1. Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives

The ten ambitions for a successful Sandwell as set out in the Sandwell Vision 2030 continue to represent a set of aspirations to which the waterway network can successfully contribute, particularly:

- Ambition 1 (delivering strong policy support to combatting climate change adaptation and mitigation; and protecting and enhancing the natural environment, nature conservation and open spaces; and delivering opportunities for biodiversity net gain, landscaping and tree planting)
- Ambition 2 (protecting, enhancing and making accessible land for sport and leisure including active and passive recreation; and providing clear policy support for development aimed to deliver health and welfare infrastructure)
- Ambition 5 (promoting the development and improvement of attractive, safe and accessible public realm, support services and community infrastructure as part of new development and project delivery)
- Ambition 6 (delivering a co-ordinated and strategic travel and transport network through Sandwell that links communities to opportunities both within and beyond its boundaries, supported by appropriate planning policies and land use designations), and,
- Ambition 8 (promoting and supporting sustainable development that helps to meet local need/demand; and providing for sufficient services and facilities in locations accessible to all in Sandwell's communities.)

As such the Trust endorses the Sandwell Local Plan Vision 2041 and its emphasis on tackling climate change, and the promotion of the natural and historic environments, active and passive recreation and leisure opportunities, access to district and low-cost energy and heating projects, delivery of sustainable drainage, and emphasis on active and sustainable travel opportunities. In particular we support and acknowledge our allied role in delivering a number of the draft Plan’s key priorities and objectives under the headings of:

- Climate Change (notably Objective 1: Ensure new development takes a proactive approach to climate change mitigation, adaptation and carbon reduction, and that development is resilient to climate change, and Objective 2: Deliver sustainable development in locations where people can access jobs and services, delivering wider positive social and economic outcomes and protecting and enhancing local built and natural environments)
- Enhancing our natural environment (notably Objective 3: To protect and enhance Sandwell's natural environment, natural resources, biodiversity, wildlife corridors geological resources, countryside and landscapes, whilst ensuring that residents have good access to interlinked green infrastructure)
- Enhancing our historic environment (notably Objective 4: To protect, sustain and enhance the quality of the historic built environment, ensuring the retention of distinctive and attractive places and beautiful buildings, including listed parks, scheduled monuments and their settings, and Objective 5: To manage and maintain the wider historic environment across Sandwell, including parks and gardens, areas of industrial heritage value, sites of geological and archaeological interest and locally listed buildings, structures and historic assets)
- Improving the Health and Wellbeing of residents and promoting social inclusion (notably Objective 10: To provide a built and natural environment that supports the making of healthier choices through provision for physical activity and recreation, active travel, encouraging social interaction and discouraging harmful behaviours; Objective 11: Ensure new development and open spaces support health and wellbeing for all, reduce health inequalities and encourage active and healthy lifestyles, and Objective 12: To provide a built and natural environment that protects health and wellbeing through minimising pollution (air, noise and other forms), providing healthy homes, reducing the negative health effects of climate change and providing streets safe for active travel, and low emission travel for all)
- Good Design (notably Objective 13: Require new development to deliver a high standard of design reflecting local character and distinctiveness and that creates greener and safer places that people feel proud to live and work in)

- Promoting sustainable transport and active travel (notably Objective 16: To prioritise sustainable and active travel and seek to improve transport infrastructure to ensure efficient and sustainable accessibility within an integrated network), and,
- Meeting our resource and infrastructure needs (notably Objective 18: Ensure development is supported by essential infrastructure and services and promotes safe movement and more sustainable modes of travel through promoting greener travel networks for walking, cycling and public transport)

2. Spatial Strategy

2.18 The Trust endorses the ‘key issues addressed in the SLP’ as including Nature Conservation; Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain; Provision, retention and protection of trees, woodlands and hedgerows; Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness of the Black Country; Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark; Canals; The protection and enhancement of designated and undesignated heritage assets; and, Rejecting poor design.

2.30 As such we acknowledge the approach of Balanced Green Growth in forming the basis of the Sandwell Local Plan's Development Strategy (Policy SDS1). However, the Trust requests that our canal network be included within Figure 2 - Sandwell Spatial Map so that the contribution our network makes towards the delivery of Sandwell’s Spatial Strategy and overall Sandwell Local Plan Vision 2041 can be fully appreciated and realised by citizens and developers alike. (ACTION REQUEST)

3. Development Strategy

As set out within our response to the Issues and Options consultation the Trust welcomes the retention and enhancement of a canal-specific policy (Policy SNE6) within the Reg 18 SLP and as such does not seek the addition of replica canal-specific wording within every other relevant policy wording within the SLP. However, where specified we request cross-referencing to Policy SNE6 as identified in the requests below as a means of identifying the needs and opportunities of the waterway network in delivering Sandwell’s vision.

Specifically, the Trust notes Policy SDS2 – Regeneration in Sandwell and the extent to which the Dudley Port and Tipton, Wednesbury and Smethwick Regeneration Areas interact with the canal network. The Trust welcomes mention of our network within both policy wording and justification text for these areas and requests continued engagement through existing (e,g, Smethwick-Birmingham Corridor Framework and Rolfe Street Masterplans) and newer stakeholder engagement groups and the implementation and development of associated Supplementary Planning Documents resulting throughout the plan period (ACTION REQUEST).

Placemaking – achieving well-designed places

The Trust requests incorporation of cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the justification text to Policy SDS4 - Achieving Well-designed Places, for example at para 3.64, to reflect the role active incorporation of the canal network can have in delivering good design, well-being, and sustainable travel and the need to take the canal into account when designing new development near it (ACTION REQUEST).

We believe protection and enhancement of the canal network through design, layout and integration into developments should always be an expectation for canal-side sites, as this is consistent with the NPPF chapters on design and the historic environment and the National Design Guide on integrating nature and public spaces. The avoidance of fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour reduction can also be achieved through the use of good design techniques. Future local Design Codes can also provide developers with detailed guidance encouraging high quality design, following on from the principles advocated within the National Design Guide and Design

Code. Given the importance and extent of canals within the borough such codes will need to address waterside developments specifically and various key design principles for successful canal-side developments could be outlined within them, including creating activation with the canal, natural surveillance and appropriate landscaping. The Trust requests consultation on any local design codes which are to be developed (ACTION REQUEST). We acknowledge that positive place-making next to a canal, waterway or water body is often site-specific on a case- by-case basis, and therefore early consultation with the Trust is recommended to receive guidance on the best approach to achieving good design. This could be through stakeholder-led master planning approaches or through individual pre-application engagements. The Trust requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and can also encourage developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

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

Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy

The Trust welcomes inclusion of the canals within both Policy SDS5 - Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy and its justification text.

Green and Blue Infrastructure

The Trust welcomes inclusion of the canals within Policy SDS7 - Green and Blue Infrastructure in Sandwell and its introductory and justification texts. We also request partner engagement with the Council in the forthcoming preparation, adoption and implementation of a Green Infrastructure Strategy as identified in Policy SDS5 sub- section 1a.

The Trust reiterates its Issues and Options advice in relation to Green Infrastructure improvements, “There are opportunities for developers and other agencies to contribute towards further GI improvements through a variety of mechanisms, such as developer contributions through the planning process, corporate partnerships https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate/partner-with-us/corporate-partnerships or adopting a section of canal https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate/partner-with-us/volunteering-in-partnership . Improvements could also be made through the design of canal-side developments providing open space and landscaping adjacent to the waterside. Any future policy should acknowledge such opportunities and will need to set out the requirements for GI developer contributions consistent with para 34 of the NPPF.

GI Improvements could also be made through the provision of recreation facilities for use by the public. In the context of the canal network this could range from paddle craft launching provision and fishing pegs, including wheelchair accessible pegs, to larger visitor attractions, such as at the Roundhouse (albeit not an example within Sandwell), which provides for guided tours, visitors centre with exhibitions, events, and a café within a canal-side Grade II* Listed Building.

The Plan should recognise that GI improvement opportunities can come about through future development providing a policy framework for securing improvements whether that be through the design and layout of a site, through financial contributions or other means. It is also important to acknowledge that the quality of GI is dependent on its ongoing maintenance, which should be addressed in policy and considered early on at the design stage, to ensure it continues to provide benefits for users.”

4. Sandwell's Natural and Historic Environment

Nature Conservation

This section contains a number of policies in relation to Nature Conservation (SNE1), Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats (SNE2 including Biodiversity net gain, Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy, and Local opportunities for habitats and wildlife); Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands, And Hedgerows (SNE3); Geodiversity and the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark (SNE4); and The Rowley Hills (SNE5).

