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 The Lichfield Local Plan was withdrawn from Examination in October 2023.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

Thank you for 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.

Duty to Cooperate

The Draft SLP notes that there is significant movement of waste into and out of Sandwell as follows:

‘13.20 The BCWS waste projections also considered net waste imports. Around 1.35 million tonnes of waste were received at permitted waste sites (including landfill sites) and operational incinerators in Sandwell in 2021 (BCWS Table 2.10). The total imports into Sandwell originating from the West Midlands Region was 746 tonnes, representing 68% of the total waste received.

[N.B. WMRTAB notes paragraph 2.8.7 of the updated Black Country Waste Study for Sandwell states that 'The total imports into Sandwell originating from the West Midlands region (excluding the waste originating in Sandwell) was 746,000 tonnes’ and so the ‘746’ value included in paragraph 13.20 shown above is an error.]

13.21 More than 80% of the waste received at permitted waste facilities in Sandwell (excluding incinerators) in 2021 by tonnage originated within the former West Midlands region (BCWS Appendix J, Table J4). However, the originating authority of 29.5% of this waste is not known. 15% of the waste is recorded as originating from within the Black Country, and 15% from Birmingham.

13.22 Similarly, more than 80% of the waste received at permitted sites in England which was recorded as having originated in Sandwell in 2021 (by tonnage) did not travel beyond the former West Midlands region. Outside the West Midlands, the East Midlands, Southwest and East of England were the three largest importers of waste into Sandwell, importing 9% of total waste.

13.23 In 2021 nearly 608kt of waste originating in Sandwell were exported to permitted sites in England and Wales.’

The distribution of waste arising in Sandwell to authorities in the West Midlands is set out in Figure 2.3 of the updated Back Country Waste Study for Sandwell (2023) 2 which is set out below: (See attached Letter)

In light of the above, WMRTAB notes that meaningful dialogue between Sandwell and other Waste Planning Authorities is likely to be important to ensure it meets its obligations under the Duty to Cooperate.

The Sandwell Duty to Cooperate (DtC) Statement (published November 2023),3 paragraph 61 ‘Effect of new development on waste disposal’, notes that ‘The Council has been involved in waste discussions through the West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (RTAB), a body set up to support and promote cooperation between Waste Planning Authorities (WPAs) and others. The Council sent DtC letters out to those Waste Planning Authorities where waste movements were above the agreed thresholds for waste movements. Letters were set out on the 19th April 2023 and were followed up on the 25th May 2023. Staffordshire, Dudley and Walsall Councils consider the matter to be significant enough to warrant a SoCG, whereas Cheshire East and Chester Council would like further discussions on the matter’.

It is understood that engagement related to ensuring compliance with the DtC is ongoing and that application of the WMRTAB Duty to Cooperate protocol has revealed that there are very few waste movements to WPAs which exceed the 20% threshold for movement to one authority and there are no movements within the last year that exceed the 40% threshold. At this stage WMRTAB notes that whilst a DtC statement4 has been prepared this does not set appear to out the purpose of the DtC correspondence that has taken place so far and whether there were any outcomes, particularly in terms of whether the Local Plans of other areas allowed for, or would allow for, the meeting of any future unmet waste management capacity requirements that currently exist or might exit in the future in Sandwell. The inclusion of such information is not essential, however WMRTAB wish to draw attention to the Planning Inspectorate ‘Procedure Guide for Local Plan Examinations’ which includes the following (with emphasis added):

‘Has evidence to demonstrate compliance with the Duty to Co-operate been prepared?
1.15. In order to demonstrate compliance with the duty to co-operate (section 33A of the PCPA), the most helpful approach is for the LPA to submit a statement of compliance with the duty. The statement of compliance should identify any relevant strategic matters and how they have been resolved – or if they have not, why not. It should detail who the LPA has co-operated with and on which strategic matter(s), the nature and timing of the co-operation (e.g. by including meeting notes), and the outcomes of the co-operation, including how it has influenced the plan’

In any event it is recommended that the outcomes of the application of WMRTAB protocol to identifying strategic waste movements be documented. In this regard WMRTAB notes that it is important that information within the evidence base concerning the need for Duty to Cooperate engagement (and, if required, nature, reason and any outcomes of the engagement) is included to allow consultees to comment on whether engagement with other Waste Planning Authorities is necessary and, if it has taken place, whether this has been sufficient to meet the legislative requirements. WMRTAB appreciates that any dialogue may be ongoing and, in any event, is pleased to confirm that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is an active member of WMRTAB and an officer from the Council regularly attends the group’s meeting and contributes to its work. WMRTAB has therefore facilitated discussion between Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and other neighbouring waste planning authorities to assist with meeting its Duty to Cooperate (DtC) on matters pertaining to the planning for waste management.

Planning for Sufficient Waste Management Capacity
Paragraphs 13.17 to 13.28 set out estimated arisings and whether capacity gaps (surpluses) will exist in future. This is essentially the key findings of the ‘Updated waste needs assessment to support preparation of emerging Local Plans for each Black Country Authority – Sandwell’. This report provides an updated assessment of the likely future waste management capacity gaps (and surpluses) for Sandwell based on 2021 data. WMRTAB notes that a previous study had been prepared in 2022 for the Black Country following advice from WMRTAB that waste needs assessments should be based on the latest available data. WMRTAB notes that more recent data, for 2022, is now available via the Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator 2022 that was published in November.

WMRTAB notes that paragraph 13.17 of the Draft SLP states that ‘under current projections, the quantity of waste Sandwell is projected to manage increases from
1.75 mt in 2021 to 2.2 mt in 2040 – 41, equating to an increase of 26% or 1.2% per annum. An ongoing emphasis on waste reduction has seen a 7.5% reduction in waste per household since 2006 - 07 and this trend could have a significant influence on future waste growth. However, there are emerging changes in the need for different types of waste management capacity’.

Paragraph 13.20 of the Draft SLP states that ‘the BCWS waste projections also considered net waste imports. Around 1.35 million tonnes of waste were received at permitted waste sites (including landfill sites) and operational incinerators in Sandwell in 2021 (BCWS Table 2.10). The total imports into Sandwell originating from the West Midlands Region was 746 tonnes, representing 68% of the total waste received’. WMRTAB supports the recognition of Sandwell’s role in managing waste from other areas.

[see comment about the ‘746’ error above – this should read 746,000]

Paragraph 13.39 further notes that the ‘quantity of waste Sandwell is projected to manage (included imported waste) is predicted to increase from 1.75 million tonnes (mt) in 2021 to 2.1 mt in 2040-41, equating to an increase of 23% or 1.1% per annum. However, this does not appear consistent with data in paragraph 13.17 which states (inconsistencies highlighted):

‘Under current projections, the quantity of waste Sandwell is projected to manage increases from 1.75 mt in 2021 to 2.2 mt in 2040 – 41, equating to an increase of 26% or 1.2% per annum. An ongoing emphasis on waste reduction has seen a 7.5% reduction in waste per household since 2006 - 07 and this trend could have a significant influence on future waste growth. However, there are emerging changes in the need for different types of waste management capacity.’

