause 1. d. appears to introduce a contradiction as the ‘strategic objectives’ include Draft SLP Strategic Objective 17 that states: ‘To manage waste as a resource and minimise the amount produced and sent to landfill, including ensuring that the reliance on primary minerals during construction and development are kept to a minimum and that greater use is made of recycled or alternative building materials’. In addition, paragraph 13.2 outlines ‘the key objective for waste across Sandwell is to minimise its generation across all sectors and increase the re-use, recycling, and recovery rates of waste material.

Other matters
Policy SCC4 – Flood Risks, identifies waste (and mineral) facilities as the only types of development where all such proposals would require a flood risk assessment and surface water drainage strategy as outlined below:

‘7. All new developments in the following locations should be accompanied by a flood risk assessment and surface water drainage strategy that sets out how the development will provide a betterment in flood risk terms i.e., help to reduce flood risk both on and off site:…

• where the site is a minerals or waste development;’


While proposals for certain types of waste facilities may need such assessment, WMRTAB suggest that the Draft SLP check whether this blanket approach is justified.

The Reg 18 Sandwell Local Plan – Reg 18 Consultation Spatial Strategy Paper (published November 2023), Corporate Plan Objectives includes the objectives as set out in paragraph 3.6 below.
‘Para 3.6 The objectives summarised below for the Core Strategy sought to deliver the Vision by 2026 and promoted: -
i. Sufficient waste recycling and waste management facilities in locations’

WMRTAB suggest that the text regarding the year 2026 above needs to be re- checked as the SLP period is until 2041.

Whilst Sandwell and SDC/WDC do not share an administrative boundary, Stratford-on-Avon District is part of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) which includes Sandwell and the wider West Midlands conurbation and the surrounding authorities. Along with North Warwickshire Borough Council, Stratford-on-Avon District also sits within the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA. Warwick District Council, our partner authority in the South Warwickshire Local Plan, is not within the GBBCHMA.

SMBC wrote to SDC under the Duty to Cooperate in June 2024, requesting a response to specific points regarding strategic housing issues. As with the preparation of this response, SDC consulted WDC and SDC responded to SMBC in August 2024 and that response can be viewed on the Council’s website. We note that Stratford DC’s response to this letter has been collated in Sandwell’s September 2024 Duty to Co-operate Statement. The table at Appendix 6 notes Stratford District’s commitment to the HMA wide Growth Study.

Duty to Co-operate

Para 16 of the Local Plan notes that Sandwell Council has been working collaboratively with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary issues for a number of years and will continue to do so. It is stated at paras 17-18 that Statements of Common Ground will document the cross-boundary matters that need to be addressed and what progress has been made in dealing with them.

Strategic Growth Study

The latest GBBCHMA Strategic Growth Study was prepared in 2018 and quantified the shortfall across the GBBCHMA as it stood at the time and proposed spatial housing growth options which could help address this shortfall. The overall scale of the shortfall has not been collectively quantified beyond 2031 since the 2018 Study. Stratford District Council is one of several authorities seeking a new study to refresh the 2018 Study, re-evaluating the housing shortfall in light of more recent evidence and policy.

Spatial Strategy for Sandwell and unmet need

Chapter 3 of the Sandwell Local Plan sets out the Spatial Strategy for Sandwell. By way of headlines of relevance to Stratford District, and South Warwickshire, an extract of policy SDS1 is included below which states that Sandwell will:
1. a. Deliver at least 10,434 net new homes
b. Maintain the ongoing provision of around 1,221ha of allocated employment land…
3. …development needs that cannot be accommodated within the borough will be exported to sustainable locations in neighbouring local authority areas, following consultation.

Paras 3.12 – 3.19 expand upon the Duty to Co-operate, with para 3.14 identifying that the local housing need for Sandwell for the period from 2024-2041 stands at 26,350, meaning that the commitment to deliver 10,434 homes in Sandwell will leave a substantial shortfall of 15,916 homes. Similarly for employment land, whilst Sandwell currently has 1,221ha of employment land, only 28ha of this is currently vacant and related employment evidence suggests there is a need for 185ha of vacant land for new employment development. Taking into account additional completions, there is a shortfall of 169ha of vacant employment land.

In line with national policy, there is a requirement for any housing or employment unmet need to be provided for across the relevant Housing Market Area, Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) or other areas with which Sandwell has a strong physical or functional relationship. A number of local authorities have made offers of contributions to address the GBBCHMA shortfall or specifically to the Black Country Authorities (who were previously working together on a joint Black Country Plan), however it is understood that the offers of contributions are being revisited following the recent consultation on the revised NPPF and the related revised methodology for calculating local housing need which has increased the housing need figure for many of the local authorities. Para 3.17 states that if a shortfall remains over and above existing and anticipated contributions from other local authorities, Sandwell will undertake further work as appropriate to identify how the shortfall might be addressed.

