Ensuring that new development helps to contribute positively to the Local Nature Recovery Network should be mentioned in this Policy.

It is noted that Sandwell Council needs to identify land for 29,773 homes by 2041. However, the supply of suitable residential land identified by Sandwell Council stands at 11,167 homes, leaving an unmet need for 18,606 homes in the Plan period. The draft plan recognises that there is a finite supply of land readily available for development and it is very likely that it would not currently be possible to meet the full extent of Sandwell’s housing need within Sandwell itself. The Edwin Richards Quarry site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver a significant amount of housing, within the Plan period and into the subsequent plan period.

generally support the vision and development strategy. not against building on some green, non public land, eg Brandhall golf course, as long as it's well designed, at a higher density, and includes lots of open space and biodiversity opportunities.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Sandwell Local Plan (SLP). Our response is provided in plan order by individual SLP policies. Please note this represents an officer- level response at this stage, which is subject to formal Cabinet approval in 2024.
Overall, we support continued joint working and engagement under the Duty to Cooperate as our respective Local Plans progress and welcome further discussions to address the issues identified in our response.
Policy SDS1- Development Strategy
The key elements of this policy are supported by Dudley MBC, including the principle of delivering as much new development as possible on previously developed land and sites within the urban area. Sandwell MBC should continue to keep its urban capacity under review to identify any further opportunities for new development that would contribute to the shortfalls in housing and employment land supply currently identified. Please note our response to Policy SHO1 in respect of the housing land supply position.
The SLP identifies that Sandwell’s unmet housing and employment land needs will need to be provided for across the Housing Market Area (HMA), Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and other areas with which Sandwell has a physical or functional relationship. Reference is made to the latest position in respect of the Duty to cooperate with further information contained in the supporting Draft Plan Statement of Consultation (Duty to Cooperate Statement, 2023).
This Statement (at paragraphs 31-34) identifies that there are a series of ‘offers’ from other local authorities outside of the Black Country towards the unmet housing needs of the area. Dudley MBC agrees that this largely reflects the latest position, but there are some updates to take account of. The Dudley MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (2023) at paragraph 2.27 notes that Telford and Wrekin Council has since published its Regulation 18 Local Plan (October 2023) with a potential contribution of 1,600 homes towards the Black Country’s unmet housing needs. The Lichfield Local Plan was withdrawn from Examination in October 2023. We would also note that Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire Councils’ previously paused work on their local plans following the Government’s proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework in December 2022. We are aware that work on both plans has recently recommenced.
The Sandwell MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (at paragraph 34) states that discussions are ongoing in relation to how these contributions are disaggregated between the four Black Country authorities, which is also reflected within the Dudley MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (paragraph 2.26). Dudley MBC has identified a housing supply shortfall, as detailed within our recent Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, which it is similarly working to address via contributions from relevant local authorities under the Duty to Cooperate. Dudley MBC will therefore continue to work jointly with Sandwell MBC under the Duty to Cooperate to progress this matter.
In respect of unmet employment land needs, the Sandwell MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (paragraphs 36-41) sets out the ‘offers’ from other local authorities, which reflects the information contained within the Dudley MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement (2023). It is recognised that this reflects the position as was the case for the Black Country Local Plan draft plan consultation stage (as of 2021). The latest position, as contained within the up-to-date Black Country Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA, 2023) and Black Country Employment Land Supply Paper (2023) and resulting from any future updates to relevant local authority contributions, will need to be reflected at the next stage (Regulation 19) of our respective Local Plans. Dudley MBC has identified an employment land supply shortfall, as detailed within our recent Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, which it is similarly working to address via contributions from relevant local authorities under the Duty to Cooperate. Dudley MBC supports the principle of addressing the employment land shortfalls via the Black Country FEMA and will continue to work jointly with Sandwell MBC under the Duty to Cooperate to progress this matter.
For clarity, Dudley MBC is unable to contribute towards the housing and employment land supply shortfalls of Sandwell MBC.
In respect of the other strategic matters set out within the Sandwell MBC Duty to Cooperate Statement e.g., transport, natural environment, whilst it is recognised that here will be the key prescribed bodies to engage on these matters, Dudley MBC would welcome any cross-boundary considerations related to such topics also being reflected within forthcoming Statements of Common Ground between our authorities, as necessary.
Policy SDS2- Regeneration in Sandwell
Dudley MBC supports the SLP approach of focusing new development and regeneration within the identified Regeneration Areas and West Bromwich strategic centre.
The Regeneration Area of Dudley Port and Tipton relates to the draft Dudley Local Plan Regeneration Corridor 4 (the Regeneration Area of the Wednesbury to Tipton Metro Corridor is also of relevance). Dudley MBC supports references to the new public transport hub to be developed around the interchange of the Midland Metro Extension and Dudley Port railway station. Combined with the metro extension from Dudley town centre to Dudley Port, this will provide Dudley borough residents with enhanced access to the national railway network. Housing and employment development in this area is supported but should take account of any cross-boundary infrastructure requirements arising from specific proposals.
The justification to the policy references the opportunities to build upon the existing infrastructure, making the canals and greenspace a destination, linking to wider attractions such as the Dudley Canal Trust, Black Country Museum and Dudley Zoo. Recognition of these attractions and potential opportunities to enhance linkages to them is supported.
It is noted that £20million has been awarded from the Levelling Up Fund towards the regeneration of Tipton. Whilst the principle of the regeneration and redevelopment of such areas to deliver additional housing and employment growth is supported, specific proposals for the regeneration/redevelopment of the Owen Street District Centre (also known as Tipton Town Centre) should be of an appropriate scale to that centre so as not to detract from the functions of higher order centres within the vicinity, including Dudley Town Centre (identified as a Tier 2 centre within the draft Dudley Local Plan).
Policy SDS5 – Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy
Dudley MBC supports references within the justification text to assets that are also within Dudley borough, including cross-boundary sites such as Bumble Hole and Warrens Park.
Policy SNE1- Nature Conservation
Dudley MBC supports references to the protection of Fens Pool Special Area of Conservation. We would expect this to be addressed as part of the Habitats Regulation Assessment process for the SLP and individual development proposals, as necessary.
Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats
The Biodiversity Net Gain site proposals include Warren Halls Park Strategic Open Space, which represents a cross boundary opportunity with Bumble Hole Nature Reserve within Dudley borough. Bumble Hole Local Nature Reserve is identified as a potential Biodiversity Net Gain Receptor Site within the draft Dudley Local Plan.
The draft Dudley Local Plan identifies the Saltwells Local Nature Reserve as a potential Biodiversity Net Gain Receptor Site, which borders onto Mousesweet Brook Local Nature Reserve/SINC within Sandwell borough. This site is not identified within the SLP as a Biodiversity Net Gain site. There may be an opportunity for cross boundary working in relation to this area if the site was identified within the SLP. Dudley MBC will continue to work jointly with Sandwell MBC to identify any such opportunities going forward.
Dudley MBC supports the use of the Black Country Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy to maximise cross boundary benefits.
Dudley MBC welcomes the opportunity to explore and share active travel link improvements along Mousesweet Brook, Mushroom Green and Black Brook leading to Cradley Heath transport interchange (rail/bus station).
Policy SNE4- Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark
Dudley MBC supports this policy, which is consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP35 Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark.
Policy SHE2- Development in the Historic Environment
The policy and the supporting justification text references the Black Country Historic Landscape Characterisation Study (2019) and the supporting justification text references that Areas of High Historic Landscape (AHHLV) and Areas of High Historic Townscape value (AHHTV) were identified as part of this study. However, these areas do not then appear to be reflected within the policy itself (in terms of specific reference to them) or identified on the SLP Policies Map. There is also no reference made to the other two Historic Environment Area Designations (HEADS) identified in the Black County HLC - Designed Landscapes of High Historic Value (DLHHV) or Archaeological Priority Areas (APAs). For consistency in the implementation of the shared Black Country evidence base, and in recognition of cross boundary considerations in relation to the historic environment, Dudley MBC would welcome further references to these designations within the policy and for them to be reflected on the Policies Map. This is particularly relevant for site allocations which border/are adjacent to the Dudley borough boundary.
Policy SCC4- Flood Risk
The supporting justification text references the primary sources of fluvial flood risk within Sandwell which need to be addressed and considered. This includes the River Stour which crosses into Dudley borough. Dudley MBC supports these references.
Policy SHO1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth
It is noted that 11,167 net new homes will be delivered over the plan period (up to 2041) with 97% on brownfield land and 3% on greenfield land. The SLP prioritises the development of previously developed land. The Plan identifies that there is a resulting shortfall of 18,606 homes against a housing requirement of 29,773 homes. The draft SLP states that Sandwell MBC is in discussions with neighbouring authorities to seek their agreement to accommodate some of Sandwell’s unmet needs (at paragraphs 3.12-3.19).
Dudley MBC is supportive of the Council’s approach in terms of prioritising brownfield land development in the first instance and appropriate greenfield sites within the urban area. The approach to the review of urban capacity is generally supported, and the application of assumptions related to discounting of the housing land supply is largely consistent with that applied in Dudley borough. It is noted that the Council consider there are no exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land to meet identified housing needs, including the housing supply shortfall.
Dudley MBC is supportive of Sandwell MBC maximising its urban area supply to meet its own housing needs as far as possible, particularly considering the scale of the current housing supply shortfall identified (representing around two thirds of the minimum housing requirement). Sandwell MBC should continue to keep its urban capacity under review to identify any further opportunities for new development that would contribute to the shortfalls in housing supply identified.
It is noted that the Council has explored opportunities for additional supply from its centres (West Bromwich, Town, District and Local Centres across the borough). This yields around 219 additional dwellings. Related Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility states that the highest densities of 100+ dwellings per hectare representing apartment schemes will only be acceptable where accessibility standards set out in Table 6 are met and the site is located within West Bromwich. We would welcome clarification on whether schemes located outside of West Bromwich namely at the other town centres within the borough (as identified in Table 10 of the SLP) could also achieve such higher densities given their accessible locations.
Achieving higher densities within such locations could potentially yield additional urban supply, albeit it is recognised this is unlikely to be significant in the context of the scale of the housing supply shortfall. This would however be consistent with the approach set out under the former draft Black Country Local Plan (2021) Policy HOU2 where such densities were identified as appropriate for strategic and town centres. The draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP11- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility identifies hat the strategic centre of Brierley Hill and its other town centres at Dudley, Halesowen and Stourbridge are in principle suitable for such high-density developments (subject to local character considerations for individual schemes). Please also see our response to Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy in respect of matters related to the housing supply shortfall.
It is noted there are several major housing allocations proposed along/nearby the boundary with Dudley borough including:
• SH25- Bradleys Lane/High Street, Tipton (189 dwellings)- no planning permission.
• SH1- Brown Lion Street (27 dwellings)- planning permission.
• SH7- The Boat Gauging House and adjacent land (50 dwellings)- subject of planning application.
• Several allocations around Cradley Heath including: SH16- Cradley Heath Factory Centre, Woods Lane (196 dwellings)- partly subject of planning application; SH4- Lower High Street – Station hotel and Dunns site (20 dwellings)- no planning permission; SH13- Silverthorne Lane/Forge Lane (81 dwellings)- no planning permission; SH15- Mcarthur Road Industrial Estate (13 dwellings)- no planning permission.
• SH34- Brandhall Golf Course (190 dwellings)- subject of planning application.
• Whilst located near to Rowley Regis, given the scale of the proposed allocation at SH37-Edwin Richards Quarry (526 dwellings within the plan period and 100 dwellings post plan period, partly subject of planning permission/application for 276 dwellings) we also note the relative proximity of this site to Dudley borough.
These allocations should take account of cross-boundary infrastructure considerations given the potential for the cross-boundary use of and impacts upon highways, health, and education services. Matters related to impacts upon amenity and character of the local area should also be considered on a cross boundary basis. Dudley MBC would welcome the opportunity to be consulted on any future masterplans/other planning documents that may be produced for these sites going forward (and any planning applications, as appropriate). We would also welcome the opportunity to be engaged on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan that will support the SLP as its progresses to the next Regulation 19 stage so that any cross-boundary issues can be identified and addressed.
In respect of education provision specifically, we would note that historically for cross-border flow of pupils the largest flow for Dudley MBC is with Sandwell MBC. As such Dudley MBCs education team would welcome ongoing discussions in relation to housing allocations nearby the boundary including updates on the proposed delivery timescales and Sandwell MBCs position on the education provision for such schemes. We particularly note that the SH25 allocation at Bradley’s Lane and the various allocations around Cradley Heath are located closer to primary schools within Dudley borough than those in Sandwell.
In respect of transport matters specifically, all developments exceeding 150 dwellings (as compliant with Local Transport Note LTN 1/20) at or near the Dudley MBC boundary should be considered in terms of impact on the surrounding network and subject to traffic impact assessments. All new developments should be considered in terms of opportunities to deliver active travel, Community Infrastructure Levy funds, Section 106 contributions and access to bus rail and tram transport across local authority boundaries.
Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility
This policy is largely consistent with the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP11- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility. This is supported as it provides a consistent approach to sites which are in proximity to the Dudley borough boundary.
As per our comments on Policy SHO1, we would welcome clarification as to whether town centre locations within Sandwell could accommodate higher density developments of 100+ dwellings.
Policy SHO10- Accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Dudley MBC supports the proposed protection of existing authorised pitches (16 in total) and note that 10 new pitch allocations are proposed. The proposed allocation SG1 is nearby the Dudley borough boundary at Brierley Lane for 10 pitches, which would be an extension to an existing caravan site.
Dudley MBC would welcome clarification on the size of the existing site. As set out within the SLP supporting text (paragraph 7.71) there is generally a preference for family-sized sites of 10-15 pitches. As this allocation of 10 pitches represents an extension to an existing site, we would welcome clarification of the total eventual site size including existing and proposed pitches. We would be concerned with the delivery of a site whose scale is not well related to its surrounding area. Detailed proposals for this site should take account of any cross-boundary infrastructure issues arising and matters related to impacts upon amenity and character of the local area (including within Dudley borough).