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

More specifically, and as an example, the Great Canal Orchard project potentially includes spaces for BNG orchards both as pockets and linear habitats along the canal, incorporated into developments where national priority habitats are not already present. Orchard trees also provide air quality improvements, a role in flood prevention, shade for climate adaption, free healthy fruit resources for communities, and potential for green economy gain if scaled up. Species recovery strategies under the Environment Act 2021 consider species of importance for Sandwell to include water vole, otter and soprano pipistrelle bats along canal corridors. As commented elsewhere in this response, water quality should be protected and improved, air quality must be protected from degradation and more broadly improved, and dark corridors should be protected from light pollution where these protected species are present, or could be recoverable.

Accordingly, we seek on-going engagement in the evolution of BNG-related policy wording throughout the plan preparation stages over 2024, including Examination stages (ACTION REQUEST)

Canals in Sandwell – SNE6

The Trust welcomes the inclusion of canal-specific Policy SNE6 – Canals within the draft plan, and further that it enhances the previous ENV4 policy wording within the adopted Black Country Core Strategy. In particular, clear reference has been added in relation to the importance of assessing impact on structural integrity, maintaining opportunity for canal restoration, and in identifying the role the canal network can play in delivering good design. We further welcome mention of delivery of integrated sustainable travel through towpath and way-faring enhancements. In relation to design quality, the canal network presents also opportunities for positive placemaking and the reduction of anti-social behaviour.

In terms of additions the Trust requests the following:

- Amend ‘reinstate and/or upgrade towpaths,’ to ‘reinstate, introduce and/or upgrade towpaths and access points’ within sub-heading 2(g)
- Add ‘To be delivered through the reasonable use of planning conditions or S106/CIL obligations’ to the end of 2(g)
- Add 2(h) for ‘use of canals for surface water management purposes, provided that SuDS and other mitigation measures are built into a scheme’
- Add into 3(a), “and delivery of the wider well-being agenda”
- Include an additional sub-section specifying, ‘Facilitate continued access to Trust assets for inspection and maintenance purposes’
- In relation to Residential Moorings, add to 10 that moorings also should not be permitted near existing uses which currently give rise to adverse amenity impacts, noise for example, in accordance with ‘agent of change’ principles
- The justifying text on 4.101 should identify that the assessment of ‘all necessary boating facilities’ should consider bin storage, collection and waste disposal, water and power supplies, and car parking provision

on a case-by-case basis to allow greater flexibility in relation to site-specific needs. Para 4.101 should also state that need for parking and access requirements for residential moorings is to be assessed against other relevant SLP policies and SLP car parking standards on a case-by-case basis.
- The justification text within 4.102 and 4.103 should state that the identified Trust and non-Trust residential mooring sites may not remain in existence for the whole duration of the Plan until 2041, and up-to-date statistics for our own moorings are available from us on request. (ACTION REQUEST)

The Historic Environment

This section includes a number of policies in relation to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (SHE1), Development in the Historic Environment (SHE2), Locally Listed Buildings (SHE3), and Archaeology (SHE4).

In particular the Trust welcomes mention of ‘the canal network and its associated infrastructure, surviving canal- side pre-1939 buildings and structures, and archaeological evidence of the development of canal-side industries and former canal routes’ within SHE2 5e. Similarly, we welcome the addition of Chances Glassworks, Smethwick Engine Arm Aqueduct, and Smethwick Engine House within the list of Scheduled Ancient Monuments within Sandwell and acknowledges the protection afforded to them under SNE4 - Archaeology.

The Trust also requests cross-referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the justification text to this section of the Policy SHE2 – Development in the Historic Environment, to reflect the role of canal network can have in conserving locally distinctive historic aspects of Sandwell, both designated and non-designated (ACTION REQUEST).

5. Climate Change

This section contains a number of policies in relation to Increasing efficiency and resilience (SCC1), Energy Infrastructure (SCC2), Managing Heat Risk (SCC3), Flood Risk (SCC4), Sustainable drainage and surface water management (SCC5), and Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards (SCC6).

The Trust notes that retrofitting is only briefly mentioned in Section 5, para 5.15, of the justification text to Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience, namely: ‘where possible and appropriate, the retrofitting of residential and other properties to achieve higher standards of energy and water efficiency will be encouraged and supported.’ The Trust considers that for a high proportion of heritage property stock, as well as modern up to the early 21st century stock (prior to BREEAM standards), retrofitting will be the substantial mainstay for making a property energy efficient and sustainable. The design and installation of solar panels, heat source pumps and triple glazing etc., their position on a building or location on site can be significantly detrimental, and risks degrading a building that makes a positive contribution through its architectural attributes or local distinctiveness. Accordingly, we request that para 5.15 be augmented to reflect this reality and to require that development proposals ensure that the chosen approach considers any consequential visual impacts on the canals' setting, heritage significance, or amenity value. (ACTION REQUEST). Reference is also drawn to advice contained within Historic England Advice Notes, in particular that to be found within the HEAN on Heat Pumps within Historic Buildings (2023) ( https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/find/latest-guidance/ )

The Trust welcomes mention of the canals as a potential component of heat risk management within Policy SCC3 – Managing Heat Risk, and associated text within para 5.43.

Given the increasing susceptibility of the historic canal network to climate change stress the Trust welcomes the inclusion of ‘there is an extensive canal network throughout the Sandwell area, including culverts and feeder streams’ within 5.48 of the justification text to Flood Risk Policy SCC4. Given this we request that Canal and River

Trust are listed within the bodies to be consulted on site-specific requirements within sub-section 16 of SCC4 and that citizens and developers can access our open source mapping data to identify our assets here:

https://data-canalrivertrust.opendata.arcgis.com/ (ACTION REQUEST).

The Trust also considers that a similar list of bodies to be consulted should be included within the policy text for Policy SCC5 - Sustainable drainage and surface water management, and that Canal and River Trust be listed within them given the risk of polluting ground and surface water to our network, and other watercourse, from the ‘legacy of contaminated land created by heavy industry and extractive activities in Sandwell’ identified in para
5.56 (ACTION REQUEST).

The Trust reiterates its Issues and Options stage advice in relation to flood risk and surface water management, “Subject to the Trust’s owner agreement to technical and commercial details, surface water can potentially be sustainably discharged to the canal network. Water levels in the canal network are managed by the Trust using control structures such as weirs and sluices to maintain a suitable depth for navigation by boats, but also to try to avoid water levels becoming too high in periods of heavy rainfall where runoff from hard surfaces can lead to excess water passing into the canals. Given this, surface water discharge to canals can be a highly effective way of managing local surface water flood risk and may allow development of sites that would otherwise not be viable due to concerns with alternative site drainage options.

SUDs adjacent to or connecting to canals will need to be maintained to ensure they function as they were designed to and do not cause pollution or excess flows. In the interests of local flood risk management and the protection of water quality, where a site proposes SUDs, this system should be designed in a way that if it were to fail the canal would not be inundated with water.

In many areas canals will also provide developers with opportunities to dispose of surface water drainage, noting that drainage to surface water bodies, such as canals is higher up the drainage hierarchy than discharge to sewers and drains. With the right investment they could also play a role in some places in mitigating flood risks. Accordingly, canals as an option for surface water drainage should be listed within forthcoming drainage policies provided that SuDS and appropriate pollution control and mitigation measures are built into the development scheme.”

Finally, the Trust welcomes inclusion of our network within Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards sub-section 5 and justification text para 5.61 in relation to the potential for use of our network for water-source heat pumps.

6. Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell

This section contains a number of policies in relation to Health Impact Assessments (SHW1), Healthcare Infrastructure (SHW2), Air Quality (SHW3), Open Space and Recreation (SHW4), Playing Fields and Sports Facilities (SHW5), and Allotments (SHW6),

Given our request above that the canal network’s contribution to the broader well-being agenda be explicitly included with the wording of Policy SNE6 - Canals in Sandwell, the Trust requests the incorporation of cross- referencing to Canal Policy SNE6 within the introductory text to this section, for example after para 6.11. (ACTION REQUEST).

In relation to Air Quality the Trust welcomes the inclusion of ‘Emissions from Construction Sites’ within the wording of policy SHW3 (sub-section 7) as this aligns to our regular requests for Construction and Environmental Management Plans within our statutory consultation responses to planning applications.

The Trust also welcomes mention of canal corridors within para 6.50 of the justification text for Policy SHW4– Open Space and Recreation and the restoration of towpaths as a component of enhancing green networks through the mechanisms of planning conditions and obligations.

7. Sandwell's Housing

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

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

See also comments on Appendix B below.

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

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

8. Sandwell’s Economy

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

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

See also comments on Appendix C below.

9. Sandwell's Centres and 10. West Bromwich

The Trust is content that canal-specific implications arising from the Council’s draft Centres policies and allocated sites can be adequately addressed through the issues-specific polices identified elsewhere in this response, and in particular the use of Policy SNE6 - Canals (as requested amendments above refer). However,

inclusion of the canal network within relevant policy and allocation maps (ACTION REQUEST) will enable developers to identify canal-related constraints at an early stage and engage with us accordingly, ideally at pre- application stage. The Trust requests on-going engagement from the Council on submitted pre-application enquiries, and also encourages developers to seek pre-application advice from us direct:

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

See also comments on Appendix D below.

