South Staffordshire Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Sandwell Local Plan (DLP) Regulation 18 Consultation document. It is noted that the production of the new joint Black Country Plan (BCP) officially ceased in October 2022 and that Sandwell is now undertaking an individual Local Plan for its administrative area. South Staffordshire Council has previously commented on an Issues and Options consultation in a letter which was submitted on 15th March 2023.

We understand that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) are proposing to incorporate policies previously included in the draft Black Country Plan and to provide a response to issues of relevance raised by the public and others during the public consultation on the draft BCP (held during October – November 2021).

The SMBC Draft Local Plan is a comprehensive document providing a spatial strategy alongside policies to meet identified development and infrastructure requirements and more detailed non- strategic policies for managing development. South Staffordshire has focussed the following comments on those specific elements of the plan which raise cross-boundary issues.

Strategy

The Plan promotes a ‘Balanced Green Growth’ strategy making a contribution towards meeting the housing and employment needs in the Borough whilst delivering climate change adaptation and protecting and enhancing the historic and natural environment. There is a strong emphasis on maximising development capacity through the effective regeneration, redeployment, and intensification of sites in accordance with national policy priorities. Growth is focussed upon sustainable locations prioritising the main town centres and four broader regeneration areas which are characterised as areas of existing employment land distribution. The strategy has sought to minimise the amount of greenfield release with 97% of proposed housing sites being brownfield.
Housing Provision
The standard method currently calculates a total future housing requirement figure of 29,773 dwellings across the plan period up to 2041. Sandwell currently anticipates being able to deliver 11,167 dwellings across the plan period, leaving a shortfall of 18,606 dwellings. The Borough Council state that given the finite supply of land available for development it is unlikely that this shortfall can be met within Sandwell itself and therefore it is the intention to seek to export this shortfall through Duty to Co-operate arrangements. Given that Sandwell is situated within a Housing Market Area (HMA) geography primarily composed of net exporting metropolitan authorities and rural shire authorities comprising significant amounts of green belt it is unclear how readily this surplus requirement will be absorbed through duty to cooperate arrangements within the HMA. Whilst recognising the highly constrained nature of the land supply in the Borough, South Staffordshire considers that Sandwell should continue to seek to maximise delivery within its own administrative boundaries. As the plan making process proceeds forwards, continued efforts to increase capacity through site regeneration, housing renewal schemes, increased densification and the release of town centre sites should be ongoing with the aim of reducing the net requirement to be exported to other authorities.

Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

South Staffordshire Council (SSDC) published an updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment in 2022 which identified a need for 121 pitches during the plan period to 2039. SSDC are now updating the GTAA to align with our revised plan period up to 2041. We have not yet received the findings of the updated GTAA but expect our needs for pitches may have increased.

South Staffordshire Council wrote to SMBC (and other GBBCHMA and neighbouring authorities) in August 2022, and subsequently in October 2023, where we set out that we had only identified a supply of 37 pitches to allocate against a 5-year requirement of 72 pitches. In the letters we set out the steps we had taken to explore supply options including exploring options in the Green Belt, options on publicly owned land, and options for new pitches as part of proposed housing allocations.

SSDC are seeking to ensure that neighbouring and GBBCHMA authorities undertake the same steps that SSDC have taken in exploring pitch options so we can have confidence that our Duty to Cooperate partners have taken a consistent approach when considering if they can assist with SSDCs unmet needs for pitches. We therefore request that through your plan preparation you explore, and evidence, the following options:

- Intensifying supply on existing sites
- Expanding all suitable existing sites
- Exploring all public land options in the Borough for new public sites
- Approaching sites proposed for general housing allocation to identify if the landowner would be willing to set aside part of the site for pitch needs
South Staffordshire Council would welcome an indication that all such options have been explored and we look forward to continuing to engage with SMBC on this issue.

Employment Land Need
The latest evidence on employment needs covering the Black Country (Black Country EDNA 2023 update) has identified a need for 185 ha of employment land in Sandwell. There is an identified supply of 42 hectares, leaving a shortfall of 143ha. to be exported to authorities with a strong existing or potential functional economic relationship with Sandwell.

South Staffordshire Council paused local plan production following completion of a Regulation 19 Publication Plan consultation in December 2022 in light of proposed Government changes to national planning policy. South Staffordshire Council has now recommenced work on plan production but is awaiting the final adoption of changes to national policy before proceeding to an updated Publication Plan (Regulation 19) consultation in Spring 2024. The Regulation 19 Plan was supported by a draft Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) across the South Staffordshire FEMA (consisting of South Staffordshire, Cannock, Dudley, Stafford, Walsall and Wolverhampton), plus Sandwell, as a result of its close economic relationship with the three other Black Country authorities that fall within the South Staffordshire FEMA. At this time, South Staffordshire through this SoCG indicated its position, as set out in our November 2022 Publication Plan, that we have a 36ha (excluding WMI) surplus of employment land that we can make available to unmet needs of the Black Country FEMA. Following the decision by national government to amend national planning policy with respect to Green Belt land releases South Staffordshire Council is currently reassessing the scale of future commitments with a view to producing a revised draft local plan in Spring 2024. To accompany the revised plan SSDC is undertaking an update to the evidence base which will include revisiting the EDNA prior to our next stage of public consultation and this will inform the council’s decisions with respect to future employment land commitments. This will inform an update to the SoCG across the FEMA and our position in relation to contributing to unmet employment needs.