The draft SLP policies are supported by the joint evidence base produced for the Black Country; the Black Country Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA, 2022). We welcome the use of this jointly produced evidence base. The GTTA identified a need of eight pitches up to 2031 and an additional six pitches from 2031-2041 for Sandwell. The SLP will deliver ten pitches to meet the need up to 2031 plus a buffer of two pitches (20%) - providing a five-year deliverable supply of pitches from adoption of the SLP in 2025. The approach will provide 71% of the total need for 14 pitches over the Plan period (2023-41). The SLP states that it is not possible to identify and allocate further sites to meet the remaining need for four pitches up to 2041 as no deliverable site options were put forward through the Sandwell Local Plan preparation process. Therefore, this remaining need will be met within the borough through the planning application process. This is consistent with past trends, where small windfall sites have come forward within the urban area.
The GTAA identified a need for 32 Travelling Showpeople plots for Sandwell. The SLP states it is not possible to identify and allocate sites to meet this need as no deliverable site options have been put forward through the Sandwell Local Plan preparation process. Therefore, this need will also be met within the borough, through the planning application process (and is consistent with past trends for windfall sites).
Dudley MBC is supportive of Sandwell MBC seeking to meet its outstanding needs via the planning application process. For clarity, Dudley MBC is unable to contribute towards any unmet needs of Sandwell and has identified its own shortfall in Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision within the draft Dudley Local Plan.
Policy SEC1- Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs
SLP Policy SEC1- Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs, identifies that the borough will provide at least 1,206ha of employment land. This consists of 1,177ha of occupied employment which is allocated as strategic, local or other employment land and 29ha of land that is currently vacant.
The SLP notes that the latest Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA, produced jointly in 2023 between the Black Country local authorities) identifies an employment land requirement of 185ha for Sandwell (2020-2041). The SLP (at paragraph 2.14) states that completions for 2020-2022 and the supply of land available for employment use totals 42ha, including a vacant land supply of 29ha. There is a resulting shortfall of 143ha against Sandwell’s employment land requirements. The SLP (at the supporting text to Policy SEC1) identifies that the shortfall will be addressed through the Black Country Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and that unmet needs should be exported, as far as possible, to authorities that have a strong existing or potential functional economic relationship with Sandwell. This work is ongoing under the Duty to Cooperate.
The general approach of the SLP towards employment land provision is supported by Dudley MBC, however we would note that the EDNA published as part of the SLP consultation is dated August 2023. The most up to date version of the EDNA is October 2023, which reflects the current employment land requirements and supply position for all the four Black Country local authorities. This identifies an employment land requirement of 186ha for Sandwell, which increases to 212ha if the replacement of employment land losses is accounted for (for information, the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP18- Economic growth and job creation identifies that the need for the replacement of employment land losses, equivalent to 26ha for Dudley borough, will be monitored over the plan period). We would welcome confirmation that the most current version of the EDNA (October 2023) will be used to inform the next stage of the SLP.
Dudley MBC recommends that the text at current paragraph 2.14 is replicated in the supporting justification text to Policy SEC1 to clarify that the employment land supply for Sandwell is 42ha (2020-2041). We note that EDNA and the Black Country Employment Land Supply Paper (2023) identifies an additional supply of circa 78ha arising from large and small windfall sites within the Black Country which would further reduce the employment land supply shortfall (it is noted that this figure is not disaggregated to the local authority level at this time). The borough specific contribution from the West Midlands Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (as detailed in the Stantec report of 2021)1 can also be accounted for, as per the supporting text contained within the draft Dudley Local Plan in respect of this contribution from outside the Black Country. These additional sources of supply should be recognised within the SLP supporting justification text going forward.
The latest EDNA (October 2023) and Black Country Employment Land Supply Paper (October 2023) has informed the draft Dudley Local Plan. The evidence base has been produced jointly by the Black Country local authorities, reflecting the strong FEMA that exists. This evidence base identifies individual local authority employment land requirements as part of a wider Black Country requirement. It also applies this to the employment land supply. The Employment Land Supply Paper notes the contributions that have been secured to date from other local authorities towards the Black Country employment land supply shortfall, namely from Shropshire and South Staffordshire at this time. It is envisaged that these discussions will continue as the respective local plans progress and the latest position will need to be reflected in our respective Regulation 19 local plans.
We note that there is one employment site allocation nearby the Dudley borough boundary at Coneygre Business Park for 7.22ha (reference SEC1-5). This is situated in proximity of the Strategic Employment Area (Ionic Business Park) within Dudley. The proposals for the site should take account of any cross-boundary infrastructure considerations, particularly impacts upon key infrastructure such as highways.
This site is close to the A4123/borough boundary and depending on the nature of the development, increased traffic may impact on this key route which is currently being improved to facilitate both active travel and bus route enhancements. It remains a cross boundary joint improvement initiative including input from both local authorities, Black Country Transport and Transport for the West Midlands. Continued joint working in respect of any cross-boundary implications would be welcomed, including consultations on any planning applications, as appropriate.
Policy SEC2- Strategic Employment Areas, Policy SEC3- Local Employment Areas and Policy SEC4- Other Employment Areas
Dudley MBC supports the SLP approach to Strategic Employment Areas (Policy SEC2), Local Employment Areas (Policy SEC3) and Other Employment Sites (Policy SEC4). The policy approach is broadly consistent with that set out in the draft Dudley Local Plan.
We note that the followings areas are identified as Local Employment Areas (LEA), and we support these designations as they are consistent with cross boundary/adjacent sites to the boundary of Dudley borough:
• Brymill Industrial Estate (adjacent to Budden Road, Coseley LEA in Dudley)
• The Angle Ring Company Ltd (adjacent to Budden Road, Coseley LEA in Dudley)
• Bloomfield Park (adjacent to Budden Road, Coseley and Birmingham New Road LEAs in Dudley)
• Providence Street, Cradley Heath (adjacent to Westminster Industrial Estate LEA in Dudley)
• Cakemore Industrial Estate (adjacent to Cakemore Road LEA in Dudley)
• Station Road Industrial Estate (adjacent to Nimmings Road LEA in Dudley)
It is noted that the Coneygre Industrial Estate is identified as a Local Employment Area. This lies adjacent to Ionic Business Park within Dudley borough which is identified as a Strategic Employment Area. It is noted that this reflects the findings of the Black Country Employment Area Review (BEAR, 2021).
Policy SCE1- Sandwell’s Centres, Policy SCE6- Edge of Centre and Out of Centre Development, and Town Centre Profiles
Dudley MBC supports the use of the jointly produced Black Country Centre Study update (2021) evidence base for the SLP. The draft Dudley Local Plan also utilises this evidence base.
Dudley MBC is supportive of the general approach to Centres. We are supportive of the impact test threshold of 280sqm for edge or out of centre proposals, which is consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP27 Edge of Centre and Out of Centre Development (we note that the contents of Table 10 of the SLP would appear to require updating to clarify this is the approach i.e., that proposals of more than 280sqm require impact tests). The implementation of the SLP policies should ensure that the scale of proposals for growth within the centres is commensurate to their scale, role, function and order in the hierarchy, taking account of nearby centres outside Sandwell borough including those in Dudley.
In relation to this, we note that for the Tier Two town centre of Blackheath there appear to be no significant proposals for growth identified. Some redevelopment site opportunities are identified, but these are not significant in scale and are for mainly residential use. For the Tier Two town centre of Cradley Heath, similarly there are no significant proposals for growth identified, with mostly residential redevelopment site opportunities identified.
As outlined in our response to Policy SDS2, the principle of the regeneration and redevelopment of Owen Street District Centre (also known as Tipton Town Centre) is supported however any specific proposals should be at a scale appropriate to the District Centre so as not to detract from the function of higher order centres within the vicinity, including Dudley Town Centre (identified as a Tier 2 centre within the draft Dudley Local Plan).
Policy STR1- Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network
Dudley MBC supports this policy and there are several cross-boundary projects referenced, consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP67 The Transport Network. We are supportive of the reference to the Dudley Port Integrated Transport Hub, which will link into the Metro extension for Brierley Hill-Wednesbury and provide access to the national railway network for Dudley borough residents. The Council would welcome continued joint working on the relevant evidence base for transport matters, including transport modelling to address cross boundary matters consistently.
Policy STR2- Safeguarding the Development of the Key Route Network (KRN)
Dudley MBC supports this policy which is broadly consistent with the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP68 The Key Route Network. This ensures a consistent approach to cross boundary matters related to the KRN.
Policy STR4- The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics
Dudley MBC supports this policy which is broadly consistent with the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP70 The Movement of Freight. This ensures a consistent approach to cross boundary projects related to this topic, including the reopening of the Stourbridge-Walsall-Lichfield railway line (as referenced at paragraph 11.38 of the SLP). The draft Dudley Local Plan also references this project (at paragraph 16.32).
Policy STR5- Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking
The approach is broadly consistent with the draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP71 Active Travel. Dudley MBC supports the principle of this policy and welcomes the opportunity to continue joint working on the delivery of relevant cross boundary projects, including:
• Birmingham New Road (A4123)/Burnt Tree (A461).
• Tipton Road (A4037)/Birmingham New Road (A4123).
• Birmingham New Road (A4123)/Sedgley Road (A457).
Management of major works at the following locations will be key to sustainable travel and minimising disruption across the network:
• Birchley Island (A4123)/Churchbridge (A4034) (in close proximity to Dudley borough).
• Wolverhampton Road (A4123)/Hagley Road West (A456) (in close proximity to Dudley borough)
to rail stations such as Dudley Port station (i.e., A4123/A461 scheme), Tipton rail station, Old Hill station & Coseley station will be very helpful to both Sandwell and Dudley borough residents.
Please also see our response to Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats in respect of opportunities for active travel links.
Policy STR8- Parking Management
Dudley MBC supports this policy which is consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP73 Parking Management. It helps to ensure a cross boundary consistent approach to this matter, which is of relevance in relation to strategic centre and town centre parking provision. We support the use of a shared Black Country evidence base to inform this policy. The most up to date Car Parking Study has been finalised and this, or any further updates, should inform the next stage of the SLP.
Policy SWA1- Waste Infrastructure Future Requirements
This policy is broadly consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP75 Waste Infrastructure- Future Requirements and is therefore supported in terms of consistency in addressing cross boundary matters.
It is noted that the updated supporting evidence base for Sandwell and SLP Policy SWA1 sets out the waste infrastructure capacity gaps for the plan period. The draft Dudley Local Plan and its supporting evidence base has also identified waste infrastructure capacity gaps, particularly for those facilities which the borough is unlikely to be able to accommodate due to its urban nature e.g., landfill, anaerobic digestion and composting facilities. Dudley MBC would welcome further discussions under the Duty to Cooperate in relation to cross boundary waste matters, particularly given the existing waste movements between our local authorities. Dudley MBC will continue to work with Sandwell MBC on cross boundary strategic waste matters, including via the West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB).
Policy SWA2- Waste Sites
Dudley MBC supports the principle of this policy, which is broadly consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP76 Waste Sites. Dudley MBC supports the identification of strategic waste sites, applying a consistent approach in terms of how these are defined, and the use of the shared evidence base for the Black Country (Waste Study, 2020). The policy approach also helps to ensure cross boundary consistency in identifying appropriate locations for non-waste developments which do not prejudice existing waste-related operations.
We note that the Edwin Richards Landfill identified as a Strategic Waste Disposal Installation is also a proposed major housing allocation (allocation reference SH37) in the plan period. As this site is currently a recipient of relatively significant levels of waste from Dudley borough, we would welcome further information on the proposed timescales for its closure as part of our Duty to Cooperate discussions in respect of strategic waste matters.
Policy SWA3- Preferred Areas for New Waste Facilities
Dudley MBC supports the principle of this policy, which is consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP77 Preferred Areas for New Waste Facilities and is based upon a consistent evidence base for the Black Country (Waste Study, 2020). We note that the Sandwell Local Plan Policies Map identifies a ‘Preferred Area of Search’ for new waste facilities, which is a cross boundary area with Dudley borough at Bloomfield Road/Budden Road, Coseley. Whilst it is identified on the Policies Map, it is not listed in Table 13 of the supporting justification text to Policy SWA3 nor in Appendix E (where these sites are listed again). We would welcome clarification that the site is allocated and recommend it is included in the site-specific list of allocations within the SLP. Dudley MBC supports the principle of this allocation as it aligns with the draft Dudley Local Plan allocation detailed in Policy DLP77 and identified on the Policies Map. We would expect any site-specific proposals to take account of cross boundary considerations e.g., highway impacts, as part of the detailed planning application process.
We note that there are several housing allocations proposed within proximity of this preferred area (Bradleys Lane/High Street, Brown Lion Street, and The Boat Gauging House). We would expect these sites to have been assessed in terms of their potential to prejudice any existing and proposed waste operations at this location, taking account of cross boundary allocations and safeguarded sites within Dudley borough.
Policy SMI1- Minerals Safeguarding
Dudley MBC supports the principle of this policy, which is broadly consistent with draft Dudley Local Plan Policy DLP80 Mineral Requirements and Policy DLP81 Mineral Safeguarding. The policy approach also helps to ensure cross boundary consistency in identifying appropriate locations for non-minerals developments which do not prejudice existing minerals-related operations. Dudley MBC will continue to work with Sandwell MBC on cross boundary strategic minerals matters, including via the West Midlands Aggregates Working Group and as part of the production of Local Aggregates Assessments for the West Midlands Metropolitan Area.
Appendix B- Sandwell Site Allocations (Mixed Use Allocation SM2 Lion Farm, Oldbury)
Dudley MBC would welcome further clarification in relation to Mixed Use Allocation SM2 Lion Farm, Oldbury. This represents a major allocation which is in proximity of Dudley borough and has potential cross boundary implications given its scale and current/proposed uses. The site currently provides for 6 sports pitches which have the potential for provide for cross boundary sports provision. The SLP states that appropriate uses are the retention of 6 sport pitches. The ‘Further Information’ text states that a net loss of the pitches could be avoided which is strongly caveated by the ability to relocate 6 pitches to the southern part of the borough. We would welcome clarification on whether the existing pitches are to be retained on site or relocated and if this would have any implications for cross boundary provision given the need to protect and enhance pitches across the Black Country. One of the Black Country Overarching Strategic Framework recommendations states the following for Football: Protect existing quantity of pitches, including lapsed and disused provision, until all demand is being met (unless replacement provision meets Sport England requirements and is agreed upon and provided).
The SLP states that the site will provide for 200 homes and 2.3ha of employment land. In respect of the employment land provision, we would welcome clarification if this site is proposed for B class employment use in accordance with SLP Policy SEC1. The site does not appear to be included within the B class employment land totals which are set out at Appendix C to the SLP (and already total the 29ha of vacant land referenced in SLP Policy SEC1). Dudley MBC would have concerns if this site was to be utilised for any large-scale retail development and the potential impact upon our own Tier One and Tier Two centres, plus additional impacts on highways. Any cross-boundary implications in respect of highways impacts should be fully considered. We would welcome confirmation on the specific proposals for the site.
Dudley MBC also notes the proximity of this site to the Edwin Richards Quarry site allocation (SH37). The cumulative impacts of these two allocations in terms of cross boundary infrastructure provision should be considered.