WMRTAB recommends that the figures highlighted are checked to ensure they are consistent, or an explanation of the inconsistency is provided. In any event WMRTAB supports the approach to recognising waste imports in calculation of arisings to be planned for.

Future waste management ‘capacity gaps’ for the Black Country (Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton and Walsall) are identified over the plan period. The Draft SLP states, at paragraph 13.26, that Table 4.9 of the Black Country Waste Study (BWCS) ‘predicts that the following additional waste management capacity will need to be delivered in the Black Country between 2021 and 2041 to maintain net self- sufficiency’:

a. re-use / recycling (non-hazardous municipal waste) – 813 kt to 4tpa [Note that a value of ‘4 tonnes per annum’ suggests that data is being presented with ‘spurious precision’ which national policy advises against].
b. energy recovery (residual municipal waste) – 335 to 663 kt tpa’

The BCWS (updated 2023) (Updated waste needs assessment to support preparation of emerging Local Plans for each Black Country Authority – Sandwell) identifies a range of waste management capacity gaps for recycling, recovery and landfill calculated using the following three scenarios:

Existing capacity is set out in paragraph 2.6.3 of the updated BCWS as follows: ‘in 2021 the capacity of permitted waste sites in Sandwell was estimated to be:
• Recycling and Recovery – 922,000 tonnes per annum
• Transfer – 394,000 tonnes per annum
• Inert Landfill – 0 cubic metres/ 0 tonnes
• Non-Hazardous Landfill – 5.6 million cubic metres/ 4.8 million tonnes
• Hazardous Landfill – 0 cubic metres/ 0 tonnes

…..This gives a total baseline capacity of around 6.1 million tonnes’.

The capacity gaps are identified in the updated BWCS as follows:

The commentary relating to Table 3.9 is set out in the following paragraphs which state (with emphasis added):

‘3.5.25 Table 3.9 shows us that the waste management capacity gaps over the Plan Period are more apparent for recycling sites under WMS option 2 and 3 as more waste is sent for recycling in line with government targets. There is also a capacity deficit for recovery sites up until 2025 over all three options, more so for WMS3; however, after 2025 extra recovery capacity comes online and there is no longer a recovery deficit. Given the internal increase in waste sent for recycling, and the reduced requirement on waste sent for recovery, it is expected that waste imported for recovery to be slightly higher under WMS2 than WMS3. Under WMS3 the internal demand for recovery capacity is higher with less waste sent for recycling, but the recovery projections for C&D waste are higher under WMS2 option. There is sufficient disposal capacity over most of the plan period under all three options, in particular under WMS2 and WMS3 as less waste is sent for disposal. From 2039 onwards however, WMS1 has a disposal deficit closely followed by WMS2 and WMS3 in 2040’.

3.5.26 Housing growth will put pressure on existing household waste management capacity, and as this is largely managed outside Sandwell under current contractual arrangements this is an important focus going forward. Sandwell may also need to accommodate some of the waste capacity requirements of other waste planning authorities, especially as they are a net importer of waste, putting greater pressure on an already saturated waste management infrastructure capacity.

3.5.27 There are limited options for residual waste disposal with few quarries in Sandwell likely to come forward for restoration by infilling with inert or non-hazardous waste during the Plan Period. There are also limited options for CD&E waste recycling and organic waste treatment; there are no composting or anaerobic digestion facilities within the area.


3.5.28 In order to achieve ‘net self-sufficiency’ Sandwell would be expected to provide for extra waste capacity of the types it can in theory accommodate (e.g. re-use, recycling, MRS, energy recovery, waste treatment, inert and non- hazardous landfill) to make up for the types of waste capacity it cannot accommodate because of being a largely built-up area (e.g. composting, AD, hazardous landfill).

WMRTAB notes that capacity gaps are therefore identified in the updated BWCS, however it has the following observations:

1. Due to the use of different terms, it is not absolutely clear how the capacity gaps identified in Table 3.9 translate to the capacity it is stated could be accommodated (in theory) in Sandwell in paragraph 3.5.28; and,
2. while the capacity gaps are clearly set out on the updated BWCS they are not clearly stated in the Draft SLP.

WMRTAB recommends that the Draft SLP should clearly state and indicate how the quantum of additional capacity, of each different waste management capacity type is being planned for by the SLP. In particular, the SLP should state clearly what the future requirement for landfill capacity will be and how that requirement is to be met. This should include any expectation that waste to be managed by landfill will be exported to other areas.

Notwithstanding the fact that the maintenance of net self-sufficiency (in terms of provision for waste management) appears to have been taken into account in the estimates of capacity gaps, it is not included as an objective within the Draft SLP. For the avoidance of doubt, WMRTAB consider that such an objective should be clearly included within the SLP.

Locations for Waste Management
WMRTAB notes that no specific sites for new waste management facilities have been allocated in the Draft SLP. Paragraph 13.47 (Identification of Preferred Sites) states: ‘it is not proposed to allocate specific sites for waste in the Local Plan because no new sites likely to be deliverable within the plan period have been identified, apart from sites that already have planning permission (NPPF, 16, 35, Annex 2). To have sufficient confidence to allocate a site, it would need to be actively promoted for a waste management use by the Council, a landowner and / or a commercial waste operator’.

However, paragraph 13.38 of the Draft SLP states: ‘The identification and delivery of new waste management facilities will make a significant contribution towards meeting new capacity requirements set out above and will meet the aims and objectives of the Plan.’

Policy SWA3 states: ‘The preferred locations for waste management facilities are the Local Employment Areas shown on the Sandwell Local Plan Policies Map.’

Paragraph 13.57 goes into further detail explaining that (with emphasis added): ‘Several broad locations suitable for the development of new waste management facilities in Sandwell have been identified in Table 13 of Policy SWA3’

WMRTAB acknowledge that the choice of the ‘Preferred Areas’ identified in the BWCS ‘as being most suited to the development of new waste recovery, treatment, and transfer infrastructure’ was based on a series of locational considerations and constraints to identify the most appropriate likely future location for new waste facilities.

WMRTAB understand Sandwell has undertaken numerous Call for Sites exercises during the preparation of the current Local Plan and as part of its involvement in the former Black Country Plan.

WMRTAB acknowledges that the approach of not allocating specific sites reflects the local circumstances/nature of the Black Country whereby waste sites frequently feature within general employment areas across the urban area and these are located within large urban areas that are constrained in terms of opportunities for new developments overall. WMRTAB recommends that the approach, of not allocating specific sites and relying on general areas and areas of employment land, be robustly justified within the evidence base.