11. Transport

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

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

12. Infrastructure and Delivery

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

13. Minerals and Waste

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

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

See also comments on Appendix E and Appendix F below.

14. Development Constraints and Industrial Legacy

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

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

15. Development Management

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

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

In relation to tall buildings and gateway sites the Trust requests that Policy SDM3 – Tall Buildings and Gateway Sites sub-heading 5(c) specify that this relates to both designated and non-designated heritage assets (ACTION REQUEST). The associated justification text should also contain reference to the need for impact of tall buildings within typically lower height profile canal environments to be a material consideration, to enable assessment of impact on the prevailing visual environment and character of the canal network (ACTION REQUEST).

Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

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

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

APPENDIX A – Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

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

APPENDIX B - Sandwell Site Allocations

SH7 - The Boat Gauging House and adjoining land, Factory Road, Tipton – development proposals should have particular regard to the heritage assets on site in scale, form and impact on character

SH14 - Langley Maltings, Western Road, Langley – development proposals should have full regard to adjacent heritage assets in scheme layout, design and appearance

SH19 - Land at Horseley Heath, Alexandra Road, and Lower Church Lane, Tipton – development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the nature conservation needs of the SLINC

SH21 - Dudley Road East, Oldbury – development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the nature conservation needs of the adjacent SINC

SH30 - Land to east of Black Lake, West Bromwich - development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the nature conservation needs of the adjacent SINC

SH35 - Rattlechain site - land to north of Temple Way, Tividale – development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the land contamination, water quality and land stability issues arising from this site

SH36 - Land between Addington Way and River Tame, Temple Way (Rattlechain) – comments as SH35 above

SH41 - North Smethwick Canalside – development proposals where adjacent to the canal should pay full regard to Smethwick-Birmingham Corridor Framework (2022) and the Rolfe Street Masterplan (2023)

SH53–58 – various sites within the Part of Grove Lane Masterplan – comments as SH41 above

SM1 - Chances Glass Works, Land west of Spon Lane, north of Palace Drive – development proposals should have particular regard to the heritage assets on site in scale, form and impact on character

APPENDIX C – Employment Allocations – vacant land

SEC1-10 - Brandon Way/ Albion Road - development proposals where adjacent to the canal should have full regard to the land stability issues of the canal


APPENDIX D – West Bromwich Masterplan and Carter's Green Framework Plan

The Trust has no comment to make on these proposals.

APPENDIX E – Strategic Waste Sites

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

APPENDIX F – Minerals

The Trust notes the identification of existing Key Mineral Infrastructure sites and raises no additional comments

subject to statutory consultation on any forthcoming planning applications on any of these sites within our notified areas, and assessment in line with the emerging Policy SNE6 – Canals, for sites within Sandwell, if applicable.

APPENDIX G – Site allocations - changes

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

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

APPENDIX H – Rowley Hills

The Trust has no comments to make on the proposed Extent of Strategic Open Space Designation.

APPENDIX I – Sandwell Local Plan Housing Trajectory

The Trust has no comments to make.

APPENDIX J – Sandwell Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Strategy (extract)

The Trust has no comments to make.

APPENDIX K – Open space and play provision standards for development

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

APPENDIX L – Transportation Policy

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

APPENDIX M – Glossary

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

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

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

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

Housing and employment requirements

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

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

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

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

Sustainable transport

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

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

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

Potential impact on the SRN

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

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

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

Impact Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Part 1

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

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

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

Duty to Cooperate

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

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

Regulation 18 Draft Sandwell Local Plan Consultation
1. Introduction
1.1. Thank you for inviting Shropshire Council to respond to the consultation on your Regulation 18 - draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.2. This response continues the positive Duty to Cooperate (DtC) engagement between our two Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s). This engagement includes both the draft Shropshire Local Plan, currently being Examined, and our previous joint engagement with the Association of Black Country Authorities (ABCA) in the preparation of the draft Black Country Local Plan (now discontinued) and now through your preparation of the draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.3. The views expressed about your draft Local Plan and your evidence base are the professional opinions of officers representing this Authority. Our views identify strategic cross-boundary matters for our two LPAs with some matters of detail for further consideration and we recognise the significance of these matters for the West Midlands region.
1.4. We welcome the continuation of our DtC engagement, including the matters within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
2. Housing
Local Housing Need Position
2.1. Draft Policy SDS 1 in your draft Spatial Strategy identifies an aspiration to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the remaining plan period; a figure which is equivalent to your conclusions on sustainable and deliverable sites over the period. This is set against a housing need, using the Government’s Standard Methodology, of 29,773 over the same period, leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. It is noted this is a very significant shortfall against the defined ‘need’ position. It is expected that all potential sustainable options have been exhausted within the LPA area in attempts to limit this unmet need as far as possible.
2.2. Your unmet housing need is a cross boundary strategic matter for the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA). This is being addressed through ABCA with the other LPA in the GBBCHMA and with other closely related authorities including Shropshire Council. However, we would expect that where this unmet need cannot be met sustainably in the Sandwell area, that sustainable options within the same Housing Market Area are considered in the first instance.
2.3. Draft Policies SDS1 and SHO1 identify the housing supply within your Borough to be 11,167 dwellings. Clearly a great deal of Duty to Cooperate conversations have happened up to this point, including with Shropshire, regarding how your unmet need may be delivered in a sustainable manner, and cross boundary contributions have been sought and agreed through Statements of Common Ground. It is noted the 1,500 contribution from Shropshire is for the Black Country sub-region as a whole and does not distinguish between how this figure should be attributed between the four Black Country LPA areas. It would therefore be helpful to set out in your Strategy how you envisage this to be achieved and that, presumably this will be a decision reached in collaboration with the other three Black Country authorities through ABCA.
2.4. It should be noted that at Shropshire’s Local Plan, including the proposed DtC contribution of 1,500 dwellings to the Black Country, is still currently subject to Examination in Public.
2.5. The housing requirements of all communities including travellers should be assessed and met to comply with NPPF paragraphs 60 & 62. NPPF paragraph 62, in footnote 27 references the substantive requirements of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, 2015) to assess the needs of gypsies and travellers under the definitions in Annex 1. PPTS requires gypsy and traveller sites to be treated as a distinct type of residential need and the supply of pitches and plots to meet their needs are to be identified separately from the general housing supply.
3. Employment
Local Employment Land Need
3.1. We support your explanation of your employment land supply position in your Spatial Strategy (paragraph 2.14) so far that, your employment land need is 185 hectares, there is an anticipated supply of 42 hectares and an unmet need for 143 hectares of employment land.
3.2. We suggest your draft Spatial Strategy and draft Policy SDS1 should identify an employment land requirement for a ‘minimum of 42 hectares’ which leaves an unmet employment land need of 143 hectares.
3.3. Given the clearly defined employment need and supply position, there is uncertainty as to the relevance of the 1,206ha figure stated in Policy SEC1. This should be clarified as it currently implies an employment requirement far in excess of evidence provided in the EDNA.
3.4. As discussed in relation to housing, your unmet employment land need is a cross boundary strategic matter being addressed by the ABCA with LPA within the Black Country FEMA, within other related FEMA including closely related authorities like Shropshire Council. These other LPA are providing assistance which includes Shropshire Council who have agreed to contribute 30 hectares to the Black Country to be distributed through the ABCA. To reiterate, this proposed contribution is still subject to agreement through Shropshire Local Plan’s ongoing Examination in Public.
4. Unmet Development Needs
4.1. We have considered the implications of your land availability on your capacity to meet your development needs and the contributions from other LPAs in the GBBCHMA, the BCFEMA and from closely related authorities who have engaged in your DtC process.
4.2. We acknowledge your draft Spatial Strategy and its justification in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.32 and recognise your preferred strategy is Balanced Green Growth and that your draft Spatial Strategy sets out some key issues in paragraphs 2.17 to 2.32. We suggest that paragraph 2.18 should also address matters in relation to the Green Belt in your Borough in addition to your explanation in paragraph 2.21.
4.3. This Authority believes it is necessary to consider further whether or not exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to your Green Belt boundary. Clearly the new NPPF is likely to have an implication on how this matter is considered, but we feel it is important that for those authorities where unmet need is identified, that all options, including within the Green Belt, are at least considered, before discussions are undertaken through the Duty to Cooperate regarding potentially exporting need elsewhere. We therefore suggest, subject to the implications of the new NPPF, your unmet development needs and the limited land availability in your Borough and other Black Country LPAs, is likely to require further consideration of your Green Belt boundaries to satisfy national policy.
4.4. The potential changes to the NPPF are not likely to materially affect the requirement for a Local Plan to deliver an appropriate and sustainable strategy for growth and development in that particular LPA area. The most appropriate and sustainable strategy to deliver development to meet the needs of Sandwell will continue to be, using land available within your Borough or land in adjacent Black Country LPA before seeking co-operation from within the GBBCHMA, or related FEMA or other closely related authorities. It is considered that this process should properly include the consideration of exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land, for development in Sandwell or within the Black Country, in addition to seeking help from other LPA as a strategic cross boundary matter.
4.5. We consider your approach is already largely compliant with national policy but some further steps may help to justify the soundness of your draft Local Plan and show whether Balanced Green Growth is an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We acknowledge that you:
a. have evaluated the urban capacity of your Borough as part of more extensive assessments across the Black Country area. Your Authority can more clearly identify their unmet development needs to support ABCA to engage effectively in the DtC process.

