Discussion – Responses of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Midlands (PCCWM)

Sandwell Spatial Portrait – paragraphs 27-77 and Challenges and Issues – paragraph 78

This section of the draft Local Plan sets out the background to the Borough and includes key statistics. There is no reference at all in paragraphs 27 to 77 of the crime statistics for the Borough, whereas statistics/ profiles are given for health, economy and skills, employment, transport, broadband and 5G etc. This is considered a significant omission, given crime and disorder are key indicators of relevance in painting a spatial portrait of the Borough. Indeed, it is noted in the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal under Table 2.1: Summary of SA Objectives confirms under point 11 that the reduction of poverty, crime and social deprivation and secure economic inclusion are a Sustainability Appraisal objective, however, no crime statistics are provided against which to measure the success of the objectives. Furthermore, Table 9.1 of the Sustainability Appraisal includes in its recommendations at (11) Equality, ensuring that development proposals take into account crime and safety, and promote safe and accessible neighbourhoods, helping to reduce crime and fear of crime. These recommendations need better translating into the policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan.

An understanding of the crime profile of the Borough, in accordance with the requirement under paragraph 130(f) of the NPPF 2023, ensures that planning policies and decisions, amongst other requirements, “…create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.”

In this respect, it is considered that the crime profile should be included, and to that end, the existing crime statistics from West Midlands Police (2022), i.e. the last full calendar year, are set out below. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) population projections indicate that the expected number of households across the West Midlands for 2022 was 1,163,039. For the Sandwell area alone, the projected number of households is 129,512.

In 2022, the total number of recorded Police incidents (i.e. those occasions when West Midlands Police were called upon to deploy 1 or more Officer(s) to an incident) was 635,972 for the entire force area. The actual number of crimes recorded, resulting from these incidents, was 364,950 crimes (which equates to 0.55 incidents/0.31 crimes per household, across the entire WMP force area).

The table below sets out these figures, along with those incident and crime figures relating to Sandwell by way of comparison, as highlighted, which coincidently are very similar to the incidents/crimes per household for the whole force area.

Table 1: Crime Statistics from 2022 (See attachment)

On the basis of the above crime statistics, the following proportional factor can be applied to reliably predict the potential additional incidents/crimes which would be likely to occur within a calendar year upon completion as a result of the planned new population growth in the borough of Sandwell.

The proposed numbers of new homes of 11,167 (supply) and 29,500 (need) would represent 8.5% and 22.8% increases in the number of households within Sandwell, respectively. If the same percentage increases are applied to the actual incident and crime statistics for the area, the predicted proportional additional and total incidents/crimes likely to occur within a calendar year are as set out in the following table.

Table 2: Predicted Crime Statistics (See attachment)

As set out in the Arup ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment
Reference: v2.0 dated 2nd November 2023:

• Sandwell has seen a 25% increase in recorded crime since 2020;
• The demands placed on the police service can increase as the local population increases;
• The demands on the police are exacerbated by the major changes in the nature of crime and methods needed to deal with it, particularly regarding cybercrime, child sex exploitation and terrorism;
• Based on analysis of WMP’s crime statistics (2022), it is predicted that the rising population
would require the recruitment of c120 extra staff members;
• As Sandwell’s population increases, there is a greater need to ensure new development is supported by adequate policing infrastructure in the interest of creating sustainable communities;
• This highlights the importance of new developments employing Secured by Design principles to reduce the amount of additional crime generated as the population grows in certain areas.
The PCCWM clearly has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for its area and, of course, the Council is also statutorily required to consider crime and disorder and community safety in the exercise of its duties with the aim of achieving a reduction in crime (ref. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998).

The PCCWM requests that in accordance with national planning policy, the theme of community safety and crime prevention is given greater prominence in the draft Sandwell Local Plan consultation, including in the Spatial Visions, Priorities and Objectives (Chapter 1), to promote improvements in community safety, reducing crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, which are vital objectives in the context of creating sustainable communities. There should also be reference in ‘Challenges and Issues’ (paragraph 78) to crime and disorder.

Policy SDS4 - Achieving well-designed places

The PCCWM supports the requirement at Policy SDS4 point 6 that ‘Development should contribute positively to creating high quality, active, safe and accessible places.’ And at point 7 that ‘To support the development of safe neighbourhoods, ensure quality of life and community cohesion are not undermined and minimise the fear of crime, the design of new development should create secure and accessible environments where opportunities for crime and disorder are reduced or designed out.’

In addition, the justification to the policy at paragraph 3.58 confirms the environmental, economic and social benefits, including community safety, of designing high-quality places.
However, the PCCWM objects to the omission of any reference to ‘Secured by Design’ principles and the ‘Park Mark’ parking standards, which would ensure a consistency in designing out crime. Secured by Design is proven to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour by 87% - see Police Scotland research: Secured by Design - The success of Secured by Design – Police Scotland’s Stuart



Ward showcases extraordinary 87% reduction in crime in Secured by Design properties

Park Mark facilities have seen vehicle-related crime drop by 80%: ParkMark - About The Scheme

It is recommended that the following modification to the policy (shown in bold) be included after Point 7 of Policy SDS4:

‘All new development should include consideration of crime prevention measures, Secured by Design, Park Mark principles, and the need for a maintenance plan to reduce crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour.’