Sport England supports part 1c) of the policy which states that the Council will ensure that sufficient physical, social and environmental infrastructure is delivered to meet identified requirements, though there seems to be lack of a specific policy to address the provision of social infrastructure generated by proposed new developments through CIL/Section 106 agreements or any successor mechanism.

Sport England supports the references in part 1d) of the policy to providing improvements to health and well-being through increased access to green spaces, active recreation and active travel, and improved and accessible education infrastructure as these are key elements of ensuring Sandwell residents have opportunities to be physically active. Where required to meet the needs of proposed development there should be a specific requirement to secure the provision of such social infrastructure through CIL/S106, or any successor mechanism.

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.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Maddox Planning has prepared these representations for Vulcan Property II Limited (Vulcan), in respect of the Sandwell Local Plan 2022-2041 upon which consultation is running until 18 December 2023.

1.2 These representations address the policies and supporting text of the draft Sandwell Local Plan (Regulation 18 stage). The representations are submitted in context with Vulcan land interests at Brades Road, Oldbury. The Vulcan site is included within the Sandwell Local Plan as a proposed residential development allocation (site ref: SH38) following it being put forward as part of an earlier call for sites.

1.3 The call for sites submission of March 2023 is attached at Appendix 1.

1.4 Paragraph 15 of The Framework (2023), states that the planning system should be genuine plan-led. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities; and a platform for local people to shape their surroundings

1.5 It is a statutory requirement that a body preparing a development plan publishes its draft development plan document for consultation ahead of submitting that document for independent examination; an examination to assess whether it is sound and legally compliant, alongside whether other statutory requirements are satisfied1. In preparing a development plan document, the body preparing that document must have regard to a number of matters including national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State2.

1.6 Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023), sets out that a plan should:

a) be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development3;
b) be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable;
c) be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between planmakers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees;
d) contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;
e) be accessible through the use of digital tools to assist public involvement and policy presentation; and
f) serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant).

1.7 Paragraph 11 of the Framework (2023) sets out the Government presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that for plan making this means that:

a) 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;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas4, unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in
the plan area5; or

1 Section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
2 Section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
3 This is a legal requirement of local planning authorities exercising their plan-making functions (section 39(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)
4 As established through statements of common ground (National Planning Policy Framework September 2023, paragraph 27)
5 The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 181) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 68); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.


2.0 Plan: Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives
2.1 Table 3 of the Sandwell Local Plan sets out priorities, strategic objectives and policies across 16 objectives. Strategic priorities should acknowledge that a function of a development plan is to identify the most appropriate land uses for particular locations and allocate sites accordingly, on the basis of assessed need for new homes and commercial floorspace. The identification of sites proposed for development should have regard to the vision and objectives of a plan, in this instance the strategic priorities and objectives of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, taking account of national policy and guidance and other material considerations and the need to minimise the impact of climate change whilst adapting to its effects and mitigating its current and potential future impacts.

2.2 Objective 6 as part of the Housing that meets all our needs priority, seeks to address Sandwell’s identified and wide-ranging housing need by supporting the provision of high-quality new homes with a wide mix of housing types and tenure that: meet the needs of current and future residents; provide sufficient internal and external space; and support climate change adaption through good design. Objective 6 needs to be explicit that for the achievement of this objective clear housing requirements needs to be articulated, to set a baseline for the housing need that it is planned to be met over the plan period.

2.3 The local authority should have a clear understanding of the land available within their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. Planning policies should then identify a sufficient supple and mix of sites, considering their availability, suitability, and likely economic viability. Objective 6 should explicitly commit to meeting this obligation of identifying sufficient land for homes.

2.4 Objective 7 of the Housing that meets all our needs priority, is to ensure that communities in Sandwell are safe and resilient. This objective is supported.


3.0 Plan: Spatial Strategy
Policy SDS1: Development Strategy

3.1 Policy SDS1 of the Draft Sandwell Local Plan states that at least 11,167 net new homes are to be delivered over the plan period, creating sustainable mixed communities that are supported by adequate infrastructure over the plan period from 2022-2041. The stated annual requirement for Sandwell is 1,567 based on the standard methodology (2022 workplace-based ratio), as detailed in the Sandwell Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) published in October 2023. Over the 19-year plan period this projects a total housing requirement of 29,773. The Sandwell Local Plan therefore reflects a deficit level of provision of 18,606 homes over the plan period. Policy SDS1 should be clear on how the projected provision for net additional homes is arrived at, and what provisions will be taken to ensure that delivery matches projected requirements.

Policy SDS2: Regeneration in Sandwell

3.2 Regeneration Areas as set out within policy SDS2 are the stated focus for new development, regeneration and public and the encouragement of private investment. Subsection 3(e) states that at least 2,581 new homes of mixed type and tenure are to be delivered in the regeneration areas; in sustainable locations well- supported by community services. Sandwell currently has a significant shortfall in housing delivery against Government requirements. It is highly likely that a component of any solution addressing the current housing shortfall will be higher density residential development on brownfield land included within in the identified Regeneration Areas.

Policy SDS4: Achieving Well-Designed Places

3.3 The Sandwell Local Plan discusses that well-designed places should accord with the latest National Planning Guidance and other material considerations. Point 9 of the policy states that a design code will be produced for Sandwell which shall reflect local character and design preferences, providing a framework for creating high-quality places. This approach is supported and in accordance with National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, provided that it incorporates the requisite flexibility necessary to address local market conditions and the impact that these have on development values.


4.0 Plan: Sandwell’s Natural and Historic Environment
Policy SNE2: Protection of Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

4.1 Paragraph 8 (c) of the Framework refers to improving biodiversity and paragraph 174 (d) to providing net gains for biodiversity. Draft policy SNE2(1) states that

‘All development proposals in Sandwell shall deliver a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity value when measured against baseline site information. Where achievable, a higher net gain may be agreed. Losses and gains will be calculated using the extant national Biodiversity Metric…’

4.2 Vulcan agrees with policy SNE2 and reflecting the forthcoming mandatory requirement for a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain across all major development.

Policy SNE1: Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees

4.3 Policy SNE1 (11) includes a blanket statement that

‘Development should be designed around the need to incorporate trees already present on site, using sensitive and well-designed site layouts to maximise their retention’.

There should be acknowledgement that there will not be the justification for the retention of some trees, particularly in the context of poor specimens and wider development benefit. The policy text should be consistent with the Framework (2023), which says planning policies should ensure ‘…that existing trees are retained wherever possible’ (paragraph 131).

4.4 The policy also sets out at SNE1 (9) that

‘…tree planting on new development sites should make a minimum contribution of 20% canopy cover and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across the site, especially in areas where evidence demonstrates that current levels of canopy cover are lower than the local average.’

It is noted that this is based upon the Emergency Tree Plan for the UK – The Woodland Trust 2020 but there is no basis in the Framework (2023) or Planning Practice Guidance for the introduction of blanket thresholds for canopy cover.

The same observation is made in respect of SNE1 (18) and its requirement that

‘…removal of trees, suitable replacement trees must be provided onsite. Where sufficient suitable onsite replacements cannot be provided, off-site planting or woodland enhancement, including support for natural regeneration, in the near vicinity of the removed tree(s) must be provided, in line with the mitigation hierarchy set out in Policy SNE2.’

The requirement for replacement trees and the number to be provided should be the subject of site-by-site assessments, alongside a measured consideration of biodiversity net gain.

Policy SNE6: Canals

4.5 Policy SNE7 is positively written, and Vulcan supports the reference to the canal network being a focus for future development through its ability to deliver a high-quality environment and enhanced accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-car-based modes of transport.

4.6 Policy SNE6(d) refers to development proposals
‘…promoting high quality design, including active frontages onto the canal and improving the public realm...’.
The policy should acknowledge that such aspirations should be pursued where possible. Canalside development also offers the potential for waterfront views particularly from residential properties, and this should be stated in the context of seeking to achieve high-quality urban design and cross- referencing urban design policies.


5.0 Plan: Climate Change
Policy SCC1: Increasing efficiency and resilience

5.1 The Framework sets outs clear guidance on planning for climate change:

‘Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating from rising temperature’6.

5.2 It continues that development plan policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts, such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure. New development should be planned for in a way that avoids increased vulnerability, manages risks and makes best user of location, orientation and design. There is support for the use and supply of low carbon energy, including community-led initiatives.

5.3 Paragraph 157 of the Framework sets out that local planning authorities should expect new development to comply with any development plan policy on decentralised energy supplies, and take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption

5.4 Paragraph 16 of the Framework is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals.

5.5 To provide clarity for applicants, draft policy CC1 should include assessment criteria against which the local planning authority can determine whether a development compliant with its climate change and energy policies in the context of local requirements and site-specific circumstances.

5.6 Whilst the sentiment of maximising opportunity and minimising impact where possible is in the spirit of the guidance provided by the Framework, it does not make for a development plan policy that is easily applied to individual development proposals. The policy is arguably not sound in the absence of prescriptive, unambiguous assessment criteria.

Policy SCC2: Energy Infrastructure

5.6 Draft policy SCC2 sets out that:

‘Any development including ten homes or more, or non-residential floorspace of 1,000m2 or more must include opportunities for decentralised energy provision within the site, unless it can be demonstrated that the development is not suitable, feasible or viable for district heat or decentralised energy networks.’

5.7 Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023) is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous. Draft policy SCC2 is not clear in respect of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that development is not suitable, feasible or viable for district heat or decentralised power networks. Draft policy SCC2 needs to provide clear direction in this regard. It is also without justification why the threshold for compliance is ten units/1,000 sq. m and why there are no further thresholds at greater unit numbers/floorspace, which would allow for proportionate consideration of proposals relative to scale. The draft policy should be revised to remove ambiguity and introduce additional trigger thresholds to ensure that it is sound in the context of being clear and positively prepared.

6 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 153

Policy SSC3: Managing Heat Risk

5.8 Draft policy SCC2 (Energy Infrastructure) sets minimum thresholds for development proposals to which the policy applies. Policy SSC3 is drafted such that it applies to all development proposals without distinction. Whilst all development proposals can be subject to design materials choices in the context of managing heat risk, it is potentially only on larger development sites where there is the potential for layout and orientation choices to have a nearing on heat risk. Similarly, the cooling hierarchy set out in the draft policy is not necessarily appropriate or applicable to all development proposals.

5.9 Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023) is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous. Draft policy SCC3 should be revised such that it is clear for which size/scale of development the draft policy can be reasonably applied and include a clear indication of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that expectations cannot be viably or reasonably met, including in context with the cooling hierarchy. Added clarification is necessary to ensure that the draft policy is sound in the context of it being clear, positively prepared and fit for purpose in seeking to managing in the most effective way heat risk from new development.

Policy SCC4: Flood Risk

5.10 Draft policy SCC4 (13) should be clear on what basis the proposed distance limitations on development that is proximate to an ordinary watercourse are derived. It should also include detailed justification for the proposed limitations, and how the policy text as drafted relates to any local byelaws set under the Land Drainage Act 1991.

Policy SCC5: Sustainable drainage and surface water management (SuDs)

5.11 Paragraph 169 of the Framework states that:

‘Major developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate’. The draft text to Policy SCC5 states that ‘All new developments should incorporate SuDS and all development proposals should provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance, and management of SuDS’.

The proposed policy SCC5 requirement that all new development incorporate SuDS is inconsistent with the Framework and should be amended to meet the test of soundness.

Paragraph 167(c) of the Framework (2023) states the requirement for development proposed in an area at risk of flooding incorporate sustainable drainage systems is also subject to a caveat ‘…unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate’. This should be reflected in the draft development plan policy.

Policy SCC6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

The supporting text to draft policy SSC6 (paragraph 5.59) discusses the requirement that major
5.12 developments achieve a 31% carbon reduction improvement upon the Part L requirement of The Building Regulations 2010 (as amended).

5.13 The supporting text (paragraph 5.62) also includes the caveat, in respect of all new development contributing towards renewable and low carbon energy generation, that it is not practical to provide more than 20% renewable energy generation within a new development.

6.0 Plan: Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell
Policy SHW3: Air Quality

6.1 Paragraph 186 of the Framework (2023) sets out that planning policies should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking in account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clear Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts form individual sites in local areas. Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities. Paragraph 188 of the Framework (2023) is clear that the focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes).

6.2 Policy SHW3 includes a blanket statement that new development must be at least air quality neutral. This element of the draft policy does not reflect the Framework or the Planning Practice Guidance, in its blanket approach. The PPG sets out that plans may need to consider:

- what are the observed trends shown by recent air quality monitoring data and what would happen to these trends in light of proposed development and / or allocations;
- the impact of point sources of air pollution (pollution that originates from one place);
- the potential cumulative impact of a number of smaller developments on air quality as well as the effect of more substantial developments, including their implications for vehicle emissions;
- ways in which new development could be made appropriate in locations where air quality is or is likely to be a concern, and not give rise to unacceptable risks from pollution. This could, for example, entail identifying measures for offsetting the impact on air quality arising from new development including supporting measures in an air quality action plan or low emissions strategy where applicable; and
- opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts, such as through traffic and travel management and green infrastructure provision and enhancement7.

6.3 The PPG continues to explain that the test is the impact of proposed development and potential impact on future occupants:

- whether the proposed development could significantly change air quality during the construction and operational phases (and the consequences of this for public health and biodiversity); and whether occupiers or users of the development could experience poor living conditions or health due to poor air quality8.
6.4 A requirement for development being air quality neutral is justified where there are sensitive receptors such that anything other than air quality neutral would be unacceptable or a proposed development would otherwise lead to a deterioration in existing poor air quality. For the policy to pass the test of soundness it should add criteria into its air quality neutral requirement, to set out on what basis such an expectation is justified and how an applicant might demonstrate the acceptability of a development ion circumstances where such a requirement is justified.
Policy SHW4: Open Space and Recreation

6.5 Policy SHW4 states that:

7 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 32-002-20191101- Revision date: 01 11 2019
8 Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 32-005-20191101 - Revision date: 01 11 2019

‘All new housing sites providing over ten units will be expected to contribute towards the provision of unrestricted open space, in line with the standards set out in Appendix K. Where such provision on- site would make a site unviable or where there is no physical capacity to include it, the Council will in exceptional circumstances accept a commuted sum for nearby off-site provision in lieu or for the improvement of existing facilities within walking distance.’

6.6 The policy is rightly targeted at major development proposals but fails to acknowledge that the expectation of contribution to unrestricted open space should be based upon whether there is a demonstrable shortfall locally of unrestricted open space.


7.0 Plan: Sandwell’s Housing
Policy SHO1: Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

7.1 Policy SHO1 discussed that the Sandwell Local Plan will deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022-2041.

7.2 Table 5 discusses the Housing Land Supply for the brough setting out the minimum housing target of the plan period and the key sources of housing land supply. The total from identified sites is 9,080, with the remainder a windfall allowance.

7.3 Policy SHO1 should be clear on how the quoted requirement of net additional homes is arrived at.

Policy SHO3: Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

7.3 Point 4 of policy SHO3 details the appropriate density and where appropriate house type mix, to be sought on each housing allocation site in accordance with minimum densities set out within table 6.

7.4 Policy SHO3 then goes on to discuss that achieving an appropriate density of house type mix is crucial to both the success of each new housing development and the sustainability of the area. This is also in accordance with the Sandwell spatial strategy and national planning guidance which states that housing mix and tenure will reflect local needs.

7.5 Table 7 of policy SHO3 states the New Housing Type and Tenure in Sandwell. Point 7.22 states that

‘‘The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (HMA) 2021 demonstrates that new households generated by 2039 will need the following mix of home tenures and types.’

It continues that it is important for housing provision to reflect the varying needs for each of the four local authorities, as set out in the HMA.

The supporting text to policy SHO3 should be explicit that the table which follows paragraph 7.22 is not setting an expected mix of home tenures and types for all development sites, rather it is presenting the assessed overall requirement for the Sandwell area.

Policy SHO3 should be consistent with policy SHO4 and policy SHO5 and be explicit that the dwelling mix and any mix of tenures will be site specific and subject to a consideration of local needs at the time of a proposed development coming forward.

Policy SHO4: Affordable Housing

7.6 Supported is the acknowledgement in SHO4(1) and SHO4(4) that the range of tenure be provided, and the proportion of any affordable housing should both be dependent upon any affordable housing should both be dependent upon an assessment of financial viability. SHO4 (4) effectively summarises a justifiable position that

‘the tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations.’

However, the reference to a ‘minimum proportion of affordable housing’ to be provided is inconsistent with the earlier stance on viability and potentially ambiguous, given that there will be some sites where no affordable housing is financially viable.

Paragraph 16 of the Framework sets out that development plan policy should be ‘…clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals.’

The inconsistency between dependence upon financial viability and a minimum requirement falls short of being unambiguous. This element potentially fails the test of soundness and is inconsistent with the Framework (2023).

Policy SHO5: Delivering Wheelchair Accessible and Self / Custom Build Housing

7.7 A policy requirement for a minimum proportion of new housing be designed to meet M4(2)/M4(3) standards is unclear and ambiguous in the context of provision also being said to be dependent upon whether this is financially viable. This element fails the test of soundness and is therefore inconsistent with the Framework. Categories M4(2) and M4(3) are optional requirements which local planning authorities can apply through local planning policies where there is an identified local need, and the viability of development is not compromised. M4(2) and M4(3) are optional requirements, as defined in building regulations. An optional requirement only applies where a condition that one or more dwellings should meet the relevant optional requirement is imposed on new development as per the process of granting planning permission. That requirement is rightly policy led, but the policy should be clear that any requirement is dependent upon a demonstrable need and a demonstration that development viability would not be adversely impacted upon.

7.8 Clarity would be provided through reference to NDSS. Paragraph 130(f) of the Framework (2023) refers to creating places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. In doing so, it references NDSS9 stating that:

‘Planning policies for housing should make use of the Government’s optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable housing, where this would address an identified need for such properties. Policies may also make use of the nationally described space standard, where the need for an internal space standard can be justified’

7.9 Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building. They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A of the Act to have regard to this and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified demand.

7.10 Policy SHO5 (4) sets out that where there is a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the self- build and custom build register (for the administrative area where a development site is located) at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower.

7.11 Policy SHO5 (4) does not acknowledge that site characteristics might justify self-build/custom build exemption, irrespective of whether there is a current register need. The potential exemption on viability or other grounds of sites from self-build/custom build requirements should be set out clearly in policy SHO5 (4).

9 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – footnote 49


8.0 Plan: Sandwell’s Economy
Policy SEC1: Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs

8.1 Policy SEC1 (4) is concerned with the regeneration of existing employment areas:

‘Within the existing employment areas subject to Policies SEC2, SEC3 and SEC4, the Council will support, with public intervention as necessary, the regeneration and renewal of such areas, including their environmental enhancement and incorporation of sustainable measures to mitigate climate change impacts. Industrial developments will need to demonstrate how they have been designed to maximise resistance and resilience to climate change, as set out in Policy SCC1.’

8.2 SEC1 should acknowledge that the housing policies of the Sandwell Local Plan include existing/former employment sites/areas that are allocated for and transitioning to residential use. Some of the existing/former employment sites/areas being brought forward for housing will be alongside other employment areas being retained in employment use. SEC1 should set out that any proposals for the regeneration or renewal of existing employment areas will be considered in context of the potential impact on neighbouring land uses, both existing and proposed.

Policy SEC3: Local Employment Areas

8.3 Supported is the inclusion of the clarification at SEC3 (3) that not all areas will be suitable for all employment uses. SEC3 should include specific reference to the fact that the housing policies of the Sandwell Local Plan include existing/former employment sites/areas being brought forward for housing will be alongside other employment areas being retained in employment use. SEC3 should set out that any proposals for new uses in local employment areas that require planning permission will be considered in context of the potential impact on neighbouring land uses, both existing and proposed.


9.0 Plan: Transport
Policy STR8: Parking Management

9.1 STR8 (1c) references maximum standards and ‘…ensuring that a consistent approach to maximum parking standards is enforced in new developments as set out in the guidance and standards contained at Appendix L…’ The policy should also reference the Framework (2023) and its support for walking and cycling as set out within paragraph 106(d) where it is clear that planning policies should:

‘…provide for attractive and well-designed walking and cycling networks with supporting facilities such as secure cycle parking (drawing on Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans)…’

9.2 Paragraph 110(c) of the Framework (2023) continues it should be ensured that ‘…the design of streets, parking areas, other transport elements and the content of associated standards reflects current national guidance, including the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code’10.

9.3 Whilst Policy STR8 refers to ‘‘…ensuring that a consistent approach to maximum parking standards is enforced in new development as set out in supplementary planning documents’, paragraph 108 of the Framework (2023) states that:

‘Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network, or for optimising the density of development in city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport...’

Policy STR9: Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

9.4 During 2019, the Department for Transport and Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV) ran a joint consultation on proposals to alter existing residential and non-residential building regulations to include provisions for electric vehicle charging points and associated infrastructure. Government outlined that:

- for proposed new residential buildings with more than 10 associated parking spaces, developers will need to ensure that ducting infrastructure is installed for every parking space;
- for proposed non-residential buildings (and buildings undergoing a major renovation or a material change in use) with more than 10 parking spaces, developers will need to ensure that at least one charge point is installed and ensure that ducting infrastructure is installed for at least 1 in 5 parking spaces; and from 2025, existing non-residential buildings with more than 20 parking spaces will need at least 1 charge point to be installed.

9.5 Policy STR9 states that the UK government has committed to banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030. The Prime Minister had pushed this back to 2035. Despite this, the resultant societal shift from petrol and diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to ULEVs will require widespread support from local authorities. It is projected that there will an addition 42,500 ULEVs within the Black Country by 2025 and a significant proportion of these will be on Sandwell roads.

9.6 Vulcan is supportive of encouraging a move away from fossil fuel vehicles through the introduction of all- electric and hybrid alternatives, as part of the West Midlands Combined Authority commitment to setting a 'net zero' emissions target by 2041, with a climate action plan being approved by the WMCA board in January 2020. This is in part facilitated through amendments to the Building Regulations 2010, and it is suggested that there is no explicit need for policy STR9 given that this is part of the national agenda on sustainability.

9.7 Policy TRAN 8 is also ambiguous in that it refers to new developments including adequate provision for charging infrastructure, without defining what adequate infrastructure means. Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023) sets out that development plan policy should be ‘…clearly written and unambiguous, so it

10 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 110(c) and footnote 46

is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals’. The reference to adequate provision is without clarity. This element fails the test of soundness and is therefore inconsistent with the Framework (2023).


10.0 Plan: Waste
Policy SWA5: Resource Management and New Development

10.1 The requirements of policy SWA5 in respect of minimising waste in new development, re-use of materials following redevelopment and/or remediation and use of alternatives to primary aggregates in construction are couched in terms of as far as possible and wherever possible. Paragraph 16 of the Framework (2023) is clear that development plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous. Draft policy SWA5 should be redrafted with clear targets and the requirements of applicants providing justification for the approaches to waste management and the use construction materials in any given development project

11.0 Plan: Development Management
Policy SDM1: Design Quality

11.1 The approach of the Sandwell Local Plan to design quality should accord with the Framework (2023) guidance (paragraphs 126 to 136). Policy should be clear about design expectations and how proposals will be tested against policy, having regard to national guidance and other material considerations. The references to the National Design Guide11, Manual for Streets12, NDSS13, Building for a Healthy Life14 and accordance with agent of change principles15 are noted but Sandwell should prepare design guides and/or design codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, and which reflect local character and design preferences. If these are to follow as supplementary planning documents, given the reference to local housing design SPDs for new housing developments, then the draft development plan policy should be explicit in this regard.

11.2 Policy SDM1 should provide clarity over what development proposals should address within design and access statements, within the Sandwell-specific context:

a. ‘the ten characteristics of the National Design Guide, to provide a high-quality network of streets, buildings and spaces;
b. the principles of Manual for Streets, to ensure urban streets and spaces provide a high-quality public realm and an attractive, safe and permeable movement network;
c. use of the Building for a Healthy Life criteria (or subsequent iterations) and Sandwell's local housing design codes, masterplans and guidance for new housing developments, to achieve high design standards, good place-making and sustainable development;
d. crime prevention measures, Secured by Design and Park Mark principles and the requirements of Part Q of the Building Regulations 2010 or any successor legislation;
e. the agent of change principle, in relation to existing uses adjacent to proposed development sites.’



11 MHCLG National Design Guide – published 1 October 2019/last updated 30 January 2021
12 CIHT Manual for Streets (2007) and Manual for Streets 2 (2010)
13 MHCLG Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard published 27 March 2015
14 Birkbeck D and Kruczkowski S et al (2020) Building for a Healthy Life
15 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 187

12.0 Plan: Sandwell Site Allocations
12.1 The inclusion of Brades Road, Oldbury as a proposed site allocation (site reference: SH38) is fully supported by Vulcan for the reasons set out in the March 2023 call for sites submission attached at Appendix 1. The site is clearly consistent with the Government agenda of brownfield first and maximising development within areas with high sustainability credentials that are accessible by a choice of means of transport.

12.2 Vulcan also fully supports the inclusion of adjoining land on Dudley Road East (site reference: SH21) for the same reasons.

12.3 The estimates shortfall of 18,606 homes over the period to be covered by the Sandwell Local Plan indicates very strongly that Sandwell will have to look to high density solution within the plan area. There is potential for Brades Road to come forward earlier in the plan period than 2033 and there is justification for it being identified for delivery earlier in the housing trajectory. The significant shortfall in housing provision over the plan period and the uncertainty over housing numbers to be provided out of area through ‘duty to co-operate’ suggests very strongly that sites that are suitable and available should be identified as coming forward earlier in the housing trajectory, where there is potential for this to happen. There is good reason to expect that delivery out of area will be skewed to the latter stages of the Sandwell Local Plan period, given that those neighbouring authorities will justifiably prioritise meeting their own housing requirements. This suggests that there is good reason to front-load the proportion of new homes delivered within the Sandwell area, where there is evidence that sites are available and deliverable.

12.4 Brades Road is potentially available in the shorter-term, and earlier delivery than 2033 is possible.


13.0 Conclusions
13.1 Vulcan reserves the right to change, add to or withdraw representations made on the draft Sandwell Local Plan 2023-2041 and at this stage intends to take part in the future examination of the Plan.

13.2 Vulcan is fully supportive of the inclusion of the Brades Road site within the allocated sites as a residential allocation.

13.3 The key benefits that weigh heavily in favour of the proposed allocation are:

- Delivery of homes on a sustainable site, helping to meet local housing need in the context of persistent past under delivery, a lack of a demonstrable five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and a generally bleak housing land supply position locally;
- Brownfield regeneration of a life-expired employment site;
- The potential for a masterplan-led design alongside other housing regeneration sites;
- Significant public benefits through significant canal environment improvements; and
- Other wider community benefits.

One comment said that the authority will benefit from the introduction of HS2. As you’re aware, HS2 now ends at Birmingham and therefore Sandwell is unlikely to see any benefit from HS2.

SDS1 Pg 51
“3.6 The borough’s main strategic centre, West Bromwich, is already served by an extensive
transport system and therefore provides a suitable location for economic and housing
growth, although improvements are required to enhance connectivity, accessibility and
environmental quality.
3.7 Strong links will be created between the strategic town centre, the areas identified for
regeneration and existing town and local centres and communities, through high-quality
design, green infrastructure and transport investment, to help spread regeneration benefits,
improve community cohesion and create an effective network.”


Pg 225
The whole of this plan seems to be based on a similar theory to trickle down economics whereby investment will be primarily targeted for West Bromwich and then that will attract further funding and investment to other areas.

West Bromwich is mentioned 197 times in the plan, far more frequently than any other town. West Bromwich is the strategic centre, tier 1. All of the other towns and areas fall into tier 2 or 3.

Lots of investment went in New Square, decimating the remainder of the town centre. The Kings and Queens Square are mostly empty units and it’s a walkway through to the New Square. There wasn’t any benefit to the rest of Sandwell. How will this local plan do things differently?

Pg 40
2.4 In March 2020 Sandwell Council declared a Climate Emergency. Council Members agreed
that greenhouse gas emissions needed to be reduced to a level compatible with keeping
global warming below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. To achieve that, the Council
committed to becoming carbon neutral in its own activities by 2030 and to seeing Sandwell
become a carbon neutral borough by 2041.

The plan generally talks about growth but doesn’t seem to be taking strong enough, immediate action to keep emission levels down.

Balanced green growth pg 45

“promote the use of zero- and low-carbon designs, building techniques, materials and
technologies in all new development” When will these be introduced? It can’t mention an aim without giving an intended introduction date, hardly a smart target.

Green and blue infrastructure pg 74/75
Townscapes – Why not introduce covered seating structures with greenery incorporated in the design, planting on roof. See Stone Street Square Dudley.

Policy SDS1/Para 3.13.

West Midlands CPRE objects to the housing supply figure give in Policy SDS 1, 1a. We consider the figure to be too low.

We consider further work should be undertaken to ensure the Regulation 19 Plan includes takes account of higher potential brownfield capacity.

In particular we consider the level of windfall development should be higher. This includes at least 484 more small windfalls and a calculation of large windfall sites, consistent with the evidence both quantitative and qualitative that supports this.

This approach should take account in particular of both the potential for additional housing in centres through redevelopment or mixed development (as supported by Policy SCE1 Para 6) as well as the expectation that some further industrial land will come forward on sites which are currently unavailable (As envisaged in Policy SEC4). The windfall approach is suitable because these opportunities cannot be exactly predicted.

Policy SDS6

WM CPRE support the Policy to protect the Green Belt within Sandwell, including the very important asset of the Sandwell Valley.

Policy SDS7

The policy should be strengthened to exclude solar arrays and other energy related developments on any Green Belt or other agricultural land or other green space. The only right place for solar panels is on roofs and brownfield land, such as above car parks. See CPRE report on this subject (attached).

WM CPRE support the Policy to protect Green and Blue infrastructure, including the very important asset of the Sandwell Valley and the key wildlife, nature and amenity assets which stretch out and link with the countryside in Walsall, Birmingham and further afield. We are not in a position to comment in detail on the SNE policies to protect nature and heritage in the Borough but generally consider that protection should be of the highest order.

Policy SHO1

Policy SHO1 set outs the current supply of housing and this should be reviewed in line with our objections to Policy SDS 1.

We attach the report we commissioned on housing calculations to support this objection.

Policy SHO2

WM CPRE generally support Policy SHO2 on Windfall sites. However, it should refer to both large and small windfall sites.

Policy SHO3

WM CPRE generally support Policy SHO3 on Densities, and consider the standards set out in Para 3 appropriate. We think the Policy should also require developers to show that they have sought to make the most efficient use of land within a sustainable design approach, as some densities may comfortably be higher than these minima.

Policy SHO4

While it is in accordance with the current government guidance, the threshold of 10 houses before affordable provision is required is too low. With a 25% affordable target, a development of 12 houses will provide 3 affordable ones, but one of 8 or 9 will provide zero. This provides a perverse incentive for developers to bring forward developments of 9 dwellings, even if the land has capacity for (say 11).

Furthermore, a target of 25% is low. About 15 years ago Birmingham gave evidence at the Longbridge Area Action Plan EiP that they were achieving 40% affordable, as long as a proportion were of intermediate tenures. Most neighbouring councils have a higher target, often 35%, but with the ability to accept a lower proportion where a brownfield site requires high expenditure on site preparation.

Policy SEC4

WM CPRE generally supports the reallocation of employment land for housing where the land is not needed for employment use and there is a good case for doing so.

Policy SCE1

WM CPRE supports the aspiration for more mixed used / redevelopment for housing in town centres.

The lack of any policy in the plan on energy

We have failed to find any policy in the plan on energy generation, particularly where it is (and is not) appropriate to locate large solar arrays. It is our view that the right place for this is on rooftops and brownfield land, not on green field and certainly not on Green Belt land. The plan should contain a policy to this effect. See CPRE Rooftop Revolution Report (attached) on this subject.

Sandwell Local Plan Regulation 18 Preferred Options Consultation Response by Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd.

Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy are instructed by Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd, hereto referred to as Clowes, to submit representations to the Sandwell Local Plan Preferred Options and welcome the opportunity to comment at this time. Clowes Developments are current promoting sites in South Staffordshire on the edge of the conurbation. This representation focuses on their site to the north of Wall Heath, along the A491/Wolverhampton Road, which is being promoted for employment land (see Figure 1 below for the indicative masterplan). Consequently, this representation explores the employment aspects of the draft plan, the significant requirement for land outside of Sandwell to meet the employment need that has been identified, and the importance of meaningful discussions with those nearby authorities who have the land available to reasonably assist with meeting this need.

A substantial shortfall and need to find a definitive solution.

The draft plan identifies a shortfall of 143 hectares (ha) of employment land, before the projected loss of 26 ha of employment land is accounted for. This is a substantial amount of land and represents a substantial number of jobs for local people that have yet to be accounted for.

Clowes would like to implore the Council to enter constructive and productive discussions with nearby local authorities who have the capacity to assist in meeting this shortfall; with South Staffordshire being the top of the list due to its proximity to Sandwell and the existing functional relationship with it. None of the authorities directly adjoining Sandwell purport to have the land available to meet their own needs, and any land that might be identified within these to assist other authorities as their plans progress will not even beginning to scratch the surface of the level employment land needed. Consequently, it will be necessary to speak with next layer of authorities, including South Staffordshire, to meet this significant unmet need.

Meeting the employment needs across the conurbation cannot be achieved on an authority by authority basis and a joined up approach that crosses administrative boundaries will be required if there is to be any chance of meeting the employment needs both in terms of quantum and the required mix, including land for smaller and medium sized local businesses that form important roles in the local economy and the supply chain for larger businesses.

It is our view that the focus for addressing the shortfall of employment land 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. South Staffordshire is yet to submit its local plan review to the Secretary for State for examination and there is still scope to hold meaningful discussions with them to provide land to meet the needs arising in Sandwell. Discussions will have already taken place with South Staffordshire through the Black Country Plan review, and Clowes would like to highlight the importance of Sandwell taking these discussions forward and re-emphasising the importance of South Staffordshire’s role if the employment needs in Sandwell are going to be met.

Meeting the needs of all part of the economy

In addressing the employment land shortfall, it is important that an appropriate range of land and locations are identified to meet the needs of the different type and size of employment occupiers.

Through the Black Country plan review, discussions with South Staffordshire had led to an extension to i54 and a proportion of the Four Ashes interchange going toward meeting the overspill from the Black Country. Whilst these will no doubt continue to play an important role in meeting the wider need from the Black Country, this still leaves a substantial unmet need and it put a focus on sites to the north of the conurbation for larger national and international operators.

In looking to address the employment need, Clowes would encourage Sandwell to look to sites to the east and south of the conurbation. They would also encourage Sandwell to look for sites that strengthen the offer for small and medium sized local and regional firms that for an integral part of the local economy and supply chain. Sites which are well connected back to the prospective employees and the existing employment sites in the conurbation.



Land at Wall Heath

Clowes Development have previously submitted a vision document and representations in support of the employment allocation of their site at Wall Heath. The Site extends to 71.2 hectares and the indicative masterplan in Figure 1 above demonstrates how a range of B1, B2 and B8 could be delivered on the site with a combined floor area of 84,844 square metres.

The Site is deliverable, on a principal commuting route on the edge of conurbation and is one of the closest sites with the potential to deliver a meaningful contribution to the unmet employment need in Sandwell. It would provide the perfect opportunity for local and regional companies to locate and would build on the success of the Pensnett Trading Estate where the available capacity is less than 5%.

Clowes consider this Site would provide an ideal location to assist with meeting the needs identified by Sandwell and would very much welcome the opportunity to work with Sandwell and South Staffordshire to make this a reality, thereby delivering much needed jobs for local people.

The Draft Plan

We now set out our comments on the draft plan. For ease of reference the comments are presented for each chapter / paragraph in turn and follow the order that they appear in the draft plan.

Chapter 1, Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision Priorities and Objectives

Ambitions 1, 3 and 9 all state “delivering a healthy supply of land for economic growth and employment”. Harris Lamb supports the proposed wording on account that it is consistent with “Building a strong, responsive and competitive economy” as one of the three overarching objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. It is however evident that the Plan as drafted is likely to fail to deliver on this aspiration as the proposed supply of employment land
i.e. 42 hectares is significantly less than the identified need / requirement of 211 hectares (includes 26 hectares likely to be lost to other land uses) as set out in the Employment Land Needs Assessment 2020 to 2041 (August 2023).

Chapter 1, Priorities and Objectives: Table 3

Objective 8 “grow a prosperous and resilient local and regional economy”. Whilst Harris Lamb supports this objective again the substantive and significant proposed shortfall in employment supply, particularly in the context of the wider FEMA and the local authorities beyond which evidently have a strong functional relationship with Sandwell e.g. South Staffordshire.

Chapter 2, Spatial Strategy

At paragraph 2.3 it states that the spatial strategy took account of, amongst other matters, the evidence base. Harris Lamb considers that the evidence base is deficient in that it did not include a review of the Green Belt. Nor is it evident how or indeed if the West Midlands Local Industrial Strategy (2019) was considered.

Paragraph 2.14

Notwithstanding the stated demand for employment land and the shortfall are both substantive and significant, they do not account for the projected loss of employment land to other uses
i.e. 26 hectares. Harris Lamb also objects to the statement that the Plan allocates.

Paragraph 2.15




Harris Lamb supports the statement “ensuring that an adequate supply of employment land is maintained through the plan period will be essential in enabling long term balanced growth to be sustained”. It then identifies “key issues to be addressed in the SLP” but it fails to include the need to secure employment land elsewhere in, and beyond, the FEMA e.g. South Staffordshire to address the substantial and significant supply shortfall.

Balanced Green Growth, Paragraph 2.30h

Harris Lamb supports the statement “regenerate existing employment areas and help them deliver”. To enable to achieve that however new employment land needs to be identified as vacancy rates are very low, typically less than 10%, meaning that existing tenants are more likely to relocate further afield.

Chapter 3, Development Strategy Policy SDS1

Part 1b

Part 1b is very misleading. It states that at least 1,206 ha of employment land will be provided but all of it bar 29ha is existing employment land. The proposed supply is only 42 hectares of which 26ha are new allocations (“new urban sites”).

Part 1h

Harris Lamb objects to the blanket policy approach i.e. no inappropriate development in it without any up-to-date technical evidence to justify it.

Duty to Cooperate Paragraph 3.14

Harris Lamb agrees that there is evidently a substantive and significant shortfall with the proposed employment shortfall. Again “an anticipated lead of allocations of 1,206ha of employment land” is simply incorrect as nearly all of it is currently occupied. Further the shortfall of 143ha does not account the 26ha projected loss of employment land to other uses.

Paragraph 3.15

This is a correct application of NPPF’s policy. It should state here which local authority areas have a physical or functional relationship with Sandwell. One area is evidently South Staffordshire where there is a strong commuting pattern in both directions.

Paragraph 3.17

It is evident to date that the employment land shortfall falls well below the existing and anticipated contributions from other Local Planning Authorities. The scale of the shortfall, along with the even greater shortfall in respect of housing, means that for greater contribution from appropriate local authority areas e.g. South Staffordshire is necessary.

Paragraph 3.18

Ongoing “engagement with its neighbours to secure the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing and employment growth to meet local needs” is clearly not enough as all the neighbouring LPAs are also struggling to meet their own needs, especially so Birmingham. Therefore, it should state the LPAs which could provide a substantive and appropriate contribution including South Staffordshire.



Chapter 8, Sandwell’s Economy – Paragraph 8.4f

“The Plan will allocate 1,206 hectares of occupied employment land for strategic, local or other employment provision”. As it stands the SLP only allocates 26ha of new employment land.

Paragraph 8.5g

The proposed objectives do not include working closely with LPAs, who have a strong functional relationship with Sandwell, to identify appropriate areas of land on which to address some of the substantive and significant employment land shortfall.

Policy SEC1 – Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs

Part 1

It should state how much new employment land is being allocated.

Part 2

This is overly optimistic. Redevelopment of employment land is limited on account of very low vacancy rates. There is also very limited scope for “intensification” of employment sites to deliver substantive new employment space as the gross to net plot ratios tend to be very low.

Summary
There is a significant shortfall in employment land in the Preferred Options local plan. This land represents jobs for local people and is important for bolstering the strength of the local economy for the benefit of all. Not providing this land will have a negative impact on local people and it is local people who will suffer if a solution cannot be found.

Clear and decisive action is needed to ensure these needs are met, and the starting point should be discussions with South Staffordshire to implore them to provide the land needed to deliver these jobs.

Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives

The WMHAPC welcomes the ‘Local Plan Vision 2041’ set out on pages 33 and 34 in that it seeks to ensure that “Affordable, social and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them”.

Draft Housing Need and Duty to Co-operate

Paragraph 3.13 on page 52 of the Draft Local Plan sets out a considerable shortfall in the ability of the authority to provide for the housing needs of its residents:

“This Plan aims to allocate sites for 11,167 new homes in Sandwell over the period 2022-41, compared to a local housing need of 29,773 (2022 – 2041) homes; this identifies a shortfall of 18,606 homes.” (Emphasis added).

Given the significant shortfall, the WMHAPC is concerned that the Council is progressing the draft strategic housing policies without showing that neighbouring authorities can accommodate the shortfall in the number of homes needed while also addressing their own housing needs. This is an acutely important matter that should be resolved under the Duty to Cooperate and also set out within a Statement of Common Ground by the parties involved.

While it appreciated that efforts have been made to work collaboratively with other Black Country Authorities, the Sandwell Local Plan - Regulation 18 Duty to Co-operate Statement (November 2023) still leaves a high level of uncertainty as to where the shortfall in housing can be addressed. The statement demonstrates that existing offers from neighbouring authorities in meeting wider-than-local housing needs result in the capacity of up to 8,000 homes, which falls far short of the 18,606 homes required in Sandwell.

The WMHAPC is of the view that further work between Sandwell Borough Council and neighbouring authorities is needed before the strategic housing policies contained in the Draft Local Plan are able to provide for the housing need of the authority and subsequently be found ‘sound’ at examination by being ‘positively prepared’ and ‘effective’, as set out by Paragraph 35 of the NPPF (2023):

“Plans are ‘sound’ if they are:

a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs1; 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;
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross- boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.”

At present the Draft Plan does not provide for the area’s objectively assessed need and there are no formal agreements in place that have been set out in evidence which demonstrated unmet need can be met in neighbouring authorities.

Draft Policy SDS6 – Sandwell’s Green Belt

Policy SDS6 sets out Sandwell’s policy approach to the Green Belt. Supporting text to draft Policy SDS6 at paragraph 3.85 states:

“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.”

Paragraph 141 of the NPPF (2023) states that before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, all other reasonable for meeting its identified need for development should be considered. Paragraph 141 goes on to state “This will be assessed through the examination of its strategic policies, which will take into account the preceding paragraph, and 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.”

In relation to points a), b) and c) of paragraph 141 of the NPPF (2023) and the discussion above relating to the duty-to-cooperate, the ability of neighbouring authorities to accommodate the shortfall in the housing needs of Sandwell remains uncertain.

Similarly, the Urban Capacity Appraisal (November 2023) demonstrates the limited capacity of Sandwell in meeting the housing needs of the authorities’ residents within its Urban Areas and the limited benefit of increasing development density would have given the scale of the existing shortfall.


1 “Where this relates to housing, such needs should be assessed using a clear and justified method, as set out in paragraph 61 of this Framework.”


Considering the above, the statement that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a Green Belt Review is somewhat premature and open to question given the Council has no set plan for how the shortfall in housing needs is going to be met.

While the limited extent of Sandwell’s Green Belt and historical and environmental significance of Sandwell’s Green Belt is appreciated, a more levelled approach to meeting housing need within Sandwell’s Green Belt may be more appropriate with the allocation of housing sites to directly address the housing needs of local communities.

Draft Policy SHO4 - Affordable Housing

Part 6 of draft Policy SHOU4 seeks to secure affordable housing in perpetuity. There is currently no wording in the NPPF (2023), or within Planning Practice Guidance, that requires all affordable housing to be secured in perpetuity. National policy is silent on the requirement to secure affordable housing in perpetuity, other than the specific reference to rural exception sites in Annex 2 of the NPPF (2023), which states:

“Rural exception sites: Small sites used for affordable housing in perpetuity where sites would not normally be used for housing. Rural exception sites seek to address the needs of the local community by accommodating households who are either current residents or have an existing family or employment connection. A proportion of market homes may be allowed on the site at the local planning authority’s discretion, for example where essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding.” (Emphasis added)

This principle is appropriate and supported by the WMHAPC as it helps to secure land for delivery of affordable housing in rural areas where housing delivery would otherwise not be supported. However, a blanket approach to securing affordable housing in perpetuity is not supported for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it restricts lenders’ appetite to fund development, as mortgage provision becomes more difficult with greater restrictions on individual properties. Private companies will not typically invest in developments if there is no prospect of realising the original investment and any returns. As such, affordable housing should only be secured in perpetuity on rural exception sites. The WMHAPC requests that, in line with national planning policy, the policy wording of draft Policy SHOU4 changed to only relate to rural exception sites.

The WMHAPC is pleased that the supporting text to draft Policy SHOU4 at 7.25 on page 185 recognises the ongoing affordability challenges facing residents “Rising house prices and low average incomes over a long period have made market housing increasingly unaffordable for many Sandwell households”. Paragraph 7.25 goes on to set out an evidence-based approach to providing a tenure mix that reflects the needs of the authority:

“The Black Country HMA (2021) identifies a requirement for 16.9% of new homes to be made available for affordable or social rent, 7% to be shared ownership and 8.2% to be First Homes. To meet this level of need over the Plan period, 32.1% of new housing would have to be affordable. Sandwell aspires to provide this level of affordable housing, through a range of schemes delivering up to 100% affordable housing funded through grant and other financial sources and supported by developer contributions where viable.”

The WMHAPC welcomes a policy position that allows for a reasonable level of flexibility within the tenure of affordable housing sought. This would facilitate development viability and the delivery of a wide range of affordable housing products in line with local needs.

Paragraph 7.28 of page 186 explains:

“Beyond national requirements, the tenure and type of affordable housing required over the Plan period will vary according to local housing need and market conditions. In general, a mix of tenures will be sought on all sites of ten homes or more, to help create mixed communities across the borough.”


The WMHAPC therefore asks the Council to provide further guidance and clarity on the source and type of local housing need evidence that would appropriately justify the tenure mix of affordable housing products to be provided.

As previously advocated for by the WMHAPC, the inclusion of a rural exception site policy would help bring forward housing in constrained rural areas of Sandwell where land may not normally be suitable for housing. The WMHAPC therefore strongly encourages the inclusion of a rural exception site policy. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF (2023) explains that “In rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs. Local planning authorities should support opportunities to bring forward rural exception sites that will provide affordable housing to meet identified local needs, and consider whether allowing some market housing on these sites would help to facilitate this.” Such sites are an exception to inappropriate development within the Green Belt as set out by paragraph 149 of the NPPF (2023).

Draft Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

As detailed in our response to the Sandwell Local Plan Issues and Options consultation, the WMHAPC’s stance on the Nationally Described Space Standard remains unchanged. As set out above and in line with paragraph 35 of the NPPF (2023) in order to be found sound at examination policies should be appropriately “Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence”.

Among tests of viability and timing Planning Practise Guidance requires the application of Nationally Described Spaces Standards (NDSS) to based on an established 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.”

It is understood that the Black Country Housing Market Assessment (March 2021) identifies the need for accessible and adaptable housing across the housing market area. However, there is currently an absence in the need for such housing in Sandwell itself. For draft Policy SDM2 to be found ‘sound’, an evidenced need for NDSS should be established and assessed at a local authority level.

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.

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 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.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide 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;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that 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”. It goes onto state that 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”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide 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;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that 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”. It goes onto state that 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”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

Dr Baljit Bhandal 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 Dr Baljit Bhandal 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.

Dr Baljit Bhandal 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 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 Dr Baljit Bhandal 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 (although we consider Dudley has capacity to not only meet its housing requirement, but also contribute to meeting the pressing need for housing in the HMA, including the overspill from Sandwell). 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 Sandwell.

Total shortfall

If the housing shortfall figure identified in Policy PG1 of the BDP and the emerging shortfalls in both the Sandwell Preferred Options are added together it totals 57,582 dwellings. If the shortfall arising in 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 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. Dr Baljit Bhandal 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, Dr Baljit Bhandal urge the Council to enter into constructive and productive discussions with the other HMA authorities, including Dudley MBC, 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. Dudley, South Staffordshire and Bromsgrove are the closest authorities with a meaningful ability to address the shortfall and with land available adjacent to the conurbation. Dudley is still at a relatively early stage in the reviewing the Black Country Core Strategy and there is still plenty of scope to hold meaningful discussions to provide land to meet the needs arising in Sandwell.

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.

Comments submitted in table form
Para 72 Consider re-phrasing and celebrating the industrial heritage of the area and how that has shaped the local identity of the area.
Para 73 Amend to ‘Registered Parks and Gardens’.
Consider amending heritage conservation areas to conservation areas and the setting of heritage assets or something similar.
Heritage assets themselves are ‘irreplaceable’ and should be conserved and protected and the Local Plan to provide a ‘positive strategy’ for this.
Their need to be protected is more than a recognition of their past use but as how heritage has shaped our identity and how they continue to remain relevant today and can contribute positively to the economy and social wellbeing.

It would be useful in this section if heritage can also be referenced as a component of landscape.
Page 29 Ambition 1 would benefit from a reference to the historic environment and recognising the benefits the historic environment can bring to a community and an area.

Ambition 2 would benefit from a reference to the historic environment and recognising the benefits the historic environment can bring to a community and wellbeing.

Would be worthwhile to check through the ambitions to consider where the historic environment would best be suited.


Page 33/34 We support the vision and the reference to heritage within it. We would welcome a reference to a wider variety of heritage such as heritage landscape/ archaeology etc. rather than a narrower definition of built heritage.
Objective 4/5 We are very supportive of specific objectives that seek to protect the historic environment. We would welcome a reference to heritage landscape and features and ensuring the wide range of historic environment is fully reflected and considered within the Plan.
Objective 15 We support the reference to heritage within this objective.
Para 2.18 We support this paragraph.
Para 2.30 clause C We support this clause.
Policy SDS1 clause j This could be amended to read conserve and enhance the significance of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings through xxx to ensure that it is the significance of heritage assets that is being considered and protected through the policy text.
Policy SDS2 This policy would benefit from reference to the historic nature of the area and its heritage assets and how conserving the historic environment will be a benefit for the regeneration of the area. It would also be useful to reference the Wednesbury High Street Action Zone during the text regarding regeneration in Sandwell and the benefit of heritage led regeneration programmes. This would help meet the aims of the Plan mentioned earlier in the text. We note a brief reference in paragraph 3.42.
Policy SDS3 clause a) i)

d) We would request re-phrasing of this clause as sites submitted during a Call for Sites exercise will not necessarily be suitable for development. We would request that this is also re-phrased in any other policies that this statement may appear.

Could make reference to the historic environment.
Policy SDS4
Clause 2)

Clause 3)


Clause 9)
We support this reference and recommend additional detail in the Plan on how this can be achieved.

Confusing wording, we would request that this is amended yet we support the principle that the significance of heritage assets including their setting will be protected and it would benefit from a clearer form of words. Also consider re-wording paragraph 3.61.

Historic England are available to engage in this work.
Policy SDS5 clause 11) We support the reference to heritage tourism and welcome its inclusion in the policy, as well as in the justification paragraphs.
Section on Green and Blue Infrastructure from page 74 onwards We would welcome a reference to the historic environment as a component of green and blue infrastructure and the role heritage plays in this area. If you have any questions we are happy to answer.
Policy SDS7 We would request a clause to be included in this policy regarding the historic environment and its function within Green/ Blue Infrastructure.
Policy SNE4 We welcome a policy on the UNESCO Geopark and recognition of the important cultural heritage of the area and the contribution it has made in historical terms. Clause 1) consider re-phrasing to ensure that the significance of the asset and its integrity is fully protected and conserved for future generations.
Policy SNE5 This policy would benefit from strengthening the reference to the historic environment context of the area, including non designated heritage assets and heritage features as well as the heritage components of landscape.

Policy SNE6 We support the recognition of the historic nature of canals as heritage assets/ role within the wider cultural heritage agenda and welcome reference within the policy and justification text in this area.

Section 4, from page 113
We welcome a specific section on the historic environment and specific policies for the historic environment. We welcome the introductory paragraphs to the interesting, rich and varied history of the Black Country and the need to protect this and the value placed on heritage led regeneration.

Para 4.114
Consider the wording in this paragraph and also needs reference to the setting of heritage assets as well as an understanding of the context in which they are in and any relationships they may have with other heritage assets within the area/ heritage landscapes etc.

When considering a suite of policies for the historic environment, it is important to ensure that all the policies are consistent and that all assets are fully supported.