b. are considering the sustainability of directing development into your urban area, into the wider Black Country area, into neighbouring urban authorities and have looked for further opportunities within and beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt to meet your unmet needs as required by NPPF, paragraph 142.
4.6. We ask you to consider whether your preferred strategy triggers exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land and whether you should make changes to your Green Belt boundary to comply with paragraphs 142 and 143 of the NPPF to:
a. promote sustainable patterns of development and use land which was previously developed and/or is well served by public transport (para. 142);
b. consider whether there is any Green Belt land within their administration where it is not necessary to keep the land permanently open (para. 143);
c. consider whether it is necessary to safeguard land between the urban area and the Green Belt to contribute towards longer term development needs (para. 143);
c. consider how releasing Green Belt land for development might reduce your unmet development needs and improve the effectiveness of your DC process.
4.7. These further considerations should help your Authority demonstrate whether or not exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified to release or safeguard Green Belt land for development and, whether or not it is necessary to change your Green Belt boundaries in relation to NPPF, paragraph 140.
4.8. We consider these further measures are necessary due to the ongoing uncertainty about delivery through the DtC process. There is a clear expectation that further contributions will be sought from LPA in the GBBCHMA and from closely related authorities to meet your unmet needs and to support the other Black Country LPA.
4.9. This advice seeks to help your Authority show how your draft Local Plan provides an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We believe this will help to evidence your compliance with the tests of soundness for plan making in national policy.
5. Next Steps
5.1. We trust these officer comments are of assistance. Shropshire Council welcomes further D2C discussions with Sandwell Council, including the matters raised within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
Kind Regards
Edward West
Planning Policy and Strategy Manager
Shropshire Council

Regulation 18 Draft Sandwell Local Plan Consultation
1. Introduction
1.1. Thank you for inviting Shropshire Council to respond to the consultation on your Regulation 18 - draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.2. This response continues the positive Duty to Cooperate (DtC) engagement between our two Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s). This engagement includes both the draft Shropshire Local Plan, currently being Examined, and our previous joint engagement with the Association of Black Country Authorities (ABCA) in the preparation of the draft Black Country Local Plan (now discontinued) and now through your preparation of the draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.3. The views expressed about your draft Local Plan and your evidence base are the professional opinions of officers representing this Authority. Our views identify strategic cross-boundary matters for our two LPAs with some matters of detail for further consideration and we recognise the significance of these matters for the West Midlands region.
1.4. We welcome the continuation of our DtC engagement, including the matters within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
2. Housing
Local Housing Need Position
2.1. Draft Policy SDS 1 in your draft Spatial Strategy identifies an aspiration to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the remaining plan period; a figure which is equivalent to your conclusions on sustainable and deliverable sites over the period. This is set against a housing need, using the Government’s Standard Methodology, of 29,773 over the same period, leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. It is noted this is a very significant shortfall against the defined ‘need’ position. It is expected that all potential sustainable options have been exhausted within the LPA area in attempts to limit this unmet need as far as possible.
2.2. Your unmet housing need is a cross boundary strategic matter for the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA). This is being addressed through ABCA with the other LPA in the GBBCHMA and with other closely related authorities including Shropshire Council. However, we would expect that where this unmet need cannot be met sustainably in the Sandwell area, that sustainable options within the same Housing Market Area are considered in the first instance.
2.3. Draft Policies SDS1 and SHO1 identify the housing supply within your Borough to be 11,167 dwellings. Clearly a great deal of Duty to Cooperate conversations have happened up to this point, including with Shropshire, regarding how your unmet need may be delivered in a sustainable manner, and cross boundary contributions have been sought and agreed through Statements of Common Ground. It is noted the 1,500 contribution from Shropshire is for the Black Country sub-region as a whole and does not distinguish between how this figure should be attributed between the four Black Country LPA areas. It would therefore be helpful to set out in your Strategy how you envisage this to be achieved and that, presumably this will be a decision reached in collaboration with the other three Black Country authorities through ABCA.
2.4. It should be noted that at Shropshire’s Local Plan, including the proposed DtC contribution of 1,500 dwellings to the Black Country, is still currently subject to Examination in Public.
2.5. The housing requirements of all communities including travellers should be assessed and met to comply with NPPF paragraphs 60 & 62. NPPF paragraph 62, in footnote 27 references the substantive requirements of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, 2015) to assess the needs of gypsies and travellers under the definitions in Annex 1. PPTS requires gypsy and traveller sites to be treated as a distinct type of residential need and the supply of pitches and plots to meet their needs are to be identified separately from the general housing supply.
3. Employment
Local Employment Land Need
3.1. We support your explanation of your employment land supply position in your Spatial Strategy (paragraph 2.14) so far that, your employment land need is 185 hectares, there is an anticipated supply of 42 hectares and an unmet need for 143 hectares of employment land.
3.2. We suggest your draft Spatial Strategy and draft Policy SDS1 should identify an employment land requirement for a ‘minimum of 42 hectares’ which leaves an unmet employment land need of 143 hectares.
3.3. Given the clearly defined employment need and supply position, there is uncertainty as to the relevance of the 1,206ha figure stated in Policy SEC1. This should be clarified as it currently implies an employment requirement far in excess of evidence provided in the EDNA.
3.4. As discussed in relation to housing, your unmet employment land need is a cross boundary strategic matter being addressed by the ABCA with LPA within the Black Country FEMA, within other related FEMA including closely related authorities like Shropshire Council. These other LPA are providing assistance which includes Shropshire Council who have agreed to contribute 30 hectares to the Black Country to be distributed through the ABCA. To reiterate, this proposed contribution is still subject to agreement through Shropshire Local Plan’s ongoing Examination in Public.
4. Unmet Development Needs
4.1. We have considered the implications of your land availability on your capacity to meet your development needs and the contributions from other LPAs in the GBBCHMA, the BCFEMA and from closely related authorities who have engaged in your DtC process.
4.2. We acknowledge your draft Spatial Strategy and its justification in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.32 and recognise your preferred strategy is Balanced Green Growth and that your draft Spatial Strategy sets out some key issues in paragraphs 2.17 to 2.32. We suggest that paragraph 2.18 should also address matters in relation to the Green Belt in your Borough in addition to your explanation in paragraph 2.21.
4.3. This Authority believes it is necessary to consider further whether or not exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to your Green Belt boundary. Clearly the new NPPF is likely to have an implication on how this matter is considered, but we feel it is important that for those authorities where unmet need is identified, that all options, including within the Green Belt, are at least considered, before discussions are undertaken through the Duty to Cooperate regarding potentially exporting need elsewhere. We therefore suggest, subject to the implications of the new NPPF, your unmet development needs and the limited land availability in your Borough and other Black Country LPAs, is likely to require further consideration of your Green Belt boundaries to satisfy national policy.
4.4. The potential changes to the NPPF are not likely to materially affect the requirement for a Local Plan to deliver an appropriate and sustainable strategy for growth and development in that particular LPA area. The most appropriate and sustainable strategy to deliver development to meet the needs of Sandwell will continue to be, using land available within your Borough or land in adjacent Black Country LPA before seeking co-operation from within the GBBCHMA, or related FEMA or other closely related authorities. It is considered that this process should properly include the consideration of exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land, for development in Sandwell or within the Black Country, in addition to seeking help from other LPA as a strategic cross boundary matter.
4.5. We consider your approach is already largely compliant with national policy but some further steps may help to justify the soundness of your draft Local Plan and show whether Balanced Green Growth is an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We acknowledge that you:
a. have evaluated the urban capacity of your Borough as part of more extensive assessments across the Black Country area. Your Authority can more clearly identify their unmet development needs to support ABCA to engage effectively in the DtC process.

