Policy SH04 – Affordable Housing
Policy SHO4 requires all developments of ten homes or more to provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The policy then seeks a minimum of 25% affordable housing.

We note that the consultation has been published with a supporting Viability Report entitled ‘Local Plan Viability Assessment Report, November 2023, Aspinall Verdi (Viability Assessment) however this does not test specialist housing for older people as its own typology.

The Council will be aware of the increased emphasis on Local Plan viability testing in Paragraph 58 of the NPPF and that the PPG states that “The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20190509). The evidence underpinning the council’s policy requirements should therefore be robust and be used to form deliverable and realistic policies.

The viability of specialist older persons’ housing is more finely balanced than ‘general needs’ housing and we are strongly of the view that the older person’s housing typologies should be robustly assessed separately. The Viability Assessment should therefore be updated to include the older persons housing typology. This would accord with the typology approach detailed in Paragraph: 004 (Reference ID: 10-004-20190509) of the PPG which states that: “A typology approach is a process plan makers can follow to ensure that they are creating realistic, deliverable policies based on the type of sites that are likely to come forward for development over the plan period. If this is not done, the delivery of much needed specialist housing for older people may be significantly delayed with protracted discussion about other policy areas such as affordable housing policy requirements which are wholly inappropriate when considering the older persons housing need.

We would direct the Council towards the Retirement Housing Consortium paper entitled ‘A briefing note on viability prepared for Retirement Housing Group by Three Dragons, May 2013 (updated February 2013 (‘RHG Briefing Note’) available from https://retirementhousinggroup.com/rhg/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CIL-viabiilty-appraisal-issues-RHG-February-2016.pdf. The RHG Briefing Note establishes how sheltered housing and extra care development differs from mainstream housing and looks at the key variables and assumptions that can affect the viability of specialist housing for older people. These key variables include unit size, unit numbers and GIA, non-saleable communal space, empty property costs, external build cost, sales values, build costs, marketing costs and sales periods.

Recommendation: The Council must therefore ensure that an up to date viability assessment is undertaken to inform the future plan. The new viability assessment must include a number of typologies that includes older person’s housing and if older person’s housing is found to be not viable an exemption must be provided within the plan in order to prevent protracted conversations at the application stage over affordable housing provision and viability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas4, unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in
the plan area5; or

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

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


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

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

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

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


3.0 Plan: Spatial Strategy
Policy SDS1: Development Strategy

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

Policy SDS2: Regeneration in Sandwell

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

Policy SDS4: Achieving Well-Designed Places

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SNE1: Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees

4.3 Policy SNE1 (11) includes a blanket statement that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SNE6: Canals

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC2: Energy Infrastructure

5.6 Draft policy SCC2 sets out that:

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

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

6 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 153

Policy SSC3: Managing Heat Risk

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

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

Policy SCC4: Flood Risk

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

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

5.11 Paragraph 169 of the Framework states that:

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

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

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

Policy SCC6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5 Policy SHW4 states that:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SHO3: Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SHO4: Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – footnote 49


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

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

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

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

Policy SEC3: Local Employment Areas

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


9.0 Plan: Transport
Policy STR8: Parking Management

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR9: Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

11.0 Plan: Development Management
Policy SDM1: Design Quality

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas4, unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in
the plan area5; or

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

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


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

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

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

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


3.0 Plan: Spatial Strategy
Policy SDS1: Development Strategy

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

Policy SDS2: Regeneration in Sandwell

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

Policy SDS4: Achieving Well-Designed Places

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SNE1: Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees

4.3 Policy SNE1 (11) includes a blanket statement that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SNE6: Canals

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC2: Energy Infrastructure

5.6 Draft policy SCC2 sets out that:

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

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

6 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 153

Policy SSC3: Managing Heat Risk

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

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

Policy SCC4: Flood Risk

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

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

5.11 Paragraph 169 of the Framework states that:

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

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

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

Policy SCC6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5 Policy SHW4 states that:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SHO3: Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SHO4: Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – footnote 49


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

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

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

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

Policy SEC3: Local Employment Areas

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


9.0 Plan: Transport
Policy STR8: Parking Management

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR9: Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

11.0 Plan: Development Management
Policy SDM1: Design Quality

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SDS1/Para 3.13.