Policy SDS5 - Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy

The PCCWM highlights the need to consider the threat of terrorism and measures to minimise crime and anti-social behaviour which can be associated with large gatherings, such as in town centres, under the remit of Policy SDS5. All locations which will generate crowds in public places should consider the need for appropriate security measures in the design of buildings and spaces. Good counter-terrorism protective security can also support wider prevention.

Policy SDS5 is considered to be one measure to achieve Strategic Objective 7 (ensuring communities in Sandwell are safe and resilient and social cohesion is promoted and enhanced) and Objective 11 (to ensure new development supports health and wellbeing).

The PCCWM supports the inclusion of the following wording in Policy SDS5 (point 5), which take on board the previous representations made on behalf of the WMP in respect of Policy CSP5:

‘An assessment should be undertaken (as part of the design of new developments likely to attract large numbers of people) to demonstrate and document how potential security and crime-related vulnerabilities have been identified, assessed and where necessary, addressed in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate.’

However, the justification to the policy does not reference the background to this wording and why it has been included. It is requested that the justification takes account of, and references, the following policy background:

• Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 53-011-20190722 revised 22nd July 2019) recognises that for all locations which will generate crowds in public places, consideration should be given to appropriate security measures in the design of buildings and spaces. Good counter-terrorism protective security can also support wider prevention. The PPG identifies a number of sources of guidance in this respect including ‘Protecting Crowded Places: Design and Technical Issues’, which refers to ‘Secured by Design and ‘Safer Parking’ standards, ‘National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO)’ crowded places and ‘Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI)’ built environment guidance.



The PPG goes onto advise that as well as the above referenced guidance, local police Counter Terrorism Security Advisors (CTSAs) and Designing Out Crime Officers (DOCOs) have training and experience of advising on security, are independent in their advice and have further access to more specialist resources where required, including the NaCTSO and the CPNI), and states that local planning authorities should consider referring appropriate planning applications for public access buildings and spaces to the police who will determine the appropriate specialist input (Paragraph: 012 Reference ID:53-012-20190722 revised 22nd July 2019)

• The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear in its requirement that local planning authorities should anticipate and address possible malicious threats, especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate. It states at paragraph 97 that, ‘Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by: a) anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and natural hazards, especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate. Policies for relevant areas (such as town centre and regeneration frameworks), and the layout and design of developments, should be informed by the most up-to-date information available from the police and other agencies about the nature of potential threats and their implications. This includes appropriate and proportionate steps that can be taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience and ensure public safety and security.’

The footnote to the above paragraph confirms this includes transport hubs, night-time economy venues, cinemas and theatres, sports stadia and arenas, shopping centres, health and education establishments, places of worship, hotels and restaurants, visitor attractions and commercial centres.

Accordingly, the justification to Policy SDS5 should be expanded to include the requirement for point 5.

Policy SHW1 – Health Impact Assessments

The PCCWM notes the Council’s acknowledgement (in the preamble to polices on health and wellbeing, e.g. paragraph 6.6) of ensuring a healthy and safe environment that contributes to people’s health and wellbeing being a key Council objective and its partners in the health, voluntary and other related sectors.

The proposed Health Impact Assessments (HIA) cover an assessment of how proposed development will be, inter alia, ‘…inclusive, safe, and attractive, with a strong sense of place, encourages social interaction and provides for all age groups and abilities’ (paragraph 6.14).

The PCCWM supports the policy and its objectives.



SHO1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

The need for contributions towards Police infrastructure to ensure sustainable growth

In order to sustain the level of growth proposed in the draft Sandwell Local Plan consultation and to meet the national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services to create environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or social cohesion. The PCCWM objects to Policy SHO1 as it should include reference for the need for contributions for social, environmental and physical infrastructure to support sustainable housing growth in accordance with the aspirations of the policy and the plan – however point 4 of the Policy states ‘The development of sites for housing should demonstrate a comprehensive approach, making best use of available land and infrastructure and not prejudicing neighbouring uses.’

As set out elsewhere in this representation, in the comments of the PCCWM on the Sandwell Spatial Portrait and Chapter 12 ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’, a growth in housing and population in the Borough will bring increased demand for police services and there is a need for developer contributions to fund that growth for the reasons set out.
Therefore, new development, including larger housing sites/ housing allocations, should be subject to CIL/ S.106 agreements as appropriate to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services, and the requirement for this infrastructure should be enshrined in the wording of Policy SHO1.

Of note, point 5 to Policy SHO1 refers to ‘ancillary uses appropriate for residential areas’ in sites with existing planning permission, sites allocated for housing by the Plan and windfall sites, in tacit acknowledgement that such uses as health facilities, community facilities and local shops are linked to housing development and that there may be a gap in provision. However, funding for such community services as policing is necessary and contributions should be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of, inter alia Police services to create environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or social cohesion.

Proposed housing allocations

The PCCWM requests that the following police sites are considered for residential allocation in the draft Sandwell Local Plan. All sites are owned by the PCCWM.