West Midlands Interchange

A Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (West Midlands Interchange (WMI)) is situated within South Staffordshire though this serves a wider market area (including Sandwell). Through our 2022 EDNA South Staffordshire Council identified a requirement of 18.8 ha. of the WMI land to meet our labour demand requirements up to 2040. This will be subject to further analysis as part of the update to the EDNA in 2024. South Staffordshire Council has acknowledged that there is surplus employment land at WMI that the council does not require and that could be utilised to meet the unmet needs of the wider market area. Whilst we have taken a more in-depth approach to calculating our share of WMI through our local evidence, we still consider that the 2021 Stantec report1, that considered potential apportionment across the sites market areas based upon population change within each LPA area, is a reasonable basis for determining wider authorities’ potential share of the site given its wider role and in the absence of sub-regional details of labour demand. The Stantec report apportions 67ha of the site towards the Black Country, with a further breakdown suggesting that 18ha of the site could be apportioned to Sandwell.

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

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

A substantial shortfall and need to find a definitive solution.

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

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

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

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

Meeting the needs of all part of the economy

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

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

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



Land at Wall Heath

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

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

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

The Draft Plan

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

Chapter 1, Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision Priorities and Objectives

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

Chapter 1, Priorities and Objectives: Table 3

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

Chapter 2, Spatial Strategy

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

Paragraph 2.14

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

Paragraph 2.15




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

Balanced Green Growth, Paragraph 2.30h

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

Chapter 3, Development Strategy Policy SDS1

Part 1b

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

Part 1h

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

Duty to Cooperate Paragraph 3.14

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

Paragraph 3.15

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

Paragraph 3.17

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

Paragraph 3.18

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



Chapter 8, Sandwell’s Economy – Paragraph 8.4f

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

Paragraph 8.5g

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

Policy SEC1 – Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs

Part 1

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

Part 2

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

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

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

1. Sandwell 2041: Spatial Vision, Priorities and Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

2. Spatial Strategy

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

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

3. Development Strategy

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

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

Placemaking – achieving well-designed places

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

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

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

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

Cultural Facilities and the Visitor Economy

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

Green and Blue Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

4. Sandwell's Natural and Historic Environment

Nature Conservation

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

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

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

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

Canals in Sandwell – SNE6

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

In terms of additions the Trust requests the following:

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

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

The Historic Environment

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

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

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

5. Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Health and Wellbeing in Sandwell

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

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

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

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

7. Sandwell's Housing

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

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

See also comments on Appendix B below.

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

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

8. Sandwell’s Economy

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

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

See also comments on Appendix C below.

9. Sandwell's Centres and 10. West Bromwich

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

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

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

See also comments on Appendix D below.

11. Transport

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

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

12. Infrastructure and Delivery

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

13. Minerals and Waste

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

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

See also comments on Appendix E and Appendix F below.

14. Development Constraints and Industrial Legacy

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

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

15. Development Management

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

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

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

Delivery, Monitoring, and Implementation

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

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

APPENDIX A – Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain

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

APPENDIX B - Sandwell Site Allocations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX C – Employment Allocations – vacant land

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


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

The Trust has no comment to make on these proposals.

APPENDIX E – Strategic Waste Sites

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

APPENDIX F – Minerals

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

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

APPENDIX G – Site allocations - changes

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

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

APPENDIX H – Rowley Hills

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

APPENDIX I – Sandwell Local Plan Housing Trajectory

The Trust has no comments to make.

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

The Trust has no comments to make.

APPENDIX K – Open space and play provision standards for development

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

APPENDIX L – Transportation Policy

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

APPENDIX M – Glossary

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

Introduction Section

Paragraph 60 under the header “Sandwell’s Spatial Portrait” it refers to the Strategic Road Network. However, this does not acknowledge the Major Road Network or Key Route Network that operates within Sandwell.