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

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

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

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

Policy SDS6

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

Policy SDS7

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

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

Policy SHO1

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

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

Policy SHO2

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

Policy SHO3

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

Policy SHO4

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

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

Policy SEC4

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

Policy SCE1

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

The lack of any policy in the plan on energy

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

Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives

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

Draft Housing Need and Duty to Co-operate

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

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

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

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

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

“Plans are ‘sound’ if they are:

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

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

Draft Policy SDS6 – Sandwell’s Green Belt

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

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

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

a) makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
b) optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework, including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.”

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

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


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


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

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

Draft Policy SHO4 - Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 7.28 of page 186 explains:

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


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

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

Draft Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

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

Among tests of viability and timing Planning Practise Guidance requires the application of Nationally Described Spaces Standards (NDSS) to based on an established need: “evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.”

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

Legal Compliance

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

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

Duty to Cooperate

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

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

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

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

Vision for Sandwell

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

Policy SDS1- Development Strategy

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31. Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience

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

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

Policy SCC2 – Energy Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

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

Policy SHW1– Health Impact Assessments


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

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

65. Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

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

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

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

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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


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

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

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

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

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

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91. The PPG states:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SHO6- Financial viability Assessments for Housing

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

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


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

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

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

Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

Nationally Described Space Standard

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

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

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

1 para 130f & Footnote 49
2 Para 31


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

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

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

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

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

108. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

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

110. The policy should be deleted.


Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Compliance

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

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

Duty to Cooperate

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

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

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

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

Vision for Sandwell

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

Policy SDS1- Development Strategy

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31. Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience

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

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

Policy SCC2 – Energy Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

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

Policy SHW1– Health Impact Assessments


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

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

65. Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

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

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

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

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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


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

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

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

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

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

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91. The PPG states:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SHO6- Financial viability Assessments for Housing

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

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


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

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

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

Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

Nationally Described Space Standard

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

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

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

1 para 130f & Footnote 49
2 Para 31


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

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

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

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

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

108. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

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

110. The policy should be deleted.


Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Compliance

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

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

Duty to Cooperate

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

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

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

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

Vision for Sandwell

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

Policy SDS1- Development Strategy

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SDS6- Green Belt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31. Policy SNE2- Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC1 – Increasing efficiency and resilience

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

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

Policy SCC2 – Energy Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC6 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

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

Policy SHW1– Health Impact Assessments


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

Policy SHO1- Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

65. Policy SHO2- Windfall Developments

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

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

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

Policy SHO3- Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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


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

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

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

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

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

Policy SHO4- Affordable Housing

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91. The PPG states:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SHO6- Financial viability Assessments for Housing

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

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


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

Policy SDM1 – Design Quality

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

Policy SDM2 – Development and Design Standards

Nationally Described Space Standard

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

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

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

1 para 130f & Footnote 49
2 Para 31


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

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

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

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

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

108. The policy should be deleted.

Water efficiency in new dwellings

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

110. The policy should be deleted.


Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A substantial shortfall and need to find a definitive solution.

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

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

Meeting the needs of all part of the population

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



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

Shortfall in housing land across the HMA

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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

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

Next Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic: Policy flexibility (enabling the NHS to be able to promptly evolve its estate)

Part 1 and 2 of Draft Policy SHW2 sets out:

1. New healthcare facilities should be:
a. well-designed and complement and enhance neighbourhood services and amenities;
b. well-served by public transport infrastructure, walking and cycling facilities and directed to a town centre appropriate in role and scale to the proposed development, and its intended catchment area, in accordance with Policies SCE3 and SCE4. Proposals located outside centres must be justified in terms of relevant policies such as Policy SCE6, where applicable;
c. wherever possible, located to address accessibility gaps in terms of the standards set out in Policy SHO3, particularly where a significant amount of new housing is proposed; and
d. where possible, co-located with a mix of compatible community services on a single site.

2. Existing primary and secondary healthcare infrastructure and services will be protected, unless it has been demonstrated that the loss or partial loss of a facility or site arises from a wider public service transformation plan that requires investment in modern, fit for purpose infrastructure and facilities. New or improved healthcare facilities and services will be provided in accordance with requirements agreed between Sandwell Council and local health organisations.