Table 3 – PCCWM - proposed housing allocations (See Attachment)

SHO2 – Windfall Developments

Under Policy SHO1, windfall housing is to deliver 1,868 dwellings during the plan period. In order to sustain the level of growth proposed in the draft Sandwell Local Plan consultation and to meet the national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services to create environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or social cohesion. The PCCWM objects to Policy SHO2, as it should include reference for the need for contributions for social, environmental and physical infrastructure to support windfall development. Windfall development, as well as development on larger sites/ allocations, should be subject to CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of Police services, and the requirement for this infrastructure should be enshrined in the wording of Policy SHO2.

The Council’s attention is also drawn to the comments of the PCCWM on the Sandwell Spatial
Portrait and Chapter 12 ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’.

Policy SHO8 – Houses in Multiple Occupation

The PCCWM supports the wording of the policy and justification to Policy SHO8, which reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation.

The PCCWM supports the specific reference within the policy itself, point 3(e) as follows -

‘3. Once the current level of HMO provision has been established in a relevant area, the following criteria will be applied to a new proposal:…

e) the development would not give rise to unacceptable adverse cumulative impacts on amenity, character, appearance, security, crime, anti-social behaviour or the fear of crime.’

The PCCWM also fully supports the footnote to this policy which recommends that pre-application and planning application advice is sought for HMO proposals from the West Midlands Police Design Out Crime Officers.

In addition, the PCCWM supports the reference in point 6 of the Policy that states that the policy criteria will also apply to the intensification or expansion of an existing HMO.

The justification to Policy SHO8, paragraph 7.54(g) is also supported by the PCCWM. It explains that harmful impacts associated with high numbers of HMOs can include: ‘…g) increased anti-social behaviour and fear of crime resulting from the lifestyles of some HMO occupants, the transient nature of the accommodation and inadequately designed / maintained properties;…’



However, in addition to the support for Policy SHO8, the PCCWM suggests there is a Borough wide Article 4 Direction introduced to seek to remove the permitted development right to convert a residential dwelling to a small HMO (providing living accommodation for 3 to 6 unrelated persons), such that planning permission would be required for any proposals, alongside the proposed policy against which all HMO applications, as well as planning applications for large HMO (for which there are no permitted development rights and thereby planning permission is required) will be assessed. This is an approach taken by a number of the West Midlands authorities, including Birmingham City Council and Coventry City Council.

An Article 4 Direction regarding permitted development for HMOs, alongside the proposed policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan will manage the distribution and delivery of HMOs, to reduce the potential harm that arises from the over-concentration and poor quality of HMOs, and the consequential impact this has on crime and disorder and to community safety, and the increased pressure this places on Police resources.


Policy SHO10 – Accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Show people

The PCCWM supports the wording of the policy and justification to Policy SHO10, which reflects the representations made to the Sandwell Issues and Options consultation.

The PCCWM supports the specific reference within the policy itself, point 6 as follows -

‘6. Proposals should be well designed and laid out in accordance with Secured by Design
principles as set out in Policy SDM1.’

The justification to Policy SHO10, paragraph 7.70, that pitches and plots are well designed in line with Secured by Design principles, and that advice is sought from West Midlands Police Design Out Crime Officers is also supported by the PCCWM.

Policy SCE1 - Sandwell Centres

Sandwell’s Local Plan Vision 2041 includes the following:

‘Sandwell’s town centres thrive by day and by night, with an expanded range of retail, leisure and socialising opportunities as well as acting as the foci for new residential developments, community activities and social enterprises. They are safe, welcoming and accessible locations during both day and night, designed to encourage positive public interactions and minimise antisocial behaviour.’

Strategic Objective 15 supports Sandwell’s towns and local centres as places for economic, residential and cultural activity with good access to services, in ways that protect their heritage, character and identity vision is echoed in other policies, for example, paragraph 3.20 confirms that Sandwell is committed to the regeneration of its towns and employment areas and has adopted its



Sandwell Regeneration Strategy 2022-27 that sets out exactly how this will be achieved. The strategy contains a vision for this process, which includes reference to creating ‘exciting, busy, and green centres where people meet throughout the day, with a thriving cultural and night-time economy’. The strategic approach for the Borough’s economic and regenerative growth is set in Policy SDS2 (para 3.21) and Policy SCE1 ‘Sandwell’s Centres’ (paragraph 9.9) that confirms that the Council will support the evening economy, as well as reference to creating evening/ night-time offers in individual polices relating to all the Town Centres, e.g. Policy SWB1 ‘West Bromwich Town Centre’ etc.

However, the PCCWM considers it prudent to include more detail in Policy SCE1 to cover specific issues in relation to the evening economy, to ensure development proposals, particularly in dense areas such as town centres, promote safe and accessible neighbourhoods, helping to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

The PCCWM considers it vital that a proposed expansion of the evening economy should include reference to town centres being safe and secure environments to enable the attainment of that vision. Such a policy should also consider supporting the use of the ‘Secured by Design’ scheme in relation to crime prevention. The aim/ vision should be to reduce crime, the fear of crime, anti- social behaviour and potential disturbance to existing businesses and people. If crime, or the fear of crime is not addressed, people will not feel safe, are unlikely to use the entertainment/night-time facilities, with potential of an economic spiral of decline. Bars, restaurants and shops will close and be boarded up, resulting in less people being attracted to the area, leading to the closure of more premises and companies going out of business. Such a policy would deliver economic, social and environmental sustainability, meeting the objectives of Policy SDS2 ‘Regeneration Areas’ and others. Without a specific policy, the objectives and the vision set out in the draft Local Plan is not met.