Landfill
Although at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, non-hazardous landfill is still an important type of waste management that needs to be planned for and WMRTAB notes that there is little consideration of this matter in the Draft SLP, with no mention how non-hazardous landfill would be planned for.

A report prepared for WMRTAB on landfill in the West Midlands indicates the following for 2019:

There are five landfill sites for inert, non-hazardous & hazardous waste in the Black Country. At the end of 2019, active inert landfill capacity was estimated at 690,000 (m3), non-hazardous LF capacity estimated at 11,666,401 (m3) and non-hazardous LF capacity with SNRHW cell estimated at 418,953 (m3). Landfill sites have been allocated in Walsall which allow a further increase inert landfill capacity of 3,000,000 (m3) in future.

WMRTAB notes that it is important that the future management of waste requiring disposal is planned for in the SLP and recognises that this should be resolved via the ongoing Duty to Cooperate engagement.

Waste management development considerations
WMRTAB generally supports the development considerations set out in Policies SWA1, SWA2, SWA3, SWA4 and SWA5 in relation to employment areas, minimising harm to human health and the environment, and other impacts of waste management proposals such as on surrounding buildings, resources and constraints on development.

WMRTAB suggests that the meaning of Policy SWA1-Waste Infrastructure Future Requirements could be clarified. Currently this states (with emphasis added):

‘Waste Infrastructure Future Requirements:

1. Proposals for relevant, major development shall evidence how its operation will minimise waste production, as well as facilitating the re-use and recovery of waste materials including, for example, through recycling, composting and energy from waste.
2. Waste operators will be expected to demonstrate that the greenhouse gas emissions from the operations involved and associated transport of waste from source to processing facility have been minimised, in line with national and local targets for the transition to a net zero carbon economy.
3. Proposals for waste management facilities will be supported based upon the following principles;
a. managing waste through the waste hierarchy in sequential order. Sites for the disposal of waste will only be permitted where it meets a need which cannot be met by treatment higher in the waste hierarchy;
b. promoting the opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises and encouraging the co-location of waste developments that can use each other’s waste materials;
c. ensuring that sufficient capacity is located within Sandwell to accommodate the waste capacity requirements during the plan period and reducing the reliance on other authority areas;
d. enabling the development of recycling facilities across Sandwell, including civic amenity sites, and ensuring that there is enough capacity and access for the deposit of municipal waste for re-reuse, recycling, and disposal;
e. waste must be disposed of, or be recovered in, one of the nearest appropriate facilities, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health;
f. ensuring new waste management facilities are located and designed to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts on the townscape and landscape, human health and well-being, nature conservation and heritage assets and amenity;
g. working collaboratively with neighbouring authorities with responsibilities for waste who import waste into, or export waste out of, Sandwell, to ensure a co-operative cross boundary approach to waste management is maintained.

Firstly, regarding clause 1, the term ‘relevant major development’ has not been defined. WMRTAB suggest additional clarity could be provided within the SLP to make it clearer what ‘relevant major development’ consists of and so therefore what type of proposal would this part of the policy apply to. Point 1. Also states that there is a need to demonstrate how ‘operation’ of the facility will ‘minimise waste production’, however, the construction phase seems to have been not considered within the policy whereas this is frequently a source of significant quantities of waste.

Part 2 of the policy expects that greenhouse gas emissions will be minimised ‘in line with national and local targets for the transition to a net zero carbon economy’, however there is no indication of what these targets are and so it is recommended that information be included to provide clarity and in turn allow proper implementation of the policy.

WMRTAB strongly supports part 3, clause ‘g’ of the policy, however the extent to which Sandwell will rely on other areas in future to meets its needs and how it is meeting the capacity requirements of other areas it is not clear with the Draft SLP (see comments above concerning the Duty to Cooperate) but WMRTAB recognises that this should be resolved via the ongoing Duty to Cooperate engagement activity.

Safeguarding
Paragraph 13.39 of the Draft SLP states that the ‘The Sandwell Local Plan is a strategic plan and therefore it focuses on safeguarding strategic waste sites.
The approach of protecting existing/safeguarding waste facilities from other development which may impact on their operation is implemented by Policy SWA2 (Waste Sites). WMRTAB notes that this is an important consideration, especially in an area where it is difficult to find suitable land for waste management development. In addition, it is further noted, in paragraph 13.25, that: ‘The Council will look to identify development sites for waste infrastructure, with priority placed upon the safeguarding of existing and allocated sites for continued use.’

Policy SWA2 states that (with emphasis added):
1. Sandwell will safeguard all existing strategic and other waste management facilities from inappropriate development, to maintain existing levels of waste management capacity and meet Strategic Objective 17, unless it can be demonstrated that:
a. there is no longer a need for the facility; and
b. capacity can be met elsewhere; or
c. appropriate compensatory provision is made in appropriate locations elsewhere in the Black Country; or
d. the site is required to facilitate the strategic objectives of the Sandwell.

2. This policy will also apply to all new waste management sites that are implemented within the lifetime of the plan.

New development near existing waste facilities

3. Proposals for housing and other potentially sensitive uses will not be permitted near to or adjacent to an existing waste management site where there is potential for conflict between the uses,


a. unless a temporary permission for a waste use has expired, or the waste management use has otherwise ceased, and the site or infrastructure is considered unsuitable for a subsequent waste use;
b. or redevelopment of the waste site or loss of waste infrastructure would form part of a strategy or scheme that has wider environmental, social and / or economic benefits that outweigh the retention of the site or infrastructure for the waste use and alternative provision is made for the displaced waste use;
c. or a suitable replacement site or infrastructure has otherwise been identified and permitted.
4. Waste Site Impact Assessments will be expected to demonstrate that at least one of the above criteria applies. Applications should also identify any 'legacy' issues arising from existing or former waste uses, and how these will be addressed through the design of the development and the construction process.

WMRTAB generally supports the approach in the Draft SLP to safeguarding existing waste management capacity but has the following observations:

• Clause 1 of Policy SWA2 mentions ‘other waste sites’ but it is not clear what these are. Should this make it clear that this means all other waste sites which are allowed to operate by planning legislation?
• The identified ‘strategic waste sites’ and ‘other waste sites’ appear to have the same level of safeguarding protection and so it is unclear why a distinction has been made between strategic and other waste sites. If the intention is to safeguard all waste sites, regardless of whether they are considered strategic or not, then WMRTAB recommend that the policy states this clearly.
• Clause 1. d. appears to introduce a contradiction as the ‘strategic objectives’ include Draft SLP Strategic Objective 17 that states: ‘To manage waste as a resource and minimise the amount produced and sent to landfill, including ensuring that the reliance on primary minerals during construction and development are kept to a minimum and that greater use is made of recycled or alternative building materials’. In addition, paragraph 13.2 outlines ‘the key objective for waste across Sandwell is to minimise its generation across all sectors and increase the re-use, recycling, and recovery rates of waste material.