b. are considering the sustainability of directing development into your urban area, into the wider Black Country area, into neighbouring urban authorities and have looked for further opportunities within and beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt to meet your unmet needs as required by NPPF, paragraph 142.
4.6. We ask you to consider whether your preferred strategy triggers exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land and whether you should make changes to your Green Belt boundary to comply with paragraphs 142 and 143 of the NPPF to:
a. promote sustainable patterns of development and use land which was previously developed and/or is well served by public transport (para. 142);
b. consider whether there is any Green Belt land within their administration where it is not necessary to keep the land permanently open (para. 143);
c. consider whether it is necessary to safeguard land between the urban area and the Green Belt to contribute towards longer term development needs (para. 143);
c. consider how releasing Green Belt land for development might reduce your unmet development needs and improve the effectiveness of your DC process.
4.7. These further considerations should help your Authority demonstrate whether or not exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified to release or safeguard Green Belt land for development and, whether or not it is necessary to change your Green Belt boundaries in relation to NPPF, paragraph 140.
4.8. We consider these further measures are necessary due to the ongoing uncertainty about delivery through the DtC process. There is a clear expectation that further contributions will be sought from LPA in the GBBCHMA and from closely related authorities to meet your unmet needs and to support the other Black Country LPA.
4.9. This advice seeks to help your Authority show how your draft Local Plan provides an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We believe this will help to evidence your compliance with the tests of soundness for plan making in national policy.
5. Next Steps
5.1. We trust these officer comments are of assistance. Shropshire Council welcomes further D2C discussions with Sandwell Council, including the matters raised within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
Kind Regards
Edward West
Planning Policy and Strategy Manager
Shropshire Council

Regulation 18 Draft Sandwell Local Plan Consultation
1. Introduction
1.1. Thank you for inviting Shropshire Council to respond to the consultation on your Regulation 18 - draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.2. This response continues the positive Duty to Cooperate (DtC) engagement between our two Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s). This engagement includes both the draft Shropshire Local Plan, currently being Examined, and our previous joint engagement with the Association of Black Country Authorities (ABCA) in the preparation of the draft Black Country Local Plan (now discontinued) and now through your preparation of the draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.3. The views expressed about your draft Local Plan and your evidence base are the professional opinions of officers representing this Authority. Our views identify strategic cross-boundary matters for our two LPAs with some matters of detail for further consideration and we recognise the significance of these matters for the West Midlands region.
1.4. We welcome the continuation of our DtC engagement, including the matters within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
2. Housing
Local Housing Need Position
2.1. Draft Policy SDS 1 in your draft Spatial Strategy identifies an aspiration to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the remaining plan period; a figure which is equivalent to your conclusions on sustainable and deliverable sites over the period. This is set against a housing need, using the Government’s Standard Methodology, of 29,773 over the same period, leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. It is noted this is a very significant shortfall against the defined ‘need’ position. It is expected that all potential sustainable options have been exhausted within the LPA area in attempts to limit this unmet need as far as possible.
2.2. Your unmet housing need is a cross boundary strategic matter for the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA). This is being addressed through ABCA with the other LPA in the GBBCHMA and with other closely related authorities including Shropshire Council. However, we would expect that where this unmet need cannot be met sustainably in the Sandwell area, that sustainable options within the same Housing Market Area are considered in the first instance.
2.3. Draft Policies SDS1 and SHO1 identify the housing supply within your Borough to be 11,167 dwellings. Clearly a great deal of Duty to Cooperate conversations have happened up to this point, including with Shropshire, regarding how your unmet need may be delivered in a sustainable manner, and cross boundary contributions have been sought and agreed through Statements of Common Ground. It is noted the 1,500 contribution from Shropshire is for the Black Country sub-region as a whole and does not distinguish between how this figure should be attributed between the four Black Country LPA areas. It would therefore be helpful to set out in your Strategy how you envisage this to be achieved and that, presumably this will be a decision reached in collaboration with the other three Black Country authorities through ABCA.
2.4. It should be noted that at Shropshire’s Local Plan, including the proposed DtC contribution of 1,500 dwellings to the Black Country, is still currently subject to Examination in Public.
2.5. The housing requirements of all communities including travellers should be assessed and met to comply with NPPF paragraphs 60 & 62. NPPF paragraph 62, in footnote 27 references the substantive requirements of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, 2015) to assess the needs of gypsies and travellers under the definitions in Annex 1. PPTS requires gypsy and traveller sites to be treated as a distinct type of residential need and the supply of pitches and plots to meet their needs are to be identified separately from the general housing supply.
3. Employment
Local Employment Land Need
3.1. We support your explanation of your employment land supply position in your Spatial Strategy (paragraph 2.14) so far that, your employment land need is 185 hectares, there is an anticipated supply of 42 hectares and an unmet need for 143 hectares of employment land.
3.2. We suggest your draft Spatial Strategy and draft Policy SDS1 should identify an employment land requirement for a ‘minimum of 42 hectares’ which leaves an unmet employment land need of 143 hectares.
3.3. Given the clearly defined employment need and supply position, there is uncertainty as to the relevance of the 1,206ha figure stated in Policy SEC1. This should be clarified as it currently implies an employment requirement far in excess of evidence provided in the EDNA.
3.4. As discussed in relation to housing, your unmet employment land need is a cross boundary strategic matter being addressed by the ABCA with LPA within the Black Country FEMA, within other related FEMA including closely related authorities like Shropshire Council. These other LPA are providing assistance which includes Shropshire Council who have agreed to contribute 30 hectares to the Black Country to be distributed through the ABCA. To reiterate, this proposed contribution is still subject to agreement through Shropshire Local Plan’s ongoing Examination in Public.
4. Unmet Development Needs
4.1. We have considered the implications of your land availability on your capacity to meet your development needs and the contributions from other LPAs in the GBBCHMA, the BCFEMA and from closely related authorities who have engaged in your DtC process.
4.2. We acknowledge your draft Spatial Strategy and its justification in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.32 and recognise your preferred strategy is Balanced Green Growth and that your draft Spatial Strategy sets out some key issues in paragraphs 2.17 to 2.32. We suggest that paragraph 2.18 should also address matters in relation to the Green Belt in your Borough in addition to your explanation in paragraph 2.21.
4.3. This Authority believes it is necessary to consider further whether or not exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to your Green Belt boundary. Clearly the new NPPF is likely to have an implication on how this matter is considered, but we feel it is important that for those authorities where unmet need is identified, that all options, including within the Green Belt, are at least considered, before discussions are undertaken through the Duty to Cooperate regarding potentially exporting need elsewhere. We therefore suggest, subject to the implications of the new NPPF, your unmet development needs and the limited land availability in your Borough and other Black Country LPAs, is likely to require further consideration of your Green Belt boundaries to satisfy national policy.
4.4. The potential changes to the NPPF are not likely to materially affect the requirement for a Local Plan to deliver an appropriate and sustainable strategy for growth and development in that particular LPA area. The most appropriate and sustainable strategy to deliver development to meet the needs of Sandwell will continue to be, using land available within your Borough or land in adjacent Black Country LPA before seeking co-operation from within the GBBCHMA, or related FEMA or other closely related authorities. It is considered that this process should properly include the consideration of exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land, for development in Sandwell or within the Black Country, in addition to seeking help from other LPA as a strategic cross boundary matter.
4.5. We consider your approach is already largely compliant with national policy but some further steps may help to justify the soundness of your draft Local Plan and show whether Balanced Green Growth is an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We acknowledge that you:
a. have evaluated the urban capacity of your Borough as part of more extensive assessments across the Black Country area. Your Authority can more clearly identify their unmet development needs to support ABCA to engage effectively in the DtC process.

b. are considering the sustainability of directing development into your urban area, into the wider Black Country area, into neighbouring urban authorities and have looked for further opportunities within and beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt to meet your unmet needs as required by NPPF, paragraph 142.
4.6. We ask you to consider whether your preferred strategy triggers exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land and whether you should make changes to your Green Belt boundary to comply with paragraphs 142 and 143 of the NPPF to:
a. promote sustainable patterns of development and use land which was previously developed and/or is well served by public transport (para. 142);
b. consider whether there is any Green Belt land within their administration where it is not necessary to keep the land permanently open (para. 143);
c. consider whether it is necessary to safeguard land between the urban area and the Green Belt to contribute towards longer term development needs (para. 143);
c. consider how releasing Green Belt land for development might reduce your unmet development needs and improve the effectiveness of your DC process.
4.7. These further considerations should help your Authority demonstrate whether or not exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified to release or safeguard Green Belt land for development and, whether or not it is necessary to change your Green Belt boundaries in relation to NPPF, paragraph 140.
4.8. We consider these further measures are necessary due to the ongoing uncertainty about delivery through the DtC process. There is a clear expectation that further contributions will be sought from LPA in the GBBCHMA and from closely related authorities to meet your unmet needs and to support the other Black Country LPA.
4.9. This advice seeks to help your Authority show how your draft Local Plan provides an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We believe this will help to evidence your compliance with the tests of soundness for plan making in national policy.
5. Next Steps
5.1. We trust these officer comments are of assistance. Shropshire Council welcomes further D2C discussions with Sandwell Council, including the matters raised within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
Kind Regards
Edward West
Planning Policy and Strategy Manager
Shropshire Council