The PCCWM notes that Policy SCE1 seeks to meet the Strategic Objectives 2 (sustainable development) and 15 (supporting the town centres). Within the policy itself it is noted that it is proposed to diversify and repurpose centres, enhanced by appropriate complementary uses, particularly including, inter alia, community uses and supporting the evening economy.

Therefore, the PCCWM objects to the lack of appropriate wording within Policy SCE1 to address the expansion of the leisure evening economy which will impact on policing. It would be unsound for the impact of this significant area of growth and development to be ignored as it could potentially undermine the Plan’s Strategic Objectives and the sustainable development objectives of the NPPF. Similarly, there is no reference to safety, crime or disorder in the justification to the policy.

Safety issues of particular relevance to the evening economy include for example:

- Access to and from the facilities e.g. nearby public transport network, access to taxis and private hire vehicles;
- Safe and reasonably priced parking facilities - well lit, accessible car parks where people feel



safe, with CCTV and good access control, meeting the standards set out in the Police Crime Prevention Initiatives Safer Parking Scheme - ParkMark - About The Scheme
- Well-run premises, with qualified/licenced door staff, who are able to deal with the conflict and problems associated with such premises, as well as presenting a welcoming ‘customer service’ approach to people visiting the city and the premises concerned;
- CCTV facilities within bars, clubs and restaurants;
- Hot food takeaways/ late-night refreshment houses are often the flashpoint for violence after the pubs and clubs close;
- Late night opening off-licenses and small retail stores (that sell alcohol) tend to be ‘honey pots’, i.e. areas where people linger for longer than they would normally do so and attract increased levels of anti-social behaviour;
- Position of ATM (‘hole in the wall’ and ‘stand-alone’). These are often situated in night-time economy areas. These become ‘crime-generators’ (intoxicated people using cash machines are vulnerable to becoming victims of crime).
- ATMs and ATM replenishments. ATMs are a common focus of ‘cash in transit’ robberies - where cash vans are attacked, either entering or leaving a bank with cash bags, or replenishing ATMs. Across the UK (and Midlands) there have been a number of physical attacks on ATMs, including the use of gas – see best-practice-for-physical-atm-security.pdf (link.co.uk); and
- Sheesha (Shisha/Hookah) Lounges and the potential impact on surrounding
communities. These are increasing in number, but they do not fall under alcohol licensing or other forms of regulation. Many of these lounges have outside areas where people can smoke together. These are often unsafe, crowded shelters or internal areas which may not comply with smoking regulations. The police have to use powers afforded to other agencies (e.g., Fire and Environmental Services) to restrict inappropriate developments, which could be dangerous to the service-users or cause conflict within the local community. Policy opportunities to manage premises would be welcomed.

The PCCWM therefore requests that Policy SCE1 be modified by the introduction of the following text at 6(d) shown in bold:

‘6. A land use approach will be adopted to encourage regeneration and to meet the challenges facing Sandwell's centres, particularly as little retail capacity has been identified to support additional floorspace, through supporting:

…d. a variety of facilities, appealing to a wide range of age and social groups, provided in such a way to ensure a safe, accessible and inclusive environment and any anti-social behaviour is discouraged, for example through management, improved lighting and CCTV coverage where appropriate.’

Policy SCE2 - Non-E Class Uses in Town Centres

The PCCWM objects to the lack of appropriate wording within Policy SCE2 to address the expansion



of the non-E class uses in town centres which will primarily relate to the leisure evening economy - as drafted the policy will impact on policing. It would be unsound for the impact of this significant area to be ignored as whilst the policy makes reference to such uses as public houses and live music venues, it does not provide details of how such applications will be assessed in the context of crime and disorder and therefore the policy could potentially undermine the Plan’s vision and objectives and the sustainable development objectives of the NPPF.

The PCCWM considers that the general objectives of evening specific issues for any decision-maker include ensuring a thriving, vibrant economy where people can feel safe, with reduced crime and a reduction in the fear of crime.

The PCCWM objects to the lack of any reference in Policy SCE2 to crime, fear of crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour as considerations for planning applications for non-E class uses in town centres. The PCCWM requests that the policy be modified by the introduction of the following text shown in bold:

‘5. In all areas of Town Centres, it is important that a variety of facilities, appealing to a wide range of age and social groups, are offered and that these are provided in such a way to ensure a safe, accessible and inclusive environment and any anti-social behaviour is discouraged, for example through management, improved lighting and CCTV coverage where appropriate.’

Policies SCE3, SCE4 and SCE5

In these policies which relate to Town, District and Local Centres, as well as Small-Scale Local Facilities not in Centres, there is no reference in the policies to crime, fear of crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour as considerations for planning applications as would be expected in light of the Council’s statutory duty and its objectives and vision in the draft Sandwell Local Plan, and therefore the PCCWM objects and requests that these policies all contain the following wording:

‘In locations where there are considered to be issues concerning community safety, crime, and disorder, advice will be sought from the police and other safety organisations before planning permission is granted for proposals.’