Other matters
Policy SCC4 – Flood Risks, identifies waste (and mineral) facilities as the only types of development where all such proposals would require a flood risk assessment and surface water drainage strategy as outlined below:

‘7. All new developments in the following locations should be accompanied by a flood risk assessment and surface water drainage strategy that sets out how the development will provide a betterment in flood risk terms i.e., help to reduce flood risk both on and off site:…

• where the site is a minerals or waste development;’


While proposals for certain types of waste facilities may need such assessment, WMRTAB suggest that the Draft SLP check whether this blanket approach is justified.

The Reg 18 Sandwell Local Plan – Reg 18 Consultation Spatial Strategy Paper (published November 2023), Corporate Plan Objectives includes the objectives as set out in paragraph 3.6 below.
‘Para 3.6 The objectives summarised below for the Core Strategy sought to deliver the Vision by 2026 and promoted: -
i. Sufficient waste recycling and waste management facilities in locations’

WMRTAB suggest that the text regarding the year 2026 above needs to be re- checked as the SLP period is until 2041.

On behalf of Chance Heritage Trust (‘CHT’), Iceni submit representations to the Draft Regulation 18 Sandwell Local Plan Consultation in respect of the Soho Foundry and Mint, Smethwick (referred to as ‘the site’, identified in Figure 1 below).

CHT aims to enrich the community of Sandwell through the restoration and protection of buildings and assets of cultural and heritage importance and aims to provide the advancement of education concerning the social, economic and architectural history and heritage of the buildings in the area. The overarching vision of the Trust is to regenerate two significant sites within Sandwell, the Soho Foundry and Mint, and the Chance Glassworks, which are subject of two separate representations. Their aim is to protect and celebrate the highly significant industrial heritage of the area and to act as a beacon of hope and create a new vibrant, urban community generating employment, training, learning and leisure opportunities for all.

The Soho Foundry and Mint hold pivotal historical importance to Sandwell, the United Kingdom, and the world. It was established in 1775 as the world's first purpose-built steam engine manufactory and was first gas lit factory in the world. Today, the Soho Foundry is one of a handful of Foundry’s which survive today, however, the Grade II* Listed Buildings are presently on the Heritage at Risk register, which necessitates an urgent positive policy response to ensure their restoration and use. Chance Heritage Trust wish to stress that the maintenance, up-keep and restoration of the site can only be achieved if it is technically feasible and financially possible to do so. Furthermore, it relies on funding which may be jeopardised if the allocation does not support a mix of uses.

Whilst there are some technical constraints to bring the Site forward for regeneration, it must be acknowledged that the negatives of not bringing the Site forward, such as decay of significant heritage assets, are too significant for inaction. The CHT have previously signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council, to support the regeneration of the Chance Glassworks and Soho Foundry sites. This demonstrates the commitment at a senior Council level to the regeneration of these important sites. Unfortunately, this commitment to restore these significant heritage assets at the Soho Foundry does not seem to be reflected in the emerging Local Plan.

CHT consider that the proposed employment allocation in the draft Local Plan does not provide sufficient flexibility to bring about the regeneration of the site and a bespoke and flexible policy allocation to realise the potential of the site should be provided in the emerging Local Plan to celebrate the heritage assets and uphold the heritage aims identified in Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

As outlined below, the adopted policy has not worked in bringing about the regeneration of these assets, and the proposed draft policy would be more restrictive and less favourable, potentially significantly limiting the deliverability of the site. The Council must recognise that a shift in policy is imperative to thwart the ongoing decay to safeguard this unique site for future generations.

To make the Soho Foundry regeneration project feasible and deliverable, the site should be afforded a bespoke allocation for flexible uses which is not limited by the industrial development of the wider site.

CHT are considering several options comprising a mixture of leisure, tourism, education and conference facilities, along with employment. This aligns with the Sandwell Regeneration Strategy 2022-2027 which identifies Soho Foundry as a priority location to be “revived for modern uses”, with an expected delivery date of 2027.

This letter outlines the site and its surroundings, provides an overview of the emerging proposals for its redevelopment, and then responds to several of the Policies within the consultation document relevant to the regeneration of the site.

Figure 1: Soho Foundry and Mint site, Smethwick (see attachment)

a. Site Context

The Soho Foundry and Mint is located on Foundry Lane in Smethwick, close to the canal/railway line. The Foundry was constructed in 1775 for the manufacture of steam engines and was of pivotal importance to the industrial revolution and evolution of mass production techniques. It was closely associated with the pioneering endeavours of Boulton, Watt and Murdoch and subsequently the site became the home to a new mint building in 1860. Both the Foundry and Mint are Grade II* listed buildings. Whilst the Foundry and Mint buildings are now unused and have a temporary roof covering to protect their structures, the wider site was acquired by W&T Avery in 1895 who continue to operate from the adjoining buildings.

In terms of designations, the site comprises a Scheduled Monument by virtue of the significant areas of archaeological survival that are known to still exist within the site, including the bases of up to six furnaces and associated major tunnels and flues. The site also contains two listed structures - the Former Soho Foundry at Grade II* level, and the Towpath Bridge at Grade II. The listed buildings are in varying states of deterioration and disrepair (included on the Heritage at Risk Register 2023) which needs to be arrested imminently to avoid irreparable damage being sustained. The site is part of the Black Country UNESCO Global Geopark, designated in 2020 in recognition of the international importance of its natural and cultural heritage which helped to shape the industrial revolution and the world.

The site is highly significant nationally and internationally for:

• Becoming the first purpose-built steam engine manufactory in the world.

• Being the first factory to be lit by gas.

• Its association with Boulton and Watt.

• Its association with the Soho Manufactory.

• Its involvement in the development of steamships.

• The great surviving documentation of the Soho archive in Birmingham Library.

• The site’s rarity, with so much historic fabric having already been demolished.

Incredibly, few foundries from this era survive, making the Soho Foundry rare and of major national and international importance. Working buildings usually need to adapt to new requirements and so tend to be heavily altered, demolished or in recent times converted to new uses. It is thought that only a dozen or so surviving foundries have been surveyed across Britain. Therefore, the specialness of Soho Foundry is in part attached to its rarity as a type, as well as its significance to the history of human technological advancement at a key turning point. The site therefore presents a once in a generation opportunity for Sandwell to deliver a sensitive, heritage-led, mixed-use regeneration which will bring these significant heritage assets, of international importance, back into use, but this can only be achieved if the right planning policy position is provided.

Given the exceptional heritage value of the site and the state of the current assets, the site would need to be restored and which will require a substantial investment of finances and time to bring it into this use. Furthermore, it is important to note that Chance Heritage Trust are reliant on funding which may be jeopardised if the allocation does not support flexible uses as it would significantly hinder the public enjoyment of the assets.

Recent employment development on the site includes the Avery Weigh-Tronix building/s, which are traditional warehouse/manufacturing in style.