Regulation 18 Draft Sandwell Local Plan Consultation
1. Introduction
1.1. Thank you for inviting Shropshire Council to respond to the consultation on your Regulation 18 - draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.2. This response continues the positive Duty to Cooperate (DtC) engagement between our two Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s). This engagement includes both the draft Shropshire Local Plan, currently being Examined, and our previous joint engagement with the Association of Black Country Authorities (ABCA) in the preparation of the draft Black Country Local Plan (now discontinued) and now through your preparation of the draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.3. The views expressed about your draft Local Plan and your evidence base are the professional opinions of officers representing this Authority. Our views identify strategic cross-boundary matters for our two LPAs with some matters of detail for further consideration and we recognise the significance of these matters for the West Midlands region.
1.4. We welcome the continuation of our DtC engagement, including the matters within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
2. Housing
Local Housing Need Position
2.1. Draft Policy SDS 1 in your draft Spatial Strategy identifies an aspiration to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the remaining plan period; a figure which is equivalent to your conclusions on sustainable and deliverable sites over the period. This is set against a housing need, using the Government’s Standard Methodology, of 29,773 over the same period, leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. It is noted this is a very significant shortfall against the defined ‘need’ position. It is expected that all potential sustainable options have been exhausted within the LPA area in attempts to limit this unmet need as far as possible.
2.2. Your unmet housing need is a cross boundary strategic matter for the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA). This is being addressed through ABCA with the other LPA in the GBBCHMA and with other closely related authorities including Shropshire Council. However, we would expect that where this unmet need cannot be met sustainably in the Sandwell area, that sustainable options within the same Housing Market Area are considered in the first instance.
2.3. Draft Policies SDS1 and SHO1 identify the housing supply within your Borough to be 11,167 dwellings. Clearly a great deal of Duty to Cooperate conversations have happened up to this point, including with Shropshire, regarding how your unmet need may be delivered in a sustainable manner, and cross boundary contributions have been sought and agreed through Statements of Common Ground. It is noted the 1,500 contribution from Shropshire is for the Black Country sub-region as a whole and does not distinguish between how this figure should be attributed between the four Black Country LPA areas. It would therefore be helpful to set out in your Strategy how you envisage this to be achieved and that, presumably this will be a decision reached in collaboration with the other three Black Country authorities through ABCA.
2.4. It should be noted that at Shropshire’s Local Plan, including the proposed DtC contribution of 1,500 dwellings to the Black Country, is still currently subject to Examination in Public.
2.5. The housing requirements of all communities including travellers should be assessed and met to comply with NPPF paragraphs 60 & 62. NPPF paragraph 62, in footnote 27 references the substantive requirements of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, 2015) to assess the needs of gypsies and travellers under the definitions in Annex 1. PPTS requires gypsy and traveller sites to be treated as a distinct type of residential need and the supply of pitches and plots to meet their needs are to be identified separately from the general housing supply.
3. Employment
Local Employment Land Need
3.1. We support your explanation of your employment land supply position in your Spatial Strategy (paragraph 2.14) so far that, your employment land need is 185 hectares, there is an anticipated supply of 42 hectares and an unmet need for 143 hectares of employment land.
3.2. We suggest your draft Spatial Strategy and draft Policy SDS1 should identify an employment land requirement for a ‘minimum of 42 hectares’ which leaves an unmet employment land need of 143 hectares.
3.3. Given the clearly defined employment need and supply position, there is uncertainty as to the relevance of the 1,206ha figure stated in Policy SEC1. This should be clarified as it currently implies an employment requirement far in excess of evidence provided in the EDNA.
3.4. As discussed in relation to housing, your unmet employment land need is a cross boundary strategic matter being addressed by the ABCA with LPA within the Black Country FEMA, within other related FEMA including closely related authorities like Shropshire Council. These other LPA are providing assistance which includes Shropshire Council who have agreed to contribute 30 hectares to the Black Country to be distributed through the ABCA. To reiterate, this proposed contribution is still subject to agreement through Shropshire Local Plan’s ongoing Examination in Public.
4. Unmet Development Needs
4.1. We have considered the implications of your land availability on your capacity to meet your development needs and the contributions from other LPAs in the GBBCHMA, the BCFEMA and from closely related authorities who have engaged in your DtC process.
4.2. We acknowledge your draft Spatial Strategy and its justification in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.32 and recognise your preferred strategy is Balanced Green Growth and that your draft Spatial Strategy sets out some key issues in paragraphs 2.17 to 2.32. We suggest that paragraph 2.18 should also address matters in relation to the Green Belt in your Borough in addition to your explanation in paragraph 2.21.
4.3. This Authority believes it is necessary to consider further whether or not exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to your Green Belt boundary. Clearly the new NPPF is likely to have an implication on how this matter is considered, but we feel it is important that for those authorities where unmet need is identified, that all options, including within the Green Belt, are at least considered, before discussions are undertaken through the Duty to Cooperate regarding potentially exporting need elsewhere. We therefore suggest, subject to the implications of the new NPPF, your unmet development needs and the limited land availability in your Borough and other Black Country LPAs, is likely to require further consideration of your Green Belt boundaries to satisfy national policy.
4.4. The potential changes to the NPPF are not likely to materially affect the requirement for a Local Plan to deliver an appropriate and sustainable strategy for growth and development in that particular LPA area. The most appropriate and sustainable strategy to deliver development to meet the needs of Sandwell will continue to be, using land available within your Borough or land in adjacent Black Country LPA before seeking co-operation from within the GBBCHMA, or related FEMA or other closely related authorities. It is considered that this process should properly include the consideration of exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land, for development in Sandwell or within the Black Country, in addition to seeking help from other LPA as a strategic cross boundary matter.
4.5. We consider your approach is already largely compliant with national policy but some further steps may help to justify the soundness of your draft Local Plan and show whether Balanced Green Growth is an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We acknowledge that you:
a. have evaluated the urban capacity of your Borough as part of more extensive assessments across the Black Country area. Your Authority can more clearly identify their unmet development needs to support ABCA to engage effectively in the DtC process.

b. are considering the sustainability of directing development into your urban area, into the wider Black Country area, into neighbouring urban authorities and have looked for further opportunities within and beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt to meet your unmet needs as required by NPPF, paragraph 142.
4.6. We ask you to consider whether your preferred strategy triggers exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land and whether you should make changes to your Green Belt boundary to comply with paragraphs 142 and 143 of the NPPF to:
a. promote sustainable patterns of development and use land which was previously developed and/or is well served by public transport (para. 142);
b. consider whether there is any Green Belt land within their administration where it is not necessary to keep the land permanently open (para. 143);
c. consider whether it is necessary to safeguard land between the urban area and the Green Belt to contribute towards longer term development needs (para. 143);
c. consider how releasing Green Belt land for development might reduce your unmet development needs and improve the effectiveness of your DC process.
4.7. These further considerations should help your Authority demonstrate whether or not exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified to release or safeguard Green Belt land for development and, whether or not it is necessary to change your Green Belt boundaries in relation to NPPF, paragraph 140.
4.8. We consider these further measures are necessary due to the ongoing uncertainty about delivery through the DtC process. There is a clear expectation that further contributions will be sought from LPA in the GBBCHMA and from closely related authorities to meet your unmet needs and to support the other Black Country LPA.
4.9. This advice seeks to help your Authority show how your draft Local Plan provides an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We believe this will help to evidence your compliance with the tests of soundness for plan making in national policy.
5. Next Steps
5.1. We trust these officer comments are of assistance. Shropshire Council welcomes further D2C discussions with Sandwell Council, including the matters raised within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
Kind Regards
Edward West
Planning Policy and Strategy Manager
Shropshire Council

