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 The Lichfield Local Plan was withdrawn from Examination in October 2023.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


3.0 Plan: Spatial Strategy
Policy SDS1: Development Strategy

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

Policy SDS2: Regeneration in Sandwell

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

Policy SDS4: Achieving Well-Designed Places

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SNE1: Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees

4.3 Policy SNE1 (11) includes a blanket statement that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SNE6: Canals

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SCC2: Energy Infrastructure

5.6 Draft policy SCC2 sets out that:

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

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

6 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – paragraph 153

Policy SSC3: Managing Heat Risk

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

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

Policy SCC4: Flood Risk

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

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

5.11 Paragraph 169 of the Framework states that:

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

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

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

Policy SCC6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5 Policy SHW4 states that:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Policy SHO3: Housing Density, Type and Accessibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy SHO4: Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 National Planning Policy Framework, September 2023 – footnote 49


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

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

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

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

Policy SEC3: Local Employment Areas

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


9.0 Plan: Transport
Policy STR8: Parking Management

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

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

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

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

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

Policy STR9: Planning for Low Emission Vehicles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

11.0 Plan: Development Management
Policy SDM1: Design Quality

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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.

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.