Regarding the employment land shortfall, Sandwell’s evidence base states that this will be met through the Black Country FEMA and with those local authorities with a strong or moderate relationship with the Black Country FEMA. These areas are defined on Figure 3.1 in the 2022 Black Country EDNA does not include the local authorities of Stratford or Warwick districts.
0
Response from Stratford-on-Avon District Council

It is clear that Sandwell faces a significant challenge in meeting their local housing need figure and employment requirement, and that at present a substantial shortfall in the number of homes and employment land to be provided against the level of need is evident. It is clear from the evidence that neither Stratford or Warwick districts have strong or moderate employment or labour market linkages with Sandwell and the wider Black Country FEMA, and therefore Stratford district would not be a candidate for assisting with meeting unmet employment land needs. Therefore, the comments focus on Sandwell’s proposed strategy for meeting housing needs.

As stated in Stratford’s response to Sandwell’s Duty to Cooperate letter dated June 2024, the South Warwickshire Local Plan (2024) is at an early stage of preparation and as such it is not yet known whether the needs of South Warwickshire can be met within the two districts, particularly in light of the potential significant increase in Local Housing Need arising from the proposed changes to the Standard Method, as proposed in the draft NPPF (July 2024). Therefore, at this stage, Stratford cannot make a commitment to assisting Sandwell with meeting any of its unmet need. Whilst we are committed to continuing to work with our partner authorities across the GBBCHMA on an update to the 2018 Growth Study and an evidenced method to apportion any unmet need across the authority, it would be premature to put forward any contributions that have not been derived from this joint work. However, we would take the opportunity to highlight as we have in our previous responses to you, that in the event that there may be a request/need for South Warwickshire to accommodate any unmet housing need, then this would need to be considered in light of any necessary supporting infrastructure requirements and how this would be funded.
The specific wording of proposed policy SDS1, point 3 states that “development needs that cannot be accommodated within the borough will be exported to sustainable locations in neighbouring local authorities”. As discussed above, neither Stratford or Warwick districts share a boundary with Sandwell borough and therefore are not neighbouring authorities. There is also concern that this policy wording does not align with the supporting text at para 3.17 to policy SDS1 which says that Sandwell will undertake further work as appropriate to identify how the shortfall might be addressed. The detail of this further work is unknown, and we query how this could inform the Local Plan at this advanced point in the preparation process, close to Submission.

Given that the proposed plan period for the Sandwell Local Plan extends to 2041, which is beyond the 2031 horizon of the 2018 Growth Study, the planned update to the sub-regional work is required to provide an updated picture covering the entire plan period. There is no mechanism within the Publication Version of the Sandwell Local Plan as drafted to respond to the planned work of the GBBCHMA regarding quantifying and apportioning the shortfall in homes across the Housing Market Area through the proposed Growth Study refresh. It is therefore currently unclear how this strategic work could influence the Sandwell Local Plan and be effective in assisting with meeting the substantial identified shortfall.

Conclusion

Based on the observations above, Stratford on Avon District Council (with Warwick District Council) consider that the Publication Version of the Sandwell Local Plan as drafted raises questions regarding the approach to meeting housing need and the expectations of requirements of neighbouring local authority areas. We acknowledge Sandwell MBC’s efforts under the Duty to Cooperate to date but consider that further work is needed on this key strategic matter and would question whether Sandwell Council have fulfilled their requirements in this regard in the Publication version of the plan. We would suggest that the plan needs to be informed by the outcomes of the planned refresh to the GBBCHMA Growth Study to allow clearer, evidence based statements to be included in policy regarding the distribution of any unmet need. We note that a Statement of Common Ground is planned with members of the GBBCHMA regarding the apportionment of any contributions between the GBBCHMA authorities and agreement to refresh the 2018 HMA Strategic Growth Study. Stratford DC look forward to assisting with this in the coming months. We also note that the expected forthcoming publication of a revised NPPF will result in further consideration on this topic.

We would also reiterate that there are infrastructure pressures in both districts and neither have sufficient infrastructure or the funds to cater for significant additional population, particularly in respect of health, education and transport infrastructure. It would be necessary for any exported housing to be accompanied by sufficient resources to provide for these.

Stratford on Avon District Council (with Warwick District Council) reiterate their ongoing commitment to working with Sandwell Council on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries under the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate.