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 The Lichfield Local Plan was withdrawn from Examination in October 2023.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

Thank you for inviting comments on the Draft Sandwell Local Plan Review: Stage 2. Overall, we support this plan with many of the proposals referenced, fully assisting with the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) goals and aspirations to create a more prosperous and better connected West Midlands which is fairer, greener and healthier and those within the agreed Core Strategy of the new West Midlands statutory Local Transport Plan (WMLTP5), the draft Six Big Moves and work on the Area Strategies. We especially welcome the positive ambition for improving transport across Sandwell, which outlines new opportunities within the coming years, and its bold intent for improving the transport system.

This version of the Sandwell Local Plan has also addressed many of our issues highlighted in the Issues and Options stage, or in previous responses to the Black Country Plan and this is very welcomed.

Many of the transport proposals referenced will assist in delivering wider economic growth aspirations including providing over 185 hectares of employment land and 29,773 new homes by 2041 (but appreciating the shortfalls in meeting these figures) together with continuing to help reduce transport impacts on people and places including supporting decarbonisation. We would therefore like to continue this strong partnership working in delivering on both WMLTP5 outcomes and in shaping the transport elements contained within the Sandwell Local Plan.

This response by Transport for West Midlands (TfWM), who are the transport arm of the WMCA and the region’s Local Transport Authority, consists of comments on the general strategic direction of the Local Plan, as well as some specific technical comments on various modes including public transport services, smart and active travel and the Key Route Network (KRN).

These comments, which predominantly focus on chapter 11 Transport, are now outlined below, with a focus on the questions posed in the consultation. However, we have also provided comments on other chapters of the local plan, which have implications on our transport network including housing, employment and local centres.
Introduction Section

Paragraph 60 under the header “Sandwell’s Spatial Portrait” it refers to the Strategic Road Network. However, this does not acknowledge the Major Road Network or Key Route Network that operates within Sandwell.
When describing the road network across Sandwell, it should be noted that the WMCA have recently begun a review of the Key Route Network (KRN) and subject to approval, the following changes will be implemented and will affect Sandwell. These being:

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

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

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

11. Transport Chapter

TfWM strongly welcomes reference to the importance of regional transport links being made and how the borough may impact other areas. We must point out however, that our ‘West Midlands Local Transport Plan 5 Core Strategy: Reimagining Transport in the West Midlands’ has now been approved, and while other elements of the suite of Local Transport Plan 5 (WMLTP5) documents have yet to be approved including our Six Big Moves and Area Strategies, these should all be approved by the end of 2024. Once all elements of the WMLTP5 are endorsed by the WMCA Board, Movement for Growth will be superseded by the WM LTP5.

Additionally, as a general comment whilst decarbonisation is mentioned within the Climate Change chapter, a key objective of our WM LTP5 is to decarbonise our transport system. We would therefore strongly encourage greater consideration of decarbonisation throughout all of the transport-related policies and in particular, be mindful of the work WMCA is undertaking as part of Adept’s Live Lab 2 programme with the Centre of Excellence for the Decarbonisation of local Roads (CEDR).

Introduction section

In the introduction section of the transport chapter (11), there appears to be parts of the KRN missing from Figure 13. This may be due to the mapping layers used but we would like clarification that the KRN is correctly designated on Sandwell’s highway network.

Furthermore, on page 17, paragraph 34 (and last bullet point) should be changed to say “Wednesbury to Brierley Hill Metro Extension via Dudley – this will create a direct public transport route from Wednesbury to the Wolverhampton to Walsall Birmingham New St rail line at the Dudley Port interchange”.

Additionally, on page 23 (section 61) this should read “West Coast Main Line” and not West Coast Mainline as is currently the case.

Policy STR1 – Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network

We strongly welcome this policy and broadly agree with it. However, our comments on Sandwell’s issues and options document still stand, where we requested stronger acknowledgement to exploring road space re-allocation for active travel and public transport. Our assessment of the challenges being faced by the region suggests this will be difficult to realise unless there are conscious efforts to reduce overall car dependency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR3 – Managing Transport Impacts of New Development

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

While still no direct reference is made to the ‘Triple Access System’ of accessibility which includes: physical mobility, digital connectivity, and land use planning nor reference to our Big Move 2: Accessible and Inclusive Places, we can see this policy pays consideration to helping provide enhanced accessibility whilst also addressing the negative impacts of mobility on people and places. Through the Black Country LTP Area Strategy, we will further hope together, be able to capture some of these elements.

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

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

Policy STR4 – The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR5 – Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking

This policy is strongly welcomed, but its justification should take note that our KRN represents a significant number of journeys being made and is inclusive of bike journeys. Our ambitions focus heavily on delivering a segregated cycle network that matches the KRN, either directly, or via parallel routes, to serve our region’s centres, and so it is promising to see the proposed cycle routes delivering on this ambition.

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

Policy STR6 – Influencing the Demand for Travel and Travel Choices

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

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

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

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

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

The work undertaken by TfWM’s Behaviour Change Hub could also be touched upon through providing key travel planning information, advice and travel clinics as well as support where there is disruption.
Policy STR7 – Network Management

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

Policy STR8 – Parking Management
While many of these policies on parking management are strongly welcomed, there are no policies which promote parking provision for alternatives to car ownership, such as the use of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) car clubs or car sharing as examples.

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

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

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

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

Policy STR9 – Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

While we welcome the suggested policies proposed under this section including accommodating Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) charging networks, more fundamental shifts in behaviours, including a reduction in car usage will also be required. It should be further noted that ZEVs tend to be larger and heavier and produce higher levels of PM2.5 than conventional cars and many models require more space for parking, and therefore we should not seek to incentivise individuals to use an ZEV, over public transport and active travel modes.

It will also be important these policies align to WMCAs (Draft) ZEV Charging and Refueling Strategy, where Sandwell Council was a key partner in its development. This includes ensuring the location of EV charging points are strategically located.

Finally, TfWM would like to note that EV chargers can often be seen as part of the ever growing “street furniture clutter”. Therefore, with the importance of road space reallocation, priority should always be given to active travel and rapid transit before accommodating EV charging on the KRN and local road networks.

Policy STR10 – Transport Innovation and Digital Connectivity
The comments regarding how traffic signals can respond to levels of congestion and prioritise sustainable transport modes is supported. Yet at the same time, we would welcome further information that discusses the proven benefit of this at M5 J1 and how getting signals on UTC allows greater direct influence from signal engineers to support the network at times of need, via integration with Sandwell UTC and greater coordination with the RTCC.


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

3. Development Strategy
Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Sandwell’s Centres
Policy SCE1 - Sandwell's Centres
Similar to our comments concerning residential developments, in the general policy for centres across Sandwell, public transport accessibility to differing tiered centres could further be considered, with a criteria in place to ensure that they are well served, by the core bus network. Similar public transport accessibility criteria’s have been developed for other local plans – ensuring varying hierarchies of centres are serves by appropriate public transport provision and could be something Sandwell Council may want to consider developing within its local plan.

Conclusion

Overall, we very much welcome the sustainable transport ambitions set out in Sandwell’s Local Plan for improved connectivity via public transport and active travel infrastructure and we can clearly see many measures in this local plan moving in a positive direction to achieve our WM LTP5 ambitions.

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

Thank you for inviting comments on the Draft Sandwell Local Plan Review: Stage 2. Overall, we support this plan with many of the proposals referenced, fully assisting with the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) goals and aspirations to create a more prosperous and better connected West Midlands which is fairer, greener and healthier and those within the agreed Core Strategy of the new West Midlands statutory Local Transport Plan (WMLTP5), the draft Six Big Moves and work on the Area Strategies. We especially welcome the positive ambition for improving transport across Sandwell, which outlines new opportunities within the coming years, and its bold intent for improving the transport system.

This version of the Sandwell Local Plan has also addressed many of our issues highlighted in the Issues and Options stage, or in previous responses to the Black Country Plan and this is very welcomed.

Many of the transport proposals referenced will assist in delivering wider economic growth aspirations including providing over 185 hectares of employment land and 29,773 new homes by 2041 (but appreciating the shortfalls in meeting these figures) together with continuing to help reduce transport impacts on people and places including supporting decarbonisation. We would therefore like to continue this strong partnership working in delivering on both WMLTP5 outcomes and in shaping the transport elements contained within the Sandwell Local Plan.

This response by Transport for West Midlands (TfWM), who are the transport arm of the WMCA and the region’s Local Transport Authority, consists of comments on the general strategic direction of the Local Plan, as well as some specific technical comments on various modes including public transport services, smart and active travel and the Key Route Network (KRN).

These comments, which predominantly focus on chapter 11 Transport, are now outlined below, with a focus on the questions posed in the consultation. However, we have also provided comments on other chapters of the local plan, which have implications on our transport network including housing, employment and local centres.
Introduction Section

Paragraph 60 under the header “Sandwell’s Spatial Portrait” it refers to the Strategic Road Network. However, this does not acknowledge the Major Road Network or Key Route Network that operates within Sandwell.
When describing the road network across Sandwell, it should be noted that the WMCA have recently begun a review of the Key Route Network (KRN) and subject to approval, the following changes will be implemented and will affect Sandwell. These being:

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

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

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

11. Transport Chapter

TfWM strongly welcomes reference to the importance of regional transport links being made and how the borough may impact other areas. We must point out however, that our ‘West Midlands Local Transport Plan 5 Core Strategy: Reimagining Transport in the West Midlands’ has now been approved, and while other elements of the suite of Local Transport Plan 5 (WMLTP5) documents have yet to be approved including our Six Big Moves and Area Strategies, these should all be approved by the end of 2024. Once all elements of the WMLTP5 are endorsed by the WMCA Board, Movement for Growth will be superseded by the WM LTP5.

Additionally, as a general comment whilst decarbonisation is mentioned within the Climate Change chapter, a key objective of our WM LTP5 is to decarbonise our transport system. We would therefore strongly encourage greater consideration of decarbonisation throughout all of the transport-related policies and in particular, be mindful of the work WMCA is undertaking as part of Adept’s Live Lab 2 programme with the Centre of Excellence for the Decarbonisation of local Roads (CEDR).

Introduction section

In the introduction section of the transport chapter (11), there appears to be parts of the KRN missing from Figure 13. This may be due to the mapping layers used but we would like clarification that the KRN is correctly designated on Sandwell’s highway network.

Furthermore, on page 17, paragraph 34 (and last bullet point) should be changed to say “Wednesbury to Brierley Hill Metro Extension via Dudley – this will create a direct public transport route from Wednesbury to the Wolverhampton to Walsall Birmingham New St rail line at the Dudley Port interchange”.

Additionally, on page 23 (section 61) this should read “West Coast Main Line” and not West Coast Mainline as is currently the case.

Policy STR1 – Priorities for the Development of the Transport Network

We strongly welcome this policy and broadly agree with it. However, our comments on Sandwell’s issues and options document still stand, where we requested stronger acknowledgement to exploring road space re-allocation for active travel and public transport. Our assessment of the challenges being faced by the region suggests this will be difficult to realise unless there are conscious efforts to reduce overall car dependency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR3 – Managing Transport Impacts of New Development

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

While still no direct reference is made to the ‘Triple Access System’ of accessibility which includes: physical mobility, digital connectivity, and land use planning nor reference to our Big Move 2: Accessible and Inclusive Places, we can see this policy pays consideration to helping provide enhanced accessibility whilst also addressing the negative impacts of mobility on people and places. Through the Black Country LTP Area Strategy, we will further hope together, be able to capture some of these elements.

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

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

Policy STR4 – The Efficient Movement of Freight and Logistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR5 – Creating Coherent Networks for Cycling and Walking

This policy is strongly welcomed, but its justification should take note that our KRN represents a significant number of journeys being made and is inclusive of bike journeys. Our ambitions focus heavily on delivering a segregated cycle network that matches the KRN, either directly, or via parallel routes, to serve our region’s centres, and so it is promising to see the proposed cycle routes delivering on this ambition.

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

Policy STR6 – Influencing the Demand for Travel and Travel Choices

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

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

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

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

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

The work undertaken by TfWM’s Behaviour Change Hub could also be touched upon through providing key travel planning information, advice and travel clinics as well as support where there is disruption.
Policy STR7 – Network Management

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

Policy STR8 – Parking Management
While many of these policies on parking management are strongly welcomed, there are no policies which promote parking provision for alternatives to car ownership, such as the use of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) car clubs or car sharing as examples.

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

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

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

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

Policy STR9 – Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

While we welcome the suggested policies proposed under this section including accommodating Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) charging networks, more fundamental shifts in behaviours, including a reduction in car usage will also be required. It should be further noted that ZEVs tend to be larger and heavier and produce higher levels of PM2.5 than conventional cars and many models require more space for parking, and therefore we should not seek to incentivise individuals to use an ZEV, over public transport and active travel modes.

It will also be important these policies align to WMCAs (Draft) ZEV Charging and Refueling Strategy, where Sandwell Council was a key partner in its development. This includes ensuring the location of EV charging points are strategically located.

Finally, TfWM would like to note that EV chargers can often be seen as part of the ever growing “street furniture clutter”. Therefore, with the importance of road space reallocation, priority should always be given to active travel and rapid transit before accommodating EV charging on the KRN and local road networks.

Policy STR10 – Transport Innovation and Digital Connectivity
The comments regarding how traffic signals can respond to levels of congestion and prioritise sustainable transport modes is supported. Yet at the same time, we would welcome further information that discusses the proven benefit of this at M5 J1 and how getting signals on UTC allows greater direct influence from signal engineers to support the network at times of need, via integration with Sandwell UTC and greater coordination with the RTCC.


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

3. Development Strategy
Policy SDS1 – Development Strategy

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Sandwell’s Centres
Policy SCE1 - Sandwell's Centres
Similar to our comments concerning residential developments, in the general policy for centres across Sandwell, public transport accessibility to differing tiered centres could further be considered, with a criteria in place to ensure that they are well served, by the core bus network. Similar public transport accessibility criteria’s have been developed for other local plans – ensuring varying hierarchies of centres are serves by appropriate public transport provision and could be something Sandwell Council may want to consider developing within its local plan.

Conclusion

Overall, we very much welcome the sustainable transport ambitions set out in Sandwell’s Local Plan for improved connectivity via public transport and active travel infrastructure and we can clearly see many measures in this local plan moving in a positive direction to achieve our WM LTP5 ambitions.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Clause 3)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHE2

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

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

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

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


Para 4.123
Delete ‘ancient’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Para 13.012 This para would benefit from additional detail.

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

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

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

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