Sandwell Local Plan - Reg 19 Publication

Object

Representation ID: 1472

Received: 11/11/2024

Respondent: Oldbury (Smethwick) Limited

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is welcome that Draft Policy SDM1 (Design Quality) part 1) requires developments to address its listed criteria “where appropriate” and has some flexibility in this regard.

Similarly, Part 2 of the draft Policy requires development proposals to demonstrate that its listed Guidance has been considered and “where appropriate” used to inform design and access statements that reflect their Sandwell-specific context, and also has some flexibility in this
regard.

However, at part 3) the policy requires (all) major developments should contribute to the greening of Sandwell by delivering against its listed criteria.

Part 3) of the Policy has a prescriptive approach and as such lacks the flexibility needed (and provided in the first two parts of the Policy), and is likely to impact upon deliverability of development – particularly allocated brownfield sites which are subject to other policy requirements and masterplan aspirations which, if also inflexibly applied, will continue to stifle the development anticipated from them. The Policy also needs to recognise that development must be viable in order to deliver any of its requirements.

As such, the Part 3) of the Policy must be amended to provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that development is viable, and ultimately deliverable, whilst delivering its requirements “where appropriate”, including where viable. In this regard, Part 3) should reflect Parts 1) and 2) of the
Policy.

This more flexible approach is also provided in draft Policy SH04 (which says “Developments of ten homes or more should, where financially viable, provide a range of tenures…”) for example, which makes it clear, and is explicit, that affordable housing provision is required but only “where financially viable”.

Object

Representation ID: 1476

Received: 11/11/2024

Respondent: Oldbury (Smethwick) Limited

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 10,434 net new homes over the period 2024 – 2041 (or 614 dwellings per annum) and includes 6,243 homes from “Housing Allocations” that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period. A further 1,814 homes are anticipated from “commitment” sites including those under construction, those with planning permission or prior approval and “other commitments” as set out in the 2024 SHLAA. A further 2,100 home (or 20% of the minimum requirement) are from windfall sites (i.e. sites that are not yet known) with an additional 172 from “additional floorspace” within the West Bromwich town centre,
other Town Centres and District and Local Centres, and an additional 105 homes identified from “supply in Wednesbury Masterplan” (subject to lapse discounts as set out in the Policy).

The Policy refers to Appendix B of the draft Plan which sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations.

Appendix B includes Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B
sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2029-2032 (i.e. entirely within the emerging Plan period).
Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They have put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

Our client remains supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan, in principle – noting that this latest allocation follows its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan. It is also identified for residential development in the Grove Lane Masterplan prepared by Sandwell and Birmingham Council’s and adopted in February 2022. In short, the site has long been identified, and allocated, for residential use within Sandwell’s Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents. However, delivery of this site has been held up until the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital is complete (where part of the site has formed the neighbouring Hospital’s construction compound for example).

As such, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the emerging Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.

Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:

- The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority (84%) of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client has submitted (in 2022) an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of an ongoing pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market. As such, this level of development was considered by my client to have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation, at a density of 80 dph, is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development
density of 56dph – for example; similar to the density put forward by our client at SH55.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SDM1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the urban greening of Sandwell as a “fundamental element of site and building design” and “incorporating measures such as high-quality landscaping and tree planting, other soft landscaping…” (for example) and SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility) which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of
these draft policies on behalf of our client also – highlighting that they require greater flexibility to ensure that development is ultimately viable (and deliverable).

As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are “indicative” but they should nonetheless be amended to reflect more realistically a proposal that is deliverable to avoid delivery from this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

- Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s requirement for proposals, where adjacent to the canal to pay “full regard” to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in the context that those documents were prepared in the context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.86 years’ worth of housing land (as of April 2022) and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period.

The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory indicates that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32 (albeit this assumes some substantial annual delivery of over 1,000 dpa in 2030/31 and over 1,200 dpa in 2031/2032 for example – which would appear unrealistic given delivery has averaged 687dpa in the current Plan period to date, i.e. 2011 to 2022 (as shown in Table 9 of the Council’s latest AMR)), and this is compounded by the Council’s continued heavy reliance on windfall sites (with Policy SH01 showing that 20% of the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period will come from sites that are not yet known). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on unrealistic delivery at undeliverable densities from its allocated brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

As such, our client requests that a more realistic, and deliverable, development density is indicated for Allocation SH55, more reflective of the development that it has put forward through its pre-application submission to the Council.

Object

Representation ID: 1478

Received: 11/11/2024

Respondent: Oldbury (Smethwick) Limited

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility) requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness as defined in Policy SHE2”.

However, any housing density targets should be expressed as an indicative target, rather than a minimum requirement, to prevent the Policy being overly prescriptive and to give flexibility to ensure that development is ultimately viable and deliverable.

It is also not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required are indicative (only) and apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are
achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Applying a density across the whole site is not deliverable and consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve any minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban
greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each specific proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

It is strongly considered that the onerous minimum housing density required is one factor why there has been poor delivery from often long-allocated housing sites during the Black Country Core Strategy period to date, for example.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness (as referenced within the Policy).

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements. It should also add clarity around whether the more flexible targets should be applied to the gross site area or the net
developable area.