Regulation 18 Draft Sandwell Local Plan Consultation
1. Introduction
1.1. Thank you for inviting Shropshire Council to respond to the consultation on your Regulation 18 - draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.2. This response continues the positive Duty to Cooperate (DtC) engagement between our two Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s). This engagement includes both the draft Shropshire Local Plan, currently being Examined, and our previous joint engagement with the Association of Black Country Authorities (ABCA) in the preparation of the draft Black Country Local Plan (now discontinued) and now through your preparation of the draft Sandwell Local Plan.
1.3. The views expressed about your draft Local Plan and your evidence base are the professional opinions of officers representing this Authority. Our views identify strategic cross-boundary matters for our two LPAs with some matters of detail for further consideration and we recognise the significance of these matters for the West Midlands region.
1.4. We welcome the continuation of our DtC engagement, including the matters within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
2. Housing
Local Housing Need Position
2.1. Draft Policy SDS 1 in your draft Spatial Strategy identifies an aspiration to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the remaining plan period; a figure which is equivalent to your conclusions on sustainable and deliverable sites over the period. This is set against a housing need, using the Government’s Standard Methodology, of 29,773 over the same period, leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. It is noted this is a very significant shortfall against the defined ‘need’ position. It is expected that all potential sustainable options have been exhausted within the LPA area in attempts to limit this unmet need as far as possible.
2.2. Your unmet housing need is a cross boundary strategic matter for the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA). This is being addressed through ABCA with the other LPA in the GBBCHMA and with other closely related authorities including Shropshire Council. However, we would expect that where this unmet need cannot be met sustainably in the Sandwell area, that sustainable options within the same Housing Market Area are considered in the first instance.
2.3. Draft Policies SDS1 and SHO1 identify the housing supply within your Borough to be 11,167 dwellings. Clearly a great deal of Duty to Cooperate conversations have happened up to this point, including with Shropshire, regarding how your unmet need may be delivered in a sustainable manner, and cross boundary contributions have been sought and agreed through Statements of Common Ground. It is noted the 1,500 contribution from Shropshire is for the Black Country sub-region as a whole and does not distinguish between how this figure should be attributed between the four Black Country LPA areas. It would therefore be helpful to set out in your Strategy how you envisage this to be achieved and that, presumably this will be a decision reached in collaboration with the other three Black Country authorities through ABCA.
2.4. It should be noted that at Shropshire’s Local Plan, including the proposed DtC contribution of 1,500 dwellings to the Black Country, is still currently subject to Examination in Public.
2.5. The housing requirements of all communities including travellers should be assessed and met to comply with NPPF paragraphs 60 & 62. NPPF paragraph 62, in footnote 27 references the substantive requirements of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, 2015) to assess the needs of gypsies and travellers under the definitions in Annex 1. PPTS requires gypsy and traveller sites to be treated as a distinct type of residential need and the supply of pitches and plots to meet their needs are to be identified separately from the general housing supply.
3. Employment
Local Employment Land Need
3.1. We support your explanation of your employment land supply position in your Spatial Strategy (paragraph 2.14) so far that, your employment land need is 185 hectares, there is an anticipated supply of 42 hectares and an unmet need for 143 hectares of employment land.
3.2. We suggest your draft Spatial Strategy and draft Policy SDS1 should identify an employment land requirement for a ‘minimum of 42 hectares’ which leaves an unmet employment land need of 143 hectares.
3.3. Given the clearly defined employment need and supply position, there is uncertainty as to the relevance of the 1,206ha figure stated in Policy SEC1. This should be clarified as it currently implies an employment requirement far in excess of evidence provided in the EDNA.
3.4. As discussed in relation to housing, your unmet employment land need is a cross boundary strategic matter being addressed by the ABCA with LPA within the Black Country FEMA, within other related FEMA including closely related authorities like Shropshire Council. These other LPA are providing assistance which includes Shropshire Council who have agreed to contribute 30 hectares to the Black Country to be distributed through the ABCA. To reiterate, this proposed contribution is still subject to agreement through Shropshire Local Plan’s ongoing Examination in Public.
4. Unmet Development Needs
4.1. We have considered the implications of your land availability on your capacity to meet your development needs and the contributions from other LPAs in the GBBCHMA, the BCFEMA and from closely related authorities who have engaged in your DtC process.
4.2. We acknowledge your draft Spatial Strategy and its justification in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.32 and recognise your preferred strategy is Balanced Green Growth and that your draft Spatial Strategy sets out some key issues in paragraphs 2.17 to 2.32. We suggest that paragraph 2.18 should also address matters in relation to the Green Belt in your Borough in addition to your explanation in paragraph 2.21.
4.3. This Authority believes it is necessary to consider further whether or not exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to your Green Belt boundary. Clearly the new NPPF is likely to have an implication on how this matter is considered, but we feel it is important that for those authorities where unmet need is identified, that all options, including within the Green Belt, are at least considered, before discussions are undertaken through the Duty to Cooperate regarding potentially exporting need elsewhere. We therefore suggest, subject to the implications of the new NPPF, your unmet development needs and the limited land availability in your Borough and other Black Country LPAs, is likely to require further consideration of your Green Belt boundaries to satisfy national policy.
4.4. The potential changes to the NPPF are not likely to materially affect the requirement for a Local Plan to deliver an appropriate and sustainable strategy for growth and development in that particular LPA area. The most appropriate and sustainable strategy to deliver development to meet the needs of Sandwell will continue to be, using land available within your Borough or land in adjacent Black Country LPA before seeking co-operation from within the GBBCHMA, or related FEMA or other closely related authorities. It is considered that this process should properly include the consideration of exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land, for development in Sandwell or within the Black Country, in addition to seeking help from other LPA as a strategic cross boundary matter.
4.5. We consider your approach is already largely compliant with national policy but some further steps may help to justify the soundness of your draft Local Plan and show whether Balanced Green Growth is an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We acknowledge that you:
a. have evaluated the urban capacity of your Borough as part of more extensive assessments across the Black Country area. Your Authority can more clearly identify their unmet development needs to support ABCA to engage effectively in the DtC process.

b. are considering the sustainability of directing development into your urban area, into the wider Black Country area, into neighbouring urban authorities and have looked for further opportunities within and beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt to meet your unmet needs as required by NPPF, paragraph 142.
4.6. We ask you to consider whether your preferred strategy triggers exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land and whether you should make changes to your Green Belt boundary to comply with paragraphs 142 and 143 of the NPPF to:
a. promote sustainable patterns of development and use land which was previously developed and/or is well served by public transport (para. 142);
b. consider whether there is any Green Belt land within their administration where it is not necessary to keep the land permanently open (para. 143);
c. consider whether it is necessary to safeguard land between the urban area and the Green Belt to contribute towards longer term development needs (para. 143);
c. consider how releasing Green Belt land for development might reduce your unmet development needs and improve the effectiveness of your DC process.
4.7. These further considerations should help your Authority demonstrate whether or not exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified to release or safeguard Green Belt land for development and, whether or not it is necessary to change your Green Belt boundaries in relation to NPPF, paragraph 140.
4.8. We consider these further measures are necessary due to the ongoing uncertainty about delivery through the DtC process. There is a clear expectation that further contributions will be sought from LPA in the GBBCHMA and from closely related authorities to meet your unmet needs and to support the other Black Country LPA.
4.9. This advice seeks to help your Authority show how your draft Local Plan provides an appropriate strategy for your Borough. We believe this will help to evidence your compliance with the tests of soundness for plan making in national policy.
5. Next Steps
5.1. We trust these officer comments are of assistance. Shropshire Council welcomes further D2C discussions with Sandwell Council, including the matters raised within this response, following the conclusion of your current consultation.
Kind Regards
Edward West
Planning Policy and Strategy Manager
Shropshire Council

In 2021, 100% of the homes destined to be sold at the first 5-year milestone were sold to Rentplus tenants who moved in with no deposit back in 2016. This important milestone has proven the concept in the ‘real world’.

The first section of these representations introduces the Rentplus model and sets out recent developments which underline the importance of the affordable rent to buy model. The second section provides our specific comments on the emerging Local Plan.

Introducing Rentplus

The Rentplus model of affordable rent to buy aims to help those hard-working families and households unable to access ownership either through shared ownership, First Homes or homes on the open market, to overcome the ‘deposit barrier’. Raising a deposit for a mortgage can be the biggest barrier to homeownership, especially for those households who may be ‘stuck’ in the private rented sector paying full market rents. Even the Government schemes aimed at first time buyers, including First Homes, Shared ownership and (formerly) Help to Buy are not accessible to those without a
significant deposit or those who need to improve their credit rating to support their mortgage
application.

Rentplus homes are let to aspirant homeowners through a partner Registered Provider (“RP”) for a defined period of five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. At the end of this, the tenant is offered first refusal on the home and receives a 10% gifted deposit from Rentplus at the point of purchase. Rentplus applicants are mainly drawn from the Council’s housing register and the duration of their
tenancy is informed by an affordability assessment. Tenants can build their own savings and credit history during the period of affordable rent, to supplement the gifted deposit. Rentplus homes are typically secured through Section 106 agreements and are delivered without grant funding (such as that from Homes England).

Rentplus is an innovative tenure type and its delivery is supported by national planning policy. In 2018 the National Planning Policy Framework (the “NPPF”) was revised and now incorporates a wider definition of affordable housing across four different categories. Rent to buy housing is included within the definition of category d) ‘Other affordable routes to home ownership’. However, the revised NPPF also expanded the scope of category a) ‘Affordable housing for rent’ to include any
scheme which meets criteria where the rent is at least 20% below local market rents, where the landlord is a registered provider, and where any public subsidy is recycled for future provision. Rentplus meets each of
these criteria and has received Counsel’s opinion which confirms this approach.

In this context, the Rentplus model of affordable rent to buy is a ‘hybrid’ and falls within both categories of affordable housing, as either part of the ‘affordable housing to rent’ element, or as an ‘affordable route to home ownership’. Around 60 councils are working with Rentplus and have accepted the model to deliver affordable rent to buy homes for local people.

The Rentplus model offers the opportunity for the Council and RPs to diversify the local housing offer without recourse to public subsidy, supporting the timely delivery of affordable homes and de-risking developments. The affordable rented period provides families and households with security of tenure, with certainty of management and maintenance by a local partner RP, and critically the opportunity to save towards purchase and improve their credit rating while doing so. As affordable rent to buy meets needs for affordable rent (the only difference being marked by the expectation by all parties of purchase), it comes with a significant benefit of freeing up existing affordable rented homes for others in priority need, as demonstrated by Rentplus schemes across England.