The site is not in any flood risk area, although some small parts of the site are vulnerable to surface water flooding. There are no Tree Protection Orders on the site, and the site is not subject to any ecological designations.

b. Adopted Policy Considerations
At present, the site is allocated in the Sandwell Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (2012) for mixed-use development, to include an element of housing. The site is also allocated in the Smethwick Area Action Plan (2008) for ‘primarily industrial (B1 uses) but with potential to include elements of Community, Leisure and Educational uses’ under Policy SME8. In the adopted Smethwick Area action plan, the supporting text to Policy SME8 states:

• The restoration proposal of the site should be comprehensive and not phased.

• The potential for additional community, leisure and educational uses is recognised as a way to re- use of Soho Foundry.

• Development of this site will also promote more usage of the canalside which may necessitate a commuted sum for improvement to the canal infrastructure.

• The allocation for B1 uses sought to improve the environmental quality of the area by removing heavy industrial operations.

• The mixed use allocation has been extended onto land currently occupied by Dunn’s to enable a more comprehensive development to come forward should this use relocate in the future.

• Some Community and/or Leisure uses may be considered appropriate for the building as well as educational facilities to highlight the importance of the historic site and buildings and to act as a catalyst for future development.

This mixed-use allocation was proposed to be retained by the Draft Black Country Plan (now abandoned), within the Sandwell Central Core Regeneration Area. Whilst the site was also proposed to be allocated as a Local Employment Area under draft Policy EMP3, which may have appeared to restrict the uses permissible on the site to employment or waste related uses, the virtue of the mixed- use allocation would enable other uses to come forward to support the regeneration of the heritage assets on the site.

c. Proposed Use

The site is ideally suited for mixed-use development, occupying an accessible location close to employment centres within the District, along the canal. CHT considers that the delivery of employment and/or leisure, tourism, education or conference facilities, or a mix of all these types of development, could unlock the heritage regeneration of these assets and provide an important contribution to Sandwell that would become a celebrated community facility, that will bring activity and a sense of place and life to the area.

Detailed proposals will be formulated in due course, taking account of a thorough study of the site’s constraints and opportunities, and having regard to a wide range of forthcoming technical work to support the emerging plans for this site. CHT are in the early stages of preparing detailed proposals for submission as part of a future planning application and will undertake extensive consultation and seek to work closely with the Council, statutory consultees and other stakeholders to ensure that the final proposals are entirely acceptable with regard to all relevant considerations.

An Options Appraisal has been undertaken, to consider which mix of uses is the most suitable in enabling the site to come forward for development. This has considered the following four options:

• Option 1 – retention of industrial uses.

• Option 2 – an activity centre, making use of larger industrial spaces for various indoor activities and entertainment such as a roller rink, skate park and indoor climbing centre.

• Option 3 – exhibitions spaces, rentable office/ workshop space and outlets combined with dining and entertainments facilities.

• Option 4 – varying conference facilities including large banquet halls, theatres, exhibition halls and catering facilities.

In this regard, it will clearly be important that any future allocation and policy relating to this site is sufficiently flexible to enable the emerging proposals to be duly formulated as the masterplanning exercise progresses, having regard to technical advice and with input from and collaboration with relevant stakeholders as appropriate.

d. Response to Sandwell Local Plan

It appears from the Draft Sandwell Local Plan that the mixed-use allocation of the site is being dropped and the site will only retain a Local Employment Area allocation. This could be catastrophic to the regeneration of the heritage assets on the site, which require a flexible and adaptive policy position to support the most appropriate regeneration approach to the heritage assets.

The CHT therefore request further consideration into the Local Employment Area in this location and request that the Local Employment Area wash over be removed from the Soho Foundry and Mint parts of the site (area outlined in red in Figure 1 below). It is recommended that a site specific mixed-use allocation and policy is included for area identified in red, that allows for flexibility and enabling uses to be explored, to ensure these important heritage assets are brought back to life, as outlined below.

Policy SEC3 – Local Employment Areas
The site forms part of the Foundry Lane (south) SEC3 Local Employment Area Allocation. Accordingly, under this proposed policy, only industrial uses, and ancillary uses which support the LEA’s function, will be supported in the LEA.

The rationale for this policy is stated in the supporting text. It notes that LEAs play an important role in the local economy as they offer a source of mainly low-cost industrial units. The supporting text notes that one of the key characteristics of LEAs is “a critical mass of active industrial and service uses and premises that are fit for purpose”.

The financial feasibility of restoring the heritage assets on the site is significantly compromised within the framework of this allocation, as it is tailored more for generic industrial spaces, trade, haulage or logistics related uses and doesn’t recognise the unique circumstances of the site. Currently, the heritage assets on the site are not in active industrial use and the restoration of the assets for these uses is not the optimal viable use, nor are these uses suitable for the existing buildings and structures on the site, and are likely to jeopardise the funding available to CHT and/or others to deliver the restoration and regeneration works.

The Council’s own site assessment report of the March 2023 states “it is accepted that the future of the site is somewhat dependent on introducing a high quality, mixed use, heritage led, regeneration programme”, however, this assessment has not been reflected in the proposed policy position in the Draft Local Plan, as Policy SEC3 only allows for more traditional industrial uses. This represents a significant potential policy hurdle and blocker to the regeneration aims and objectives of this site, and does not accord with Paragraph 190 and Chapter 16 of the NPPF, which requires Plans to “set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk of neglect, decay and other threats. This strategy should take into account a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation…”

Without the retention of the mixed-use allocation and/or the provision of a site specific allocation to support alternative, viable, feasible and most optimal use of these buildings, the site is likely to remain vacant, rundown and closed to the public. CHT, a trust which is driven by the protection, restoration, and celebration of the Soho Foundry buildings, consider that the inclusion of the site within the wider employment allocation would render it undeliverable, and provides a significant barrier to the restoration of the site.

If the site remains in a predominantly industrial allocation, CHT may have no choice but to abandon the site, which begs the question as to whether a commercial developer or industrial business will be willing to take on this financial cost and afford equal priority to the history and celebration of these assets. CHT agree that some employment uses could form part of the mix of uses proposed, but if the policy position is overly restrictive, as currently set out in the Reg 18 Local Plan, then it is likely that funding availability to restore the site will be limited.

Policy SEC3 Response – Site specific allocation
To facilitate the regeneration of the site, it is essential to carve out a specific site allocation that caters solely and explicitly to the Soho Foundry buildings, so it is viable and not hinged upon the wider industrial-led regeneration of the area. This bespoke allocation should provide the flexibility needed to explore a range of uses that align with heritage-led regeneration, enabling CHT to achieve its mission without the constraints imposed by the Policy SEC3 framework

There is a clear policy rationale at the national level for a new approach to be considered in the next Local Plan. Paragraph 122 of the NPPF emphasises the need for planning policies to reflect changes in demand for land. Given the prolonged lack of progress under the existing policy, it is prudent to reassess and reallocate the land for a more deliverable use. The proposed draft policy hinders the ability of the site to be restored and fulfil alternative needs, including the restoration and celebration of unique heritage assets of national value.