When describing the road network across Sandwell, it should be noted that the WMCA have recently begun a review of the Key Route Network (KRN) and subject to approval, the following changes will be implemented and will affect Sandwell. These being:

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

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

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

11. Transport Chapter
TfWM strongly welcomes reference to the importance of regional transport links being made and how the borough may impact other areas. We must point out however, that our ‘West Midlands Local Transport Plan 5 Core Strategy: Reimagining Transport in the West Midlands’ has now been approved, and while other elements of the suite of Local Transport Plan 5 (WMLTP5) documents have yet to be approved including our Six Big Moves and Area Strategies, these should all be approved by the end of 2024. Once all elements of the WMLTP5 are endorsed by the WMCA Board, Movement for Growth will be superseded by the WM LTP5.
Additionally, as a general comment whilst decarbonisation is mentioned within the Climate Change chapter, a key objective of our WM LTP5 is to decarbonise our transport system. We would therefore strongly encourage greater consideration of decarbonisation throughout all of the transport-related policies and in particular, be mindful of the work WMCA is undertaking as part of Adept’s Live Lab 2 programme with the Centre of Excellence for the Decarbonisation of local Roads (CEDR).
Introduction section
In the introduction section of the transport chapter (11), there appears to be parts of the KRN missing from Figure 13. This may be due to the mapping layers used but we would like clarification that the KRN is correctly designated on Sandwell’s highway network.
Furthermore, on page 17, paragraph 34 (and last bullet point) should be changed to say “Wednesbury to Brierley Hill Metro Extension via Dudley – this will create a direct public

transport route from Wednesbury to the Wolverhampton to Walsall Birmingham New St rail line at the Dudley Port interchange”.

Additionally, on page 23 (section 61) this should read “West Coast Main Line” and not West Coast Mainline as is currently the case.
Policy STR1 – Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network
We strongly welcome this policy and broadly agree with it. However, our comments on Sandwell’s issues and options document still stand, where we requested stronger acknowledgement to exploring road space re-allocation for active travel and public transport. Our assessment of the challenges being faced by the region suggests this will be difficult to realise unless there are conscious efforts to reduce overall car dependency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR3 – Managing Transport Impacts of New Development

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

While still no direct reference is made to the ‘Triple Access System’ of accessibility which includes: physical mobility, digital connectivity, and land use planning nor reference to our Big Move 2: Accessible and Inclusive Places, we can see this policy pays consideration to helping

provide enhanced accessibility whilst also addressing the negative impacts of mobility on people and places. Through the Black Country LTP Area Strategy, we will further hope together, be able to capture some of these elements.

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

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

Policy STR4 – The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR5 – Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking

This policy is strongly welcomed, but its justification should take note that our KRN represents a significant number of journeys being made and is inclusive of bike journeys. Our ambitions focus heavily on delivering a segregated cycle network that matches the KRN, either directly,

or via parallel routes, to serve our region’s centres, and so it is promising to see the proposed cycle routes delivering on this ambition.

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

Policy STR6 – Influencing the Demand for Travel and Travel Choices

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR7 – Network Management

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

Policy STR8 – Parking Management

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR9 – Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

While we welcome the suggested policies proposed under this section including accommodating Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) charging networks, more fundamental shifts in behaviours, including a reduction in car usage will also be required. It should be further noted that ZEVs tend to be larger and heavier and produce higher levels of PM2.5 than conventional cars and many models require more space for parking, and therefore we should not seek to incentivise individuals to use an ZEV, over public transport and active travel modes.
It will also be important these policies align to WMCAs (Draft) ZEV Charging and Refueling Strategy, where Sandwell Council was a key partner in its development. This includes ensuring the location of EV charging points are strategically located.
Finally, TfWM would like to note that EV chargers can often be seen as part of the ever growing “street furniture clutter”. Therefore, with the importance of road space reallocation, priority should always be given to active travel and rapid transit before accommodating EV charging on the KRN and local road networks.
Policy STR10 – Transport Innovation and Digital Connectivity
The comments regarding how traffic signals can respond to levels of congestion and prioritise sustainable transport modes is supported. Yet at the same time, we would welcome further information that discusses the proven benefit of this at M5 J1 and how getting signals on UTC allows greater direct influence from signal engineers to support the network at times of need, via integration with Sandwell UTC and greater coordination with the RTCC.

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

Other chapter comments

3. Development Strategy
Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Sandwell’s Centres
Policy SCE1 - Sandwell's Centres

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

Conclusion

Overall, we very much welcome the sustainable transport ambitions set out in Sandwell’s Local Plan for improved connectivity via public transport and active travel infrastructure and

we can clearly see many measures in this local plan moving in a positive direction to achieve our WM LTP5 ambitions.
Clearly many of our comments from the last version of the local plan have been included and we hope our above policy suggestions and comments, may further help strengthen the plan, and we welcome these being included in the final stage of the local plan. Our work with you on the Area Strategy for the Black Country will further help to improve the relationship between the Sandwell Local Plan and the development and delivery of transport strategy across Sandwell - be it concerning those key regional transport schemes like rapid transit and our core bus networks or in ways to support more local behaviour change and those measures that can help people move around more sustainably in their local neighbourhoods.

3. Development Strategy

3.12-3.19 Duty to Co-operate

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

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

3.77-3.85 Green Belt

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

7. Sandwell’s Housing

7.12-7.13 Windfall Development

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

7.14-7.22 Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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

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

8. Sandwell’s Economy

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

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

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

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

Housing and employment requirements

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

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

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

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

Sustainable transport

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

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

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

Potential impact on the SRN

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

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

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

Impact Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Part 1

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

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

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

Duty to Cooperate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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