The justification to the policies should similarly reference this requirement.

Policy SWB2 - Development in West Bromwich

The PCCWM objects to this Policy as it does not cross reference other relevant policies of note, including those relating to town centres, therefore the Policy should cross reference policies such as Policy SCE1 ‘Sandwell Centres’ etc. For example, point 4 should reference an amended Policy SDS5.



Policy SDM9 - Community Facilities

The PCCWM’s response to Policy SDS5 is also applicable to Policy SDM9, in terms of the importance of proposals relating to new community facilities needing to consider the threat of terrorism and measures to minimise crime and anti-social behaviour which can be associated with large gatherings. Policy SDM9 gives examples of the community facilities it applies to, which include but are not limited to, banqueting suites and entertainment venues, places of worship and / or religious instruction and community centres. However, such community uses have the potential to attract large numbers of people. Whilst the policy acknowledges that most community facilities would be best located in town centre, it is recognised that such uses also take place outside of town centres, therefore the policy references to uses attracting the congregation of large numbers of people should also be included in policies relating to sites outside of town centres.

Whilst Policy SDM9 makes reference to the need to consider noise and car parking in relation to such proposals, the policy makes no reference to the need for applicants to undertake an assessment as part of the design of new developments likely to attract large numbers of people, or to demonstrate and document how potential security and crime-related vulnerabilities have been identified, assessed and where necessary, addressed in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate.

The requirement for this is set out in the PCCWM response under Policy SDS5 above and the PCCWM objects to the omission of this policy wording under Policy SDM9, and requests a new bullet point that states that:

‘6. An assessment should be undertaken (as part of the design of new community developments likely to attract large numbers of people) to demonstrate and document how potential security and crime-related vulnerabilities have been identified, assessed and where necessary, addressed in a manner that is appropriate and proportionate.’

In addition, it is noted that the listed community facilities do not include emergency services such as police or fire, all of which are community facilities necessary for achieving sustainable development.

Policy ENV7 – Canals

The PCCWM objects to the omission of reference to the need to consider crime, anti-social behaviour, and the fear of crime when considering development proposals on the canal network. The policy justification acknowledges that ‘The network has significant value for nature conservation, tourism, health and wellbeing and recreation, and the potential to make an important contribution to economic regeneration through the provision of high-quality environments for new developments and a network of pedestrian, cycle and water transport routes.’ The success of the policy will to some extent be dependent upon people being and feeling



safe. It is therefore proposed that the following additional wording (shown in bold) be added as a modification to the policy:

‘3) Where opportunities exist, all development proposals within the canal network must:…

d. relate positively to the adjacent waterway by promoting high quality design, incorporating crime prevention measures by reference to Secured by Design principles to reduce crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, including active frontages onto the canal and improving the public realm;

g. include a management plan where appropriate to, for example, ensure any planting does not
provide concealment or facilitate illegal access to property or premises.’

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

In accordance with national policy, it should be recognised that good design can have a role in reducing opportunities for crime and policies or design codes/ SPD should include reference to the mechanisms for achieving safe environments.

The PCCWM supports the proposed policy requirement (2d) that Design and Access Statements must demonstrate that a number of aspects of design have been addressed, including, ‘…d) crime prevention measures, Secured by Design and Park Mark principles and the requirements of Part Q of the Building Regulations 2010 or any successor legislation;’ However, the PCCWM considers the policy does not go far enough as it does not have a requirement for Secured by Design principles and Park Mark to be incorporated into development proposals. Furthermore, only some mainly larger planning applications require Design and Access Statements so as an overarching design policy for the plan, it should apply to all development proposals.

The PCCWM also supports the inclusion in point 4 of the policy that states that development must not cause an adverse impact on the living environment of occupiers of existing residential properties, or unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers of new residential properties, including in terms of ‘h) crime and safety’.

The PCCWM also supports the wording of justification paragraph 15.17 which explains that ‘A key objective for new developments should be that they create safe and accessible environments where crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour do not undermine the quality of life, health or community cohesion. Good design, layout and spatial relationships (including the use of sensitively designed and located landscaping that reduces opportunities for anti-social behaviours) can make a positive contribution towards improving community safety in an area. It is the intention of Sandwell Council to work with the police towards the reduction of crime and the fear of crime, and anti-social behaviour across Sandwell. This will be a material consideration in all planning proposals.’ However, as this policy is the overarching design policy in the draft Local Plan, the PCCWM requests that reference is also made within this paragraph 15.17, to the need for



developers, as well as the local authorities, to engage with the West Midlands Police Design Out Crime Officers (DOCO) at the pre-application as well as the planning application stage.

Policy SDM6 – Hot Food Takeaways

The PCCWM supports a prescriptive policy on Hot Food Takeaways as set out, noting that the justification to the policy acknowledges that such uses (compared to other retail uses) are more likely to have, inter alia, a detrimental impact on amenity and such harmful impacts tend to increase anti-social behaviour.

However, it is considered that Policies SDM6 and SDM7 should be amalgamated into one policy as the inference is that if a proposal complies with the prescriptive and numerical thresholds under Policy SDM6 it will be acceptable, even though it at may not meet the criteria set out in Policy SDM7 – Management of Hot Food Takeaways – and vice versa. The PCCWM considers the criteria in Policy SDM7 to be equally important in the consideration of a planning application for a hot food takeaway, particularly as hot food takeaways are often a flashpoint for violence after pubs and clubs close.

Policy SDM7 – Management of Hot Food Takeaways

The PCCWM notes that the Council confirm at paragraph 15.62 that in addition to Policy SDM6,
‘…Policy SDM7 offers guidance on the requirements for the provision of hot food takeaways. Applicants wishing to provide or alter a hot food takeaway outlet should ensure they address the issues raised in the policy, which is designed to manage adverse impacts on adjacent residents and properties.’

However, it is noted that Policy SDM7 itself does not include any policy requirements to reflect the references in paragraphs 15.66 and 15.67 to such uses attracting gatherings of people and becoming a focus for anti-social behaviour and nuisance, especially at night. Paragraph 15.67 notes that where there are concerns in this respect, the applicant may be asked to contribute towards or install safety and security measures, such as CCTV systems.

In order for this consideration to carry appropriate weight, to reflect the reference to possible nuisance and anti-social behaviour created by hot food takeaways, the PCCWM objects to Policy SDM7 and requests that it should be amended to include a new point 8 (current point 8 should be renumbered 9) as follows –

‘Management of Associated Impacts…
8. In locations where there are considered to be issues concerning community safety, crime, and disorder, advice will be sought from the police and other safety organisations before permission is granted for proposals for new hot food takeaways.’



In accordance with the PCCWM comments made under Policy SDM6, it is considered that Policies SDM6 and SDM7 should be amalgamated into one policy as the inference is that if a proposal complies with the prescriptive and numerical thresholds under Policy SDM6 it will be acceptable, even though it at may not meet the criteria set out in Policy SDM7 – Management of Hot Food Takeaways – and vice versa.

Chapter 12 - Infrastructure and Delivery and Policies SID1 – SID3

Background to S106/CIL contributions towards Police infrastructure

The scale of the development during the plan period will inevitably have implications for the maintenance of safety and security in the Borough and there will clearly be a need for additional and/or enhanced Police infrastructure.

Policy SDS1 ‘Development Strategy’ which provides the overarching spatial strategy for Sandwell, sets out the scale and distribution of new development for the Plan period to 2041. The policy is clear that at point (1) ‘To support the attainment of the Sandwell SLP Vision, drive sustainable and strategic economic and housing growth and meet local aspirations, Sandwell, working with local communities, partners and key stakeholders, will make sure that decisions on planning proposals (c) ensure that sufficient physical, social, and environmental infrastructure is delivered to meet identified requirements’.

This is compatible with legislation and national planning policy, as follows:

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states, ‘Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area’. The PCCWM therefore has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for the area. Sandwell Council is also statutorily required to consider crime and disorder and community safety in the exercise of its duties with the aim of achieving a reduction in crime.

The NPPF, September 2023, Paragraph 2 states that the NPPF must be taken into account in preparing the development plan and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning policies and decisions must also reflect relevant international obligations and statutory requirements.

Paragraph 7 of the NPPF explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and Paragraph 8 confirms that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives: an economic, a social and an environmental objective. These objectives include supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe



built environment.

Paragraph 20 of the NPPF includes, inter alia, a requirement for policies to deliver sufficient provision for infrastructure, including those related to security, with paragraphs 16, 26 and 28 indicating that this could be delivered through joint working with all partners concerned with new development proposals.

Section 8 of the NPPF ‘Promoting health and safe communities’, Paragraph 92, identifies that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

Paragraph 130 (f) of the NPPF calls for the creation of safe places where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Annex 2 (NPPF) identifies the police as ‘Essential local workers’, defined as ‘Public sector employees who provide frontline services including health, education and community safety’.

It is also especially noteworthy that Part 10A Infrastructure Levy: England of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 confirms at Section 204N (3) relating to Infrastructure Levy regulations that ‘infrastructure’ includes ‘(h) facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services.

It should also be noted that it is the case that increases in local population and the number of households do not directly lead to an increase in funding for WMP from Central Government. It is therefore necessary to secure CIL and/or S.106 contributions for infrastructure due to the direct link between the increased demand for police services and changes in the physical environment due to new housing and economic growth, which have permanent impacts on future policing and demands upon WMP. Securing contributions towards policing enables the same level of service to be provided to residents of new developments, without compromising the existing level of service for existing communities and frontline services. Put simply, the consequence of no additional funding is that existing infrastructure will become severely stretched and thereby have a severe adverse impact on the quality of the service that WMP are able to deliver.

The High Court judgement of Mr Justice Foskett in The Queen and Blaby DC and Others [2014] EWHC 1719 (Admin) at Appendix 1 is a clear example of the case for S106/CIL contributions towards Police infrastructure. In that case, a development of 4,250 dwellings, community and retail development, schools and leisure facilities was proposed, the judgement reads:

‘It is obvious that a development of the nature described would place additional and increased burdens on local health, education and other services including the police force.’ (Para 11).