SHE1
We welcome the inclusion of this policy. We would request that there are some amendments to the wording to ensure it is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 199 to 205 particularly. Heritage assets are an ‘irreplaceable resource’ and efforts should be made to ensure that the significance of heritage assets, including their setting are protected. The policy wording in clause 1 and 2 can be strengthened to reflect this. The wording in clause 3 is welcome and we are supportive of the need for Heritage Impact Assessment. The assessment should also set out the level of harm, how harm can be avoided or mitigated against and any opportunities for enhancement. Clause 4, setting in itself is not a heritage asset but it should be included within the section on significance and can still be a reason for refusal where the setting contributes to the significance of an asset, but will be affected by proposed development. Recording the loss of any heritage asset/ features on the Historic Environment Record (HER) would also be beneficial to include within this policy. Consider the wording for clause 5 to ensure the protection of a Conservation Area. We would recommend deleting clause 6. Paragraph 4.121 relates to this paragraph also.

SHE2

Similar to comments above, ensure that the policy is NPPF compliant and that it seeks to protect and conserve the historic environment and sets out where applications will be refused. As referenced the historic environment is an ‘irreplaceable resource’ and the NPPF sets out clearly how to deal with harm and how if necessary to apply the tests of harm. Clause 1 for example requests that heritage informs proposals and is considered; there should be a clause that states that harm to heritage will be refused unless xx. Again, clause 2 refers to the need to inform proposals which is beneficial, yet there needs to be wording inserted to prevent harm to the historic environment and conserve their significance, including setting.

Where ‘historic assets’ are referenced this should be amended to state ‘heritage assets’.
Clause 3, heritage assets should be protected as set out in the NPPF and relevant legislation.

Clause 5, delete ‘aim’. The policy wording should be strengthened to ensure that heritage assets are protected and conserved in Sandwell. The examples used are useful and provide a context for the type of heritage within the Borough; it would be beneficial to ensure that this describes some examples only and reference the relevant heritage evidence base that prospective developers will need to consider in full.

It would be beneficial to have a clause that relates to the need for appropriate qualified individuals undertaking assessment work, that the Historic Environment Record should be considered as a minimum, that views analysis is a useful tool to consider in the wider process etc. for all proposals which could affect heritage.


Para 4.123
Delete ‘ancient’.

It would be useful to provide some additional information about what a heritage impact assessment could include.
SHE3
Consider referring to significance generally in this clause. It would be useful to have a link to the Sandwell Local List. We are supportive of a Local List and welcome this.

SHE4
Considering re-phrasing the opening clause to ensure that the significance of archaeological heritage assets are protected and where possible enhanced.

Development proposals which cause harm to heritage assets should be refused unless the specifications set out in the NPPF are met. We consider that the wording should reflect this. There also needs to be consideration of non designated archaeology that could be of national significance. Ensure that heritage assets are referred to in line with the relevant clauses of Section 16 of the NPPF. A separate clause for archaeological investigation would be useful and to set out how it applies to heritage assets. Any archaeological investigation should be carried out by an appropriate and qualified professional and a programme of works agreed by the Council’s archaeology officer. A separate clause for recording would be beneficial. Clause 5 we would anticipate that all relevant information would be provided for the Council to assess the level of harm and to then make an informed decision within the context of the requirements of the NPPF.

4.133/34
Additional information would be beneficial.
Consider re-ordering the policies to have a historic environment policy first, and then specific policies on asset type, where relevant.

Section 5 Historic England are supportive of a section on Climate Change within the Plan. We enclose a link to some relevant publications considering the historic environment and climate change that may be useful to understand in the context of the Local Plan.

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/climate-change/

Under this section it would be useful to consider how the historic environment can contribute to the climate change agenda, which measures are appropriate in the context of the historic environment and how heritage assets need to be considered. There may also be times when climate change proposals such as solar farms or wind turbines may not be an appropriate solution if it affects the significance of heritage assets and other areas may be more suitable for this technology.

Policy SCC1 We welcome clause j). It could relate to heritage assets more widely.
Policy SCC2 Clause 4 is useful. It may need to be stated that development which causes harm will be resisted or other solutions sought.

Policy SCC3 Clause 2, consider the potential impacts for the historic nature of canals and ensure that this is protected and conserved.

Policy SCC4 It would be useful to incorporate a clause on the historic environment within this policy and the specific considerations for the historic environment.

Policy SCC5 It would be useful to incorporate a clause on the historic environment within this policy and the specific considerations for the historic environment.

Policy SCC6 We would recommend re-phrasing to state protects the significance of the historic environment, heritage assets including their setting or similar wording.

Policy SHW4 We support the reference to heritage within clause 8.

Policy SH01 We have not been able to comment on the specific housing proposals at this time, we will consider these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to understand how the historic environment has been considered. If there are any proposed allocations which could cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, we would expect to see heritage impact assessment.
Policy SHO2 Clause 2) c amend to will not cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting or similar.
Policy SH010 We have not had the opportunity at this time to comment on the site allocations specifically. We would request that any proposed allocations consider the impact on the historic environment and ensure that where there is harm for the historic environment that an appropriate heritage impact assessment is available as an evidence base to support a proposed allocation.
Policy SEC1 We have not been able to comment on the specific employment proposals at this time, we will consider these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to understand how the historic environment has been considered. If there are any proposed allocations which could cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, we would expect to see heritage impact assessment.
Policy SEC2 We have not been able to comment on the specific employment proposals at this time, we will consider these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to understand how the historic environment has been considered. If there are any proposed allocations which could cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, we would expect to see heritage impact assessment.
Policy SEC3 We have not been able to comment on the specific employment proposals at this time, we will consider these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to understand how the historic environment has been considered. If there are any proposed allocations which could cause harm to the significance of heritage assets, including their setting, we would expect to see heritage impact assessment.
Policy SCE1 This policy would benefit from a clause relating to the historic environment, heritage led regeneration, heritage led public realm improvements, information relating to shop fronts and design within heritage centres and conservation areas and reference to Wednesbury High Street Heritage Action Zone and other potential opportunities.
Para 9.161 Are there any proposals within the Plan to address this?
Para 9.283 onwards We welcome the inclusion of this section in the Plan. Are there any tools or opportunities from this project that could be replicated elsewhere in the Borough?
Policy SWB1 This policy would benefit from a clause on the historic environment.
Policy STR1 How has the historic environment been considered in the process of highlighting transport infrastructure needs? Have any assessments been undertaken about the potential for harm to heritage assets, as a result of proposed transport initiatives?
Policy STR2 Comments above apply.
Policy STR6 Is there any information available at present about potential park and ride sites?
Policy SWA1 We would recommend re-phrasing clause 3) f to ensure that the policy protects the significance of heritage assets including their setting and inappropriate waste developments will be resisted. The policy may further benefit from some additional text on this issue in the reasoned justification text.
Policy SWA3 We have not been able to comment on specific proposed waste sites at this time. We will assess these in the new year and would welcome a meeting with the Council to discuss proposed allocations and any impacts these may have on the historic environment. If any proposed allocations could impact on the historic environment, we would expect to see a heritage impact assessment as evidence base.
Policy SWA4 This policy would benefit from a clause on the historic environment.
Policy SMI1 Are there minerals sites that are being proposed for allocation or safeguarding? If so, how has the historic environment been considered in this process?
Policy SMI2 Clause 5) b should set out an approach for what happens if a mineral working site is not appropriate due to the harm to the historic environment or if there are mitigation measures required to overcome any harm. The clause for cumulative impacts could also apply for the historic environment where there are already approved mineral workings in a historic landscape.

The policy would benefit from a clause on remediation so that the long term future of any minerals working site is appropriate in its environment.

Para 13.012 This para would benefit from additional detail.

SDM1 Clause g) we welcome reference to the historic environment within this policy and would request that ‘historic assets’ are amended to ‘heritage assets’ and that the significance of heritage assets including their settings are protected and where possible, enhanced.

Policy SDM3 Does the Council have any evidence base relating to tall buildings and which has been/ could be used to inform locations which may be appropriate or may not be appropriate for tall buildings? We have concerns about the impact of this policy on the historic environment and the historic nature of the area and are keen to understand if there is more information available at this time that has considered these issues?

With reference to both tall buildings and gateway sites, we are unclear what has informed the policy and what the policy is seeking to achieve.

Policy SDM5 It would be useful to include a section on the historic environment and what is appropriate in the context of heritage assets including conservation areas and listed buildings.

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.

Dear Sir / Madam

231218 FALLING EVEN SHORTER - SANDWELL REG 18 CONSULTATION REP

We write on behalf of a consortium of housebuilders and land promoters(listed below) to submit the enclosed Turley ‘Falling Even Shorter: as updated review of unmet housing needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area’ report (December 2023).

• Bellway Strategic Land

• Catesby Estates Plc

• Gladman Developments Ltd

• Hallam Land Management

• Haworth Group Plc

• Taylor Wimpey

• Vistry Group Plc

• Wain Estates

• William Davis Homes

The report has assessed the conclusions of the most recent Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (‘GBBCHMA’) updated Position Statement Addendum (‘the Addendum’) dates April 2023 but not published until October 2023. To reflect the Addendum, the report also assesses the housing need and supply for the plan period 2011-2031.

The Addendum claims the GBBCHMA’s shortfall arising between 2011 to 2031 has now reduced to 2,053
homes. This is however predicated on a base date of 31 March 2021, nearly three years ago. In that time, there is now additional monitoring data, and updated supply positions, which is not reflected in the
Addendum’s findings.

Furthermore, the Addendum continues to reference a need for 205,099 homes between 2011 and 2031, based on the GBBCHMA Strategic Growth Study (2018) that is increasingly dated having been produced almost eight years ago. The standard method has since been introduced, offering the consistency the study itself sought to provide. While this cannot be backdated to 2011, it can be reasonably used in place of the Strategic Growth Study scenario as an indicator of future needs.

Applying this from the 31 March 2023 base date and using the current outcome of the standard method which allows for worsening affordability and removal of the cap for Birmingham, the total housing need is 237,788 homes. This approach best reflects national planning policy.

Against this need, based on the 14 authorities’ claimed supply position, this would leave a shortfall of 34,742 homes up to 2031. This rises to 40,676 homes when applying the Turley supply position, which is based on the most up-to-date evidence.

Beyond 2031, the report calculates the unmet need as rising to 62,373 homes up to 2036, and 79,737 homes up to 2040, when extrapolating the available supply data. With the end of this plan period up to 2031 just over seven years away, this unmet need represents real people who are in real need of a home, now.

National Planning Policy Framework (October 2023) paragraph 35a) is clear that for a plan to be considered positively prepared it should provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs. This should be informed by agreement with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring authorities is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.

There is no agreed strategy between the 14 GBBCHMA authorities as to how the unmet need up to 2031 will be accommodated, notwithstanding the significant scale of unmet need emerging beyond 2031. This is clear from Sandwell’s own evidence, as part of this consultation it refers to confirming at a later date any likely contribution to its own shortfall, this however is only likely to address a small proportion of it.

In the absence of this strategic level agreement, all 14 GBBCHMA authorities should be exploring all growth options in order to meet its own objectively assessed needs and those of the wider GBBCHMA, if their plan is to be considered positively prepared.

In Sandwell’s case, it is clear that not all growth options have been explored to meet its own objectively assessed needs, let alone those of the wider HMA. The plan proposes a supply of circa 38% of its total need and exacerbating the shortfall of the wider HMA by circa 18,600 homes. Under NPPF paragraph 139, Sandwell’s unmet need alone represents exceptional circumstances for reviewing the borough’s Green Belt boundaries, as does the scale of unmet need across the wider HMA.

In summary, the 14 GBBCHMA authorities should be seeking to agree a strategy now for how the unmet needs up to 2031 and beyond will be comprehensively met in full. As part of this all authorities should be exploring all options for growth, including the release of Green Belt land, given the unmet need represents exceptional circumstances for reviewing Green Belt boundaries. [see also Turley Falling Even Shorter attachment]