Sandwell Local Plan - Reg 19 Publication

The wording of Objective 6 remains unchanged when comparing Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 versions of the Local Plan. As part of the Regulation 18 consultation, the representations prepared on behalf of Vulcan emphasised the importance of Objective 6 being explicit by articulating clearly housing requirements and a commitment to identifying sufficient land for homes.

The Council has provided justification for the Regulation 18 wording and approach by explaining the importance of a balanced approach in meeting requisite housing need whilst also retaining green and open spaces in the Borough.

While Vulcan acknowledges the Council’s justification, in the interests of clear articulation of housing requirements, Vulcan remains of the view that the wording of Objective 6 should explicitly commit to meeting