NHSPS supports the provision of sufficient, quality health facilities, and welcomes the acknowledgment in Part 2 that where the NHS can demonstrate a health facility will be changed as part of a wider public service transformation plan, this will be sufficient for the local planning authority to accept that a facility is not needed for its current use or an alternative community use, and therefore that the principle of alternative uses for NHS land and property will be fully supported.

We request Part 1 and 2 of this Draft Policy be carried forward as drafted to Regulation 19 stage. This will ensure that the NHS can promptly and efficiently respond to the healthcare requirements of residents through the evolution of its estate. In order to enable the NHS to be able to promptly adapt its estate to changing healthcare requirements, it is essential that all planning policies enable flexibility within the NHS estate. On this basis, NHSPS would advise the Council that policies aimed at preventing the loss or change of use of community facilities and assets, where healthcare is included within this definition, can potentially have a harmful impact on the NHS’s ability to ensure the delivery of facilities and services for the community. Where such policies are overly restrictive, the disposal of surplus and unsuitable healthcare facilities for best value can be prevented or delayed, which in turn delays vital re-investment in the NHS estate.

The NPPF is clear in stating that Local Plans should adopt policies that “take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community” (Paragraph 93b).

It is important that policies consider that some public service providers, such as the NHS, routinely undertake strategic reviews of their estates. Reviews of the NHS estate are aimed at improving the provision of healthcare services by increasing efficiencies, including through the disposal of unneeded and unsuitable properties. This means that capital receipts from disposals, as well as revenue spending that is saved, can be used to improve facilities and services.

Where it can be demonstrated that health facilities will be changed as part of a wider NHS estate reorganisation programme it should be accepted that a facility is neither needed nor viable for its current use. This will ensure that the NHS can promptly and efficiently respond to the healthcare requirements of residents through the evolution of its estate.

Topic: Health Considerations in Policy and Design
Draft Policy SHW1 requires a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on various types of development.

NHSPS supports this Policy and the requirement for HIA but would request the Policy be amended to include healthy design requirements for developments. Further details are set out below.

There is a well-established connection between planning and health, and the planning system has an important role in creating healthy communities. The planning system is critical not only to the provision of improved health services and infrastructure, enabling health providers to meet changing healthcare needs, but also to addressing the wider determinants of health.

The NPPF is clear in stating that “Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places” (Paragraph 92).

Identifying and addressing the health requirements of existing and new development is a critical way of ensuring the delivery of healthy, safe, and inclusive communities. On this basis, we would welcome further consideration of healthy design requirements within the Local Plan ahead of the Regulation 19 document being prepared.

Specific policy requirements to promote healthy developments should include:
□ Development proposals to consider local health outcomes
□ Design schemes to encourage active travel, including through providing safe and attractive walking and cycling routes, and ensuring developments are connected by these routes to local services, employment, leisure, and existing walking and cycling routes.
□ Provide access to healthy foods, including through access to shops and food growing opportunities (allotments and/or providing sufficient garden space)
□ Design schemes in a way that encourages social interaction, including through providing front gardens, and informal meeting spaces including street benches and neighbourhood squares and green spaces.
□ Design schemes to be resilient and adaptable to climate change, including through SUDs, rainwater collection, and efficient design.
□ Consider the impacts of pollution and microclimates, and design schemes to reduce any potential negative outcomes.
□ Ensure development embraces and respects the context and heritage of the surrounding area.
□ Provide the necessary mix of housing types and affordable housing, reflecting local needs.
□ Provide sufficient and high quality green and blue spaces within developments

Topic: Developer Contributions

Part 3 to 6 of Draft Policy SHW2 sets out:

3. Proposals for major residential developments of ten units or more must be assessed against the capacity of existing healthcare facilities and / or services as set out in local development documents. Where the demand generated by the residents of the new development would have unacceptable impacts upon the capacity of these facilities, developers will be required to contribute to the provision or improvement of such services, in line with the requirements and calculation methods set out in local development documents.

4. Where it is not possible to address such provision through planning conditions, a planning agreement or planning obligation may be required.

5. In the first instance, infrastructure contributions will be sought to deal with relevant issues on the site or in its immediate vicinity. Where this is not possible, however, any contribution will be used to support offsite provision of healthcare infrastructure and / or related services.