The judgement goes on to comment that:

‘Those who, in due course, purchase properties on this development, who bring up children there and who wish to go about their daily life in a safe environment, will want to know that the police service can operate efficiently and effectively in the area. That would plainly be the “consumer view” of the issue.’ (Para 61).

‘I am inclined to the view that if a survey of local opinion was taken, concerns would be expressed if it were thought that the developers were not going to provide the police with a sufficient contribution to its funding requirements to meet the demands of policing the new area.’ (Para 62).

To ensure that levels of service can be maintained for both existing and future residents in the wider Sandwell Borough area, developer contributions through the mechanism of CIL and/or
S.106 Obligations for Police infrastructure are considered essential.

It is the case that, Planning and S78 Appeal decisions (Appendix 2) have long recognised that the infrastructure requirements of the Police are perfectly eligible for consideration and can be allocated financial contributions through S106 Obligations which accompany qualifying planning permissions for major development (residential and commercial alike), with the Planning Inspector in PINS appeal reference APP/X2410/A12/2173673) stating that:

‘Adequate policing is so fundamental to the concept of sustainable communities that I can see no reason, in principle, why it should be excluded from purview of S106 financial contributions…’

Specific comments on Chapter 12 and policies SID1 – SID3

The PCCWM objects to the lack of reference in Chapter 12 and policies SID1 – SID3 to the requirement for Police infrastructure to serve the new development proposed in the draft Sandwell Local Plan. Chapter 12 of the Local Plan ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’ acknowledges at paragraph 12.1 that ‘Ensuring effective delivery of this amount of development [11,167 new houses and provide for 1,206ha of employment land] will require strong collaborative working with public, private and third sector partners, involving a robust process of infrastructure planning and delivery’, however the policies in that chapter solely reference digital infrastructure and the chapter covers no other forms of infrastructure, despite the ‘Introduction’ to the chapter at paragraph 12.1 stating ‘A key role of the SLP is to plan for the growth required for a sustainable and prosperous Sandwell.’

To achieve sustainable development, as required by the NPPF and PPG, the necessary supporting infrastructure must be identified through proactive engagement between the Council and the infrastructure providers, including the WMP. Infrastructure needs and costs arising as a result of the proposed growth in the draft Sandwell Local Plan should be included in



the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – and representations have already been made by the PCCWM in this regard - and Viability and Delivery Study and specific requirements should be clearly set out in the individual site allocation policies and/or accompanying masterplans, Area Action Plans (AAPs) or Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), to ensure that developers are aware of their obligations at the outset. In addition, as the primary document for planning decisions, the draft Sandwell Local Plan must also address the need for sustainable safe developments supported by essential infrastructure including Police infrastructure. There also needs to be wording in relevant policies to require this, to ensure that developers are aware of the importance attached to issues of crime and safety by Sandwell MBC, as well as the need to maintain an appropriate level of community infrastructure and Emergency Services infrastructure.

The definition and support for infrastructure should be explicitly set out in the draft Local Plan, to meet national and local policy objectives relating to safety and security, and it should be clearly set out that contributions will be required through CIL/ S.106 agreements to help fund the provision and maintenance of facilities and equipment for Police services, in order to sustain the level of growth proposed in the draft Local Plan.

There are numerous examples of adopted planning policies in Local Plans which have been found sound after examination, which specifically refer to police infrastructure provision and contributions.

At the time of the Police’s representations to the Draft Black Country Plan Consultation (Regulation 18), it was noted that there was inclusion in the Viability and Delivery Study of an indicative contribution of £43.00 per dwelling towards the funding gap in Police infrastructure from the need for additional services arising directly from the proposed scale of growth. This was welcomed and the need for financial contributions in the form of CIL/S106 needs to be taken forward into policy, as well as the contribution figure needing to be increased/ linked to inflation.

Harm will result if West Midlands Police do not have the necessary funding to maintain an appropriate level of service for existing and for future residents, work and visitors within Sandwell (and surrounding areas) and therefore it is imperative that the draft Sandwell Local Plan addresses the need for sustainable safe developments supported by essential infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the clear omissions in these policies, there appears to be only limited reference to the emerging Infrastructure Delivery Plan in the draft Local Plan, it is only referenced 4 times and only in the justifications to Policy SDS3 – Towns and Local Areas, Policy SHW2 – Healthcare Infrastructure and Policy STR4– The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics. Most surprisingly, there is no reference to it whatsoever in Chapter 12 ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’ which is a great concern. The IDP should be regarded as integral to the local plan process with a commitment given to ensuring that it is maintained as a ‘live document’ throughout the plan



period.

As with many publicly funded services, Police forces within England have seen significant reductions in resources since 2010 due to reduced budgets. During this period, WMP has seen real terms funding reductions of in excess around 22% before taking into account the police officer uplift programme. As a result, the PCCWM has adopted a continuing programme of budgetary reductions, which in turn has had implications for operational pressures, against a backdrop of continued development (and in particular housing) growth within the WMP Force area.