In diversifying the overall housing tenure mix, Rentplus supports the creation of sustainable, mixed and balanced communities. Rentplus tenants are on a clear path to homeownership, meaning they are more likely to remain in their property for the long-term and therefore better settle into their community. This helps to create a stronger sense of place in new developments in the long
run.

Comments on the emerging Local Plan

As an opening comment, Rentplus is pleased to see that Sandwell MBC is taking the positive step of updating its development plan, and congratulates the Council on the quality of the consultation material.

In this context, Rentplus notes and welcomes the Council’s corporate vision for the Borough:

“It's where we call home and where we're proud to belong - where we choose to bring up our families, where we feel safe and cared for, enjoying good health, rewarding work, feeling connected and valued in our neighbourhoods and communities, confident in the future, and benefiting fully from a revitalised West Midlands.”

This sits alongside the accompanying Ambition 7 for the SLP, which relates to housing and to meeting the full range of housing needs that arise in the borough:

“We now have many new homes to meet a full range of housing needs in attractive neighbourhoods and close to key transport routes.”

Alongside Ambition 10 for the SLP, which makes clear that the Council is keen to see positive action:

“Sandwell now has a national reputation for getting things done, where all local partners are focused on what really matters in people's lives and communities.”

And finally the proposed Vision 2041 which comments on the wider range of housing that is sought for the Borough:

“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.”

Rentplus recognises the Council’s desire to deliver affordable and sustainable communities and believe tenure diversity has a key part to play in delivering this. Planning policies which enable innovative tenure types; which help to meet different elements of housing need; and which support the timeous delivery of much needed new homes; are an important part of meeting Sandwell’s stated vision and ambitions.


2 Policy SHO4 ‘Affordable Housing’

In general terms, Rentplus supports the wording of policy SHO4 as drafted. It is not unduly
prescriptive in terms of the tenure mix that is sought (save for point 3 in respect of First Homes,
albeit that is a reflection of current national policy). Points 1 and 4 of the policy provide the
flexibility to achieve a range of tenures that reflect local circumstances and can meet housing
needs. That being said, we recommend that changes are made to the policy wording, its supporting
text and its evidence base.

Policy wording: Affordable housing in perpetuity

Point 6 of policy SHO4 as drafted, requires affordable housing to remain so ‘in perpetuity’.
Fundamentally, this would prevent almost all affordable home ownership products from coming
forwards – it is of course the expectation that these homes will be purchased in full by households
who are otherwise unable to afford to purchase on the open market. A policy that would prevent
these homes from coming forward would inevitably conflict with the stated vision and objectives of
the SLP which are to meet a wide range of housing needs in Sandwell.

Moreover, there is no requirement in national planning policy to provide affordable housing ‘in
perpetuity’, save for at Rural Exceptions Sites. Instead, the Annex 2 definitions of affordable
housing tenures set out the expectation that receipts from any sales will be recycled for further
affordable housing provision.

As drafted, policy SHO4 is unsound because it will be ineffective and inconsistent with national
planning policy. In order to remedy this, point 6 of the policy should be deleted.

Evidence base

The Black Country Housing Market Assessment 2021 (the “Black Country HMA”) provides an assessment
of affordable housing needs in Sandwell borough. Importantly, its table 3.7 at page 51 assesses the
affordability of Rent to Buy homes alongside the time taken to save for a 10% deposit. This is a
welcome level of detail that is sometimes absent from similar documents commissioned by other
authorities, and is a vital illustration of the contribution that Rent to Buy homes can make
towards meeting the widest possible range of housing needs.

In Sandwell, table 3.7 presents a powerful illustration of how Rent to Buy can help households
raise a 10% deposit; transforming lengthy and likely unrealistic timeframes, into an achievable
goal:
• For a 1-bed home, it will take 2.7 years to raise a deposit at an intermediate rent, compared
with 8.4 years in the private rented sector (a reduction of 5.7 years);
• For a 2-bed home, it will take 2.9 years to raise a deposit at an intermediate rent, compared
with 11.8 years in the private rented sector (a reduction of 8.9 years);
• For a 3-bed home, it will take 4 years to raise a deposit at an intermediate rent, compared
with
18.9 years in the private rented sector (a reduction of 14.9 years);

These timescales compare well against First Homes; Table 3.10 shows that in Sandwell it will take
8.2 years to raise a deposit for a 1-bed First Home; 11.2 years for a 2-bed First Home, and 16.6
years for a 3-bed First Home. Evidently, Rent to Buy homes can help to meet the needs of a wide
range of households and this underlines the importance of a diverse tenure mix.

It should also be noted that the Black Country HMA assessment of the affordability of Rent to Buy
is based on a ‘generic’ product that includes no gifted deposit. One of the key benefits of
Rentplus is that it includes a 10% gifted deposit at the point of purchase, which means that an
even wider range of households can access home ownership, supplemented by their own savings.

Given that the Black Country HMA has considered the affordability of rent to buy homes, it is
surprising that it does not seek to identify a need for such accommodation. Its table 5.4 at page
75 focuses on only the ‘traditional’ tenure types including shared ownership and social/affordable
rent, whilst its table
5.9 identifies potential demand for First Homes. We recommend that the Black Country HMA is revised
to take account of rent to buy in its overall assessment of the need for affordable housing types
and tenures.

3

4 Supporting text
Paragraph 7.27 is right to identify the requirement at paragraph 65 of the NPPF to deliver 10% of
the total number of homes on major developments to be affordable home ownership tenures. However,
the final sentence of this paragraph refers only to First Homes and Shared Ownership tenures,
whereas in practice any affordable home ownership tenure, including rent to buy products, can meet
this need. To clarify this element of the supporting text, the final sentence of paragraph 7.27
should refer to the broaer range of Annex 2 definitions instead.

Policy SHO6 - Financial Viability Assessments for Housing

Policy SHO4 works in concert with policy SHO6 where viability is at issue and may prevent the full
25% affordable housing expectation from being achieved. Policy SHO6 helpfully refers to an
‘optimum’ tenure mix and Rentplus supports this where it will enable a wide range of tenure types
to be delivered.

In such cases, we recommend that the supporting text (either to policy SHO4 or SHO6) indicates that
the Council will seek flexibility in tenure in the first instance, as preferable to reducing the
proportion of affordable housing that will be achieved. This will ensure that the policy is
effective and in doing so, support the soundness of the SLP.

Summary and conclusions

Rentplus can assist in meeting local need, allocating all of its residents through the Housing
Allocation Scheme; by enabling real savings to be built while renting at an affordable rent the
Council can help meet the needs of low- and middle-income households, providing greater choice and
flexibility in the planning system. We recommend that minor amendments are made to the proposed
affordable housing policy and supporting text, in order to ensure soundness and to deliver on the
vision and ambitions that the Council itself has established for the SLP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is recognised that the Sandwell local plan is a draft plan at regulation 18 stage. Its purpose is to set out the policies and site allocations that are proposed for inclusion in the final plan. The policies include a strategic objective to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes (587 per annum) and at least 42 hectares of new employment land over the period 2022-2041. It also allocates 1,177 hectares of existing occupied employment land to be retained in this use.

These figures are well below the identified need based on the government standard method for 29,773 homes (1,567 per annum), and 185 hectares of employment land, by 2041. The plan acknowledges that Sandwell will be unable to meet these needs either within the borough or across the whole of the plan period without resorting to significant and harmful levels of overdevelopment. The identified shortfall in housing provision is 18,606 homes, while the shortfall in employment land is 143 hectares. It will be necessary to ‘export’ this unmet need to neighbouring authority areas.

Sandwell is heavily constrained, being surrounded by other urban authorities. It has very little Green Belt (most of this comprises Sandwell Valley) and very few vacant or unused open spaces. Walsall’s planning committee on 9 March 2023 and cabinet on 22 March 2023 recognised this factor in response to consultation on the earlier issues and options report for Sandwell’s local plan. Walsall’s response was that the plan should aim to ensure that Sandwell is able to accommodate as much housing and employment as possible to meet its own needs by making effective use of land and maximising densities.

The housing and employment numbers proposed in the Sandwell local plan are higher than in the Draft Black Country Plan (BCP) after allowing for the slightly different time periods to be covered by the two plans. The BCP proposed 9,158 homes (482 per annum) and 29 hectares of new employment land. This increase in provision means that the number of homes and amount of employment land that will need to be exported to neighbouring authorities (including Walsall) will be reduced. As such, the draft plan can be supported.
The Sandwell local plan contains a large number of policies about other topics. Most of these are site-specific or are about development management and are similar to those proposed in the BCP. As such, they raise no direct concerns for Walsall. We look forward to continuing to work with you as you progress your plan, both as an individual planning authority and on a sub-regional and regional basis.