The rationale for a bespoke application is also supported by NPPF Paragraph 206, which outlines the importance of seeking opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. In the case of the Soho Foundry buildings, their status as a heritage asset is indisputable, and therefore supports the Council’s rationale to explore opportunities that can increase their significance.

The Soho Foundry buildings, being part of a Conservation Area, require a nuanced strategy that goes beyond a generic allocation for industrial redevelopment. A bespoke allocation would allow for careful consideration of the heritage significance and a tailored approach to development, ensuring that the setting is preserved and, where possible, improved to better reveal the historical importance of the site. Moreover, unlike industrial uses, the alternative uses proposed in this representation would make the buildings open to the public which would promote their significance.

Overall, there is a clear rationale for the site to be removed from Policy Allocation SEC3 and granted a bespoke allocation which better reflects the circumstances of the site.

Policy SHE1 – Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
Among the several aims of Policy SHE1, point 6 recognises the need for flexibility and exploration of alternative uses for heritage-led developments, particularly when such uses contribute to the preservation and enhancement of heritage assets. This indicates that the alternative uses proposed in this representation could be supported by the Council, however, as the site is designated under Policy SEC3, development of the site is restricted to industrial uses indicating that there is an inherent policy conflict for the site.

For the reasons outlined in the previous section, CHT consider that the existing allocation on the site fails to recognise the unique circumstances of the site. To reflect the aspirations of Policy SHE1, a bespoke allocation should be provided in the emerging Local Plan to enable adaptive reuse options to be explored so that the historic asset can be preserved whilst remaining financially viable.

To address this inherent conflict, there is a pressing need for the site to be removed from policy allocation SEC3 and for the site to have its own bespoke allocation, which would allow for the exploration of alternative uses under the principles outlined in Policy SHE1. This would result in a more balanced approach that not only preserves and enhances the unique heritage embodied by the Soho Foundry buildings, but also make it deliverable within the plan period.

Policy SDS2 – Regeneration in Sandwell
Another Policy potentially at odds with Policy SEC3 is Policy SDS2, which also covers the site. Policy SDS2 designates Regeneration Areas as the primary focus for new development, regeneration, and investment. The site specifically is located within the Smethwick to Birmingham Canal Corridor Regeneration Area, where Policy SDS2 promotes “new green neighbourhoods on re-purposed employment land and accessible active travel routes.”

CHT support Policy SDS2 and consider that the Soho Foundry would be a prime opportunity to meet this aim. The site is located along the Canal Corridor and contains exceptionally significant buildings

which are capable of promoting the area’s unique history and provide significant community facilities for the public. The site could also be safely accessed by pedestrians from the canal, promoting active travel along this route. Despite this, the inclusion of the site within Policy SEC3 will mean that the restoration of the site would be restricted to industrial uses, which would work against the aspiration to create green neighbourhoods using re-purposed employment land and therefore strongly hinder the public enjoyment of these assets. Therefore, the site should be removed from Policy Allocation SEC3 and a bespoke allocation which supports flexible uses included within the emerging Local Plan if the regeneration aims of Policy SDS2 are to be achieved.

Policy SWA2 – Waste sites and adjoining Employment Land

The Soho Foundry site neighbours an established recycling facility, allocated under Policy SWA2, known as Simm’s Metals. The allocation of this waste facility and the surrounding employment land, for waste and continued employment uses represents a significant missed opportunity to redevelop all the land bound by Foundry Lane, the B4136 and the canal as a wider heritage-led regeneration scheme. It is recommended that the Council considers options for the wider regeneration of this area.

e. Conclusion

In conclusion, the representations put forth by CHT underscore the unique challenges and opportunities associated with the Soho Foundry and Mint site. The Grade II* listed buildings and rich industrial heritage of the site demand a tailored approach that goes beyond the industrial use constraints of proposed Policy SEC3.

Rather than perpetuate the historical ineffectiveness of the prior allocation, a fresh approach is needed to realise the restoration of site, in accordance with Paragraph 122 of the NPPF. The site has significant potential not only to meet the Council’s heritage aims (under Policy SHE1), but also create a substantial regeneration opportunity (in accordance with Policy SDS2). However, without the removal of the site from allocation SEC3 and the granting of a bespoke site specific and flexible allocation which reflects the unique circumstances of the site, this will never be achieved.

CHT believe that the site could potentially accommodate a range of business, tourism and leisure uses that would foster the public enjoyment of these assets. Further technical work will be prepared in due course to bring forward masterplan proposals for the site.

CHT would like to work with the planning policy team and relevant consultees in this process to ensure a suitable solution is found, which supports the heritage regeneration aspirations of the Trust.

Evidence Base

Sequential Test
Before the next consultation on the plan, the Council will need to decide how to present evidence that the strategic site allocations have passed the Sequential Test. It will need to be obvious how the Sandwell Local Plan has met the requirements to apply the Sequential Test strategically as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 167-171 inclusive. We specifically highlight paragraph 168;

“The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding.”

The Black Country Councils Strategic Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (2020) sets out an objective of the SFRA in helping the Councils to undertake the Sequential Test i.e. Identify areas where further assessment of flood risk is needed and provide sufficient detail to enable the Sequential Test to be applied to inform allocations of land for development (page iii). One of the recommendations (page 109) is to locate new development in areas of lowest risk, in line with the Sequential Test, by steering sites to Flood Zone 1. If a Sequential Test is undertaken, and a site at flood risk is identified as the only appropriate site for the development, the Exception Test shall be undertaken.

We have reviewed the Spatial Strategy Paper, Local Site Assessment Report including Appendix D Site Assessment Forms and the Sustainability Appraisal as we had thought one of these documents would explain how the Sequential Test has been applied and what conclusions were drawn. We acknowledge that two sites (North and South of Tamebridge Parkway Station) had been rejected due to the presence of Flood Zone 3 as part of the Local Site Assessment screening process. However, unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a clear or consistent approach to how these assessments have considered flood risk or clear conclusions as to whether this means the Sequential Test has been passed or not. There also appear to have been some missed opportunities to have incorporated the aims of the Sequential Test either within one or more of the growth strategies as a distribution of spatial growth consideration, or the Sustainability Appraisal SA Objective Framework and subsequent appraisal of sites.

We acknowledge the difficult balancing act the Council must grapple with and the preferred growth strategy of ‘Balanced Green Growth’ having appraised the options will likely have some positive effects. However, a number of site allocations are proposed in areas of Flood Zone 2 (medium risk) and/or Flood Zone 3 (high risk) and will now need evidence to (a) demonstrate whether they have passed the Sequential Test (there are no alternative sites at a lower risk of flooding) and (b) be assessed by a Level 2 SFRA. The Council will need to ensure this is considered and demonstrated prior to the next iteration of the Local Plan, either as an update to the Sustainability Appraisal or as a standalone document.

Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
The Black Country Councils Level 1 SFRA (2020) recommends (section 10.3.1) that a Level 2 SFRA should be undertake to further inform the site allocations and development of local plan policies. It also enables the Council to address paragraphs 169 and 170 of the NPPF which relate to the Exceptions Test. The Level 2 assists with part (b) of the Exceptions Test, in demonstrating that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. The Level 2 SFRA and it’s more detailed assessment of the site-specific risk including residual risk will help the Council determine the overall deliverability and acceptability of the site allocation, and what development will be possible within the sites. It will need to demonstrate that any potential mitigation measures could protect the site and would not increase flood risk elsewhere taking account of the revised climate change guidance. This may require the running of new or additional flood models in line with the EAs flood modelling guidance. The Council will need to ensure this is considered and demonstrated prior to the next iteration of the Local Plan. The SFRA consultants will need to screen sites requiring a Level 2 Assessment. We will email you separately a list of sites we think would potentially require a Level 2 Assessment for your information.

Black Country Councils Water Cycle Study Phase 1 Scoping (2020)
Our concern is that since the Phase 1 was published, Severn Trent Water and South Staffordshire Water have been preparing and are in an advanced stage of developing their new and latest Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP24) and Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans. The data and assumptions relied on in respect of available water supplies, sustainable abstraction and impact of sustainability reductions to licences, wastewater capacity and climate change data have now changed. The study should be updated to reflect these latest plans and the water companies approached again for their input. The Council will need to be confident that the Sandwell Local Plan chosen growth strategy (and strategic sites) both in terms of distribution and timing can be adequately served by both water resources and wastewater infrastructure and considering the wider cross-boundary service needs of the neighbouring districts.

• Water resources
In addition, some of our plans and strategies have been updated. Our West Midlands Abstraction Licencing Strategies (ALS) have been updated since 2020. The Tame Anker and Mease ALS was updated and republished in June 2022, Worcestershire Middle Severn ALS in July 2022 and Staffordshire Trent Valley ALS in July 2021. Whilst the outcomes on water availability designations have not changed, some of the assessment points (e.g. Worcestershire Middle Severn ALS) and Common End Date (CED) (Staffordshire Trent Valley ALS) have changed.
The River Basin Management Plans have also been updated with a 2022 online version and has water efficiency as a key measure. As of July 2021, Severn Trent Water and South Staffs Water are now classified as operating in seriously water stressed areas (excluding Chester Water Resource Zone). Having said that we support the recommendations on water efficiency for new developments which have informed your draft Policy SDM2 Development and Design Standards. Whilst our plans and strategies have been updated, the primary reason for reviewing the study is to consider the latest water company plans as stated above.

• Water quality
Sandwell district is served by two Wastewater Treatment Works: Minworth WwTW and Roundhill WwTW. Given the additional growth proposed in the Local Plan it is important that this growth can be accommodated by the wastewater network and receiving Wastewater Treatment Works without risking deterioration of the receiving waterbodies in the district and beyond.
Chapter 7 on Wastewater Treatment assesses the headroom capacity for both WwTW and has classed them as ‘green’ i.e. having significant headroom capacity and no other constraints.
However, Figure 7.16 which shows the summary map of headroom based on quality assessment suggests that for most of Dudley and Sandwell the classification is ‘amber’ stating ‘limited headroom based on quality assessment.’ It is important that any discharge consent implications are discussed with us at an early stage, and any delays that might prevent

development being accommodated within a catchment area due to permit restrictions or other are clearly indicated. If phasing of development or restrictions are necessary within a particular catchment area as a mitigation measure this should be outlined.

We concur with the conclusions within chapter 9 that a further assessment of the impact upon water quality from increased wastewater discharges should be undertaken as part of a Phase 2 Outline Study. This could also incorporate a review of the latest data from Severn Trent’s Drainage and Waste Water Management Plan.

We are concerned there is very limited reference to water quality within the draft Local Plan across a range of relevant policies. The Water Framework Directive classification of water bodies across Sandwell is ‘moderate.’ Treated effluent discharges from WwTW, discharges from sewer outfalls and urban and transport runoff will all have a bearing on the waterbodies overall classification and the reason it does not currently achieve ‘good’ status or potential.

Policy SCC5 on Sustainable Drainage has missed an opportunity to prefer sustainable drainage systems that improve water quality in addition to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. It is important that the recommendations from the Water Cycle Study are considered, for example, for the Minworth catchment where a combined sewer system exists, there could be opportunities for the separation of surface water through suitably designed SuDs. We strongly recommend the Council include a policy addressing the strategic infrastructure of waste water, that development will only be permitted where adequate waste water infrastructure and capacity exists, including requirements for mitigation such as phasing. This should be based on recommendations from the Phase 2 WCS when available. Policy DLP48 Water Quality and Groundwater Protection Zones from the draft Dudley Local Plan provides a good working example where it addresses the hierarchy for foul drainage connection and unacceptable risks to quality or quantity of a water body will not be permitted.

Black Country Waste Study Update 2023
Our WDIs are updated annually, and the latest data is the 2022 dataset (for calendar year 2021) is now available. References in this study to 2021 WDI presumably refers to the 2020 data. We recommend checking the latest data and revising figures or clarifying accordingly.

Draft Local Plan Policies

Policy SDS7 Green and Blue Infrastructure in Sandwell
It is positive that the policy recognises rivers, canals and other waterways (as blue infrastructure) in combination with green infrastructure elements. The watercourses in Sandwell include the River Tame, Birmingham Canal, Hobnail Brook, Tipton Brook, Swan Brook, Dudley Canal Netherton Tunnel Branch, Whiteheath Brook, York Road Brook to name some of the main surface water bodies. The overall Water Framework classification of waterbodies in the Sandwell district is moderate, with the aim to achieve good ecological potential by 2027 or alternate date.

Except for parts 1 and 2 of the policy, the remainder of the policy is tipped towards improving green infrastructure. We would like the Council to consider how this policy can be rebalanced in order that ‘blue infrastructure’ is also given equal or additional weight. Restoring and enhancing the river network as part of development opportunities in Sandwell will help the Council deliver the Humber and Severn River Basin Management Plan objectives, as well as providing a strategic framework for other policies in the plan such as Policy SCC4. Whether restoring a heavily modified channel, breaking a river out of its culvert, creating in-channel habitat such as reeds and wetlands or enhancing a river corridor – all these activities will help to improve blue

infrastructure alongside achieving other biodiversity and water quality objectives. Ultimately, both blue and green infrastructure are needed to work in harmony with each other to restore habitats and over time establish good healthy connectivity of habitats and green spaces across the district.

For example, part 3 of the policy could be revised to state “Development in Sandwell will be expected to maintain and where possible enhance the existing network of green and blue infrastructure across the borough.