6. The effects of the obligations on the financial viability of development may be a relevant consideration.

NHSPS supports this Policy and the requirement for major residential proposals to be assessed against capacity of existing healthcare facilities and / or services, and for mitigation to be secured. With respect to the application of the calculation methods set out in local development documents, we request local NHS partners such as the Integrated Care Board (ICB) and NHS Trusts be consulted on major applications in order to confirm any proposed contributions appropriately mitigate impacts.

The NHS, Council and other partners must work together to forecast the infrastructure and costs required to support the projected growth and development across the borough. A vital part of this is ensuring the NHS continues to receive a commensurate share of S106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of growth and help deliver transformation plans.

Paragraph 34 of The NPPF is clear that ‘Plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out… infrastructure (such as that needed for… health)’

The significant cumulative impacts of residential developments on healthcare requirements in the area should be recognised and, given their strategic importance, health facilities should be put on a level footing with affordable housing and public transport improvements when securing and allocating S106 and CIL funds, in order to enable the delivery of vital NHS projects. It is imperative that planning policies are positively prepared, in recognition of their statutory duty to help finance improved healthcare services and facilities through effective estate management.

We request that when setting planning obligation policies, considering pre-application schemes or determination planning applications, the Council seek to address strategic as well as local priorities in planning obligations and engage the NHS in the planning process as early as possible.

Topic: Key Worker Homes / Homes for NHS Staff
Draft Policy SHO4 does not refer to the need for, or delivery of, affordable housing for key workers.

A wider, and increasingly prominent area of focus for the NHS is to explore ways in which affordable homes for NHS staff can be planned and delivered. Independent research undertaken by Price Waterhouse Coopers (UK Economic Outlook, July 2019) identified a significant issue with housing affordability for NHS workers that is having a strong bearing on staff retention, commute times and morale.

In undertaking further work to determine exactly what types of housing are needed and where, we suggest the Council consider the need for affordable housing for NHS staff and those employed by other health and care providers in the local authority area. The sustainability of the NHS is largely dependent on the recruitment and retention of its workforce. Most NHS staff need to be anchored at a specific workplace or within a specific geography to carry out their role. When staff cannot afford to rent or purchase suitable accommodation within reasonable proximity to their workplace, this has an impact on the ability of the NHS to recruit and retain staff.

Housing affordability and availability can play a significant role in determining people’s choices about where they work, and even the career paths they choose to follow. As the population grows in areas of new housing development, additional health services are required, meaning the NHS must grow its workforce to adequately serve population growth. Ensuring that NHS staff have access to suitable housing at an affordable price within reasonable commuting distance of the communities they serve is an important factor in supporting the delivery of high-quality local healthcare services. We recommend that the Council:
□ Engage with local NHS partners such as the Integrated Care Board (ICB), NHS Trusts and other relevant Integrated Care System (ICS) partners.
□ Ensure that the local need for affordable housing for NHS staff is factored into housing needs assessments, and any other relevant evidence base studies that inform the Local Plan (for example employment or other economic policies).
□ Consider site selection and site allocation policies in relation to any identified need for affordable housing for NHS staff, particularly where sites are near large healthcare employers.

A substantial shortfall and need to find a definitive solution.

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

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

Meeting the needs of all part of the population

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

Supporting Economic Growth

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

Shortfall in housing land across the HMA

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

Birmingham Development Plan

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

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

Black Country Core Strategy Review

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



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


Total shortfall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

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

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

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

Introducing Rentplus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on the emerging Local Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There is a wide range of housing available to Sandwell residents, aiming to help meet housing needs, designed to support green living and suitable for adaptation to benefit all sections of the community. Affordable, social and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them.”

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


2 Policy SHO4 ‘Affordable Housing’

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

Policy wording: Affordable housing in perpetuity

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

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

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

Evidence base

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

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

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

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

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

3

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

Policy SHO6 - Financial Viability Assessments for Housing

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

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

Summary and conclusions

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

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

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

Introducing Rentplus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on the emerging Local Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There is a wide range of housing available to Sandwell residents, aiming to help meet housing needs, designed to support green living and suitable for adaptation to benefit all sections of the community. Affordable, social and local authority-provided homes are available to those who need them.”

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


2 Policy SHO4 ‘Affordable Housing’

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

Policy wording: Affordable housing in perpetuity

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

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

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

Evidence base

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

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

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

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

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

3

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

Policy SHO6 - Financial Viability Assessments for Housing

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

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

Summary and conclusions

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