Changes in general population do not increase the overall funding made available to WMP through Central Government grant. Even if there were to be an increase in funding because of development growth, such funding would be fully utilised in contributing to additional salary, revenue and maintenance costs (i.e. not capital costs). That being the case, such funding would not be available to fund the infrastructure costs that are essential to support significant new development growth during the Plan Period.

Full details of Police funding requirements are set out in the previous PCCWM representations, as reported in the Sandwell Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1: Infrastructure Needs Assessment, November 2023.

In order to meet the national policy objectives of ensuring safety, reducing crime and the fear of crime, it is vital that the Police are not under-resourced or deprived of legitimate sources of funding. The aim is to deploy additional staffing and additional infrastructure to cover the demand from new development at the same level as the policing delivered to existing households. Hence, additional development would generate a requirement for additional staff and additional personal equipment (such as workstations, radios, protective clothing, uniforms and bespoke training), police vehicles of varying types and functions.

If additional policing infrastructure is not provided, future growth in Sandwell will seriously impact on the ability of the Police to provide a safe and appropriate level of service and to respond to the needs of the local community. That outcome would be contrary to national policy.

Without this, the PCCWM objects to Chapter 12 and polices SID1-3 of the draft Local Plan. As the statutory Development Plan, it is the purpose of the draft Sandwell Local Plan to confirm the types of infrastructure which will be required to provide sustainable development in the Borough during the plan period and a new policy should be drafted accordingly.



Policy SDM8 - Gambling Activities and Alternative Financial Services

The PCCWM supports Policy SDM8 and particularly Point 6 as follows –

‘6. In determining any planning application for all pay day loan shops, pawnbrokers, and gambling uses the Council will consider any issues concerning community safety, crime, and disorder and will, where necessary, seek advice from the police and other safety organisations.’

The PCCWM recommends that the justification to this policy be expanded to cover point 6.

Glossary – SBD and Park Mark definitions

The PCCWM requests that definitions be provided of the following which are referred to in the draft Sandwell Local Plan.

‘Secured by Design –

Secured by Design (SBD) is the official police security initiative that is owned by the UK Police Service with the specific aim to reduce crime and help people live more safely. The Police seeks to improve the physical security of buildings using products, such as doors, windows, locks and walling systems that meet SBD security requirements. In addition, the Police include proven crime prevention techniques and measures into the layout and landscaping of new developments, such as maximising natural surveillance and limiting excessive through movement.

Through SBD, the Police work closely with builders, developers, local authorities and registered housing associations to incorporate police crime prevention standards from initial concept and design through to construction and completion. West Midlands Police have specially trained Designing Out Crime Officers (DOCOs) who offer police designing out crime and Secured by Design advice free of charge.

Park Mark –

The Safer Parking Scheme is a national standard for UK car parks that have low crime and measures in place to ensure the safety of people and vehicles. Each car park undergoes a rigorous assessment by specially trained police assessors and a Park Mark is awarded to each car park that achieves the challenging standards.

A Park Mark is awarded to parking facilities that have met the requirements of a risk assessment conducted by the Police, meaning the operator has put in place measures that deter criminal activity and anti-social behaviour.’



Conclusions

The Police and Crime Commissioner for West Midlands has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force in its area and Sandwell MBC has a statutory duty to consider crime and disorder and community safety in the exercise of its planning functions.

The PCCWM encourages the Council in the draft Sandwell Local Plan to ensure that the theme of community safety and crime prevention is given greater prominence on the basis that improving community safety, reducing crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour are vitally important to the creation of sustainable communities.

In addition, as the scale of development during the plan period will inevitably have implications for the maintenance of safety and security in the Borough, there will clearly be a need for additional and/or enhanced Police infrastructure. To ensure that levels of service can be maintained for both existing and future residents in the wider Sandwell Borough area, developer contributions through the mechanism of CIL and/ or S.106 Obligations for Police infrastructure are considered essential.

Lastly, the PCCWM has put forward a number of sites for residential development towards meeting the unmet needs of the Borough in terms of housing land supply.

Policy SDS1/Para 3.13.

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

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

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

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

Policy SDS6

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

Policy SDS7

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

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

Policy SHO1

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

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

Policy SHO2

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

Policy SHO3

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

Policy SHO4

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

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

Policy SEC4

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

Policy SCE1

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

The lack of any policy in the plan on energy

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

Legal Compliance

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

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

Duty to Cooperate

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

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

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

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

Vision for Sandwell

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

Policy SDS1- Development Strategy

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31. Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience

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

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

Policy SCC2 – Energy Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

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

Policy SHW1– Health Impact Assessments


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

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

65. Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

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

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

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

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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


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

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

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

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

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

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91. The PPG states:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SHO6- Financial viability Assessments for Housing

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

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


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

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

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

Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

Nationally Described Space Standard

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

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

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

1 para 130f & Footnote 49
2 Para 31


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

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

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

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

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

108. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

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

110. The policy should be deleted.


Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Development Strategy

3.12-3.19 Duty to Co-operate

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

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

3.77-3.85 Green Belt

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

7. Sandwell’s Housing

7.12-7.13 Windfall Development

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

7.14-7.22 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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

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

8. Sandwell’s Economy

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Clause 3)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHE2

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

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

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

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


Para 4.123
Delete ‘ancient’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Para 13.012 This para would benefit from additional detail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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