Policy SNE2 Protection and Enhancement of Wildlife Habitats
We welcome the policy and its requirements for achieving Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) as part of developments in Sandwell. The Humber and the Severn River Basin Management Plans are a key evidence base to identify ways in which water-related habitats and biodiversity can be created and enhanced for water bodies across the district. The BNG guidance refers to RBMPs as an important source of information for achieving BNG for the water environment. Therefore, we recommend the policy acknowledges the contribution BNG will be expected to make to creating water-related biodiversity credits where the watercourse metric is required for a planning application. River restoration, de-culverting, removal of redundant structures from main rivers, creating wildlife-rich corridors to buffer watercourses and sensitive native planting are all likely to be elements that can contribute to an applicants biodiversity gain plan and achieve credits.

We also recommend the Council considers the inclusion of the water environment in the list of potential sites for Biodiversity Net Gain credits. We are likely to support the production of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy so that the priorities for nature recovery capture the water environment opportunities.

Policy SCC1 Increasing efficiency and resilience
We support part (e) of the policy where it proposes to minimise the impact of surface water drainage on drainage systems by considering grey water recycling and rainwater harvesting. Droughts are becoming more common. This is also beneficial to reduce the districts reliance on potable water supplies, using water resources sustainably and climate change resilience.

We support part (i) of the policy in requiring that applications should promote circular economy outcomes and seek to reduce whole life-cycle carbon emissions of development proposals by considering the reuse of existing resources. We agree that buildings need to support a circular economy model where wastes can be segregated and sorted to allow materials to be conserved, reused or remanufactured. The construction sector can be a significant consumer of circular materials, not just concrete and metals, but also composite materials derived from plastics, waste wood, recycled plasterboard, insulation, etc.

We are advocating the adoption of ‘Whole Life’ plans (or ‘Passports’) for all buildings to reduce energy, conserve water and control carbon emissions and waste. This applies not only during construction but during use, maintenance, refurbishment and enlargement, repurposing and at end-of-life. There is also the scope to require building adaptability so developments can be adapted over time according to changing needs, such as converting redundant office or retail premises into accommodation or storage.


Policy SCC4 Flood Risk
Overall, we think the policy is robust and has considered the recommendations of the Black Country Councils Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2020) particularly with regard to its

protection of the functional floodplain and seeking to achieve wider betterment such as a reduction in flood risk downstream with the policies detail on assessment and mitigation requirements. The strength of the policy is necessary given Sandwell’s flood risk characteristics: a combination of densely populated urban areas which are in places, steeply sloping leading to rapid surface water runoff and a district criss-crossed by many watercourses both main and ordinary many of which are heavily modified. Therefore, it’s likely we would be able to support this policy as it is currently drafted, however, we have made some suggestions below as to how it can be improved.

We also strongly support the requirement for no built development within ten metres of the top of bank of a main river. Although this is more than the minimum of eight metres outlined within the SFRA, with the current onset of climate change, there is a need for greater resilience.
Opportunities should be sought to make space for water to accommodate climate change as set out in the SFRA. Other Councils have adopted similar policies such as Policy S27 in Dudley’s Borough Development Strategy (2017). Where watercourses are heavily modified the space provided will allow for restoration, reconnection with the floodplain and the provision of a green corridor. Natural watercourses move through their landscapes over time via the process of erosion and deposition, and it makes practical sense to allow additional space for this rather than risk future emergency remedial measures.
The Sequential Test requirements for planning applicants are clear, based on the SFRA recommendations, and will enable the Council to make decisions on the acceptability of the Sequential Test at the planning application stage.

Although this policy mentions culverts, the removal of weir structures where possible should also be prioritised as this would likewise decrease flood risk and help re-naturalise the watercourse. In general, removing redundant hardstanding and replacing with vegetation would also improve flood risk from surface waters. Many watercourses in the district and beyond are hindered by obsolete structures such as weirs, and we have specific measures outlined in the River Basin Management Plan to remove these where possible and feasible.
The policy justification text should specifically reference the SFRA and summarise the conclusions drawn from this assessment for the Sandwell district (where not already covered in the text). The policy justification text and/or the SFRA could make specific reference to the ‘Tipton and Swan Brook Flood Risk Management Scheme’ currently under development as this is relevant to part 15 (b) of policy SCC4 (provision of partnership funding contributions).

Policy SCC6 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards
We support the BREEAM standards for non-residential developments of 1,000 sqm gross or more to achieve BREEAM Very Good or Excellent including full credits for category Wat 01 (water efficiency).

Policy SHO10 Accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Permanent Gypsy and Traveller communities can be particularly vulnerable to the risks from flooding. We recommend the following wording be added to section 4:
The site should ensure that it is safe from flood risk and proposals do not increase flood risk for others in accordance with Policy SCC4.


Policy SDM2 Development and Design Standards
We support the policy requirement to achieve the lower water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person per day, as set out in Part G2 of the Building Regulations. We agree with section

15.26 of the Justification text that this standard is justified given Severn Trent Water (apart from Chester Water Resources Zone) now operates in an area classed as seriously water stressed as of July 2021. This would also be in the spirit of paragraph 158 of the NPPF where it stresses the need to take into account the long-term implications including water supply and support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities.

The focus of building design can often be on energy efficiency and water consumption. However, reducing waste from occupation and use can include improved design and provision for sufficient waste storage and sorting on site. Designing for waste can make recycling easier and cover a wider range of waste items (i.e. Waste Ergonomics the right type of bin in the right location). For example, designing where food waste collections or other specific waste streams such as Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) and Batteries are established.
Building design can also address accessibility considerations around handling waste to help the elderly, infirm or disabled residents move bags or bins easily, especially when segregating waste. Building design can also help to minimise problems such as fly tipping in insecure communal areas. This might also be relevant for policy SCC1.

Policy SWA2 Waste Sites
We welcome the general principles of this policy. We recommend sections 1 and 2 of the policy consider safeguarding process and remanufacturing facilities that can consume waste to supply useful recovered raw materials and new products. This would help in implementing a Circular Economy as mentioned earlier in paragraph 13.11. In relation to this promoting traditional disposal facilities up the Waste Hierarchy into recovery capacity, for example, adding a pre- sorting line to a waste to energy facility or allowing a skip-waste sorting operation at a closed landfill would be beneficial.

We welcome paragraph 3 of the policy in principle in the aim to avoid potential conflict between the uses of an existing waste site with proposals for housing and other sensitive uses by not permitting (with exceptions). However, we suggest the term ‘near to’ is not very precise and the policy could be made more robust by providing an indicative minimum distance. The proximity may vary depending on the source and receptor, and it’s worth noting that anaerobic digestion facilities produce gases very similar in nature to landfill gas. Please consider the Environment Agency guidance relating to development near landfill sites due to the hazards of landfill gas migration as well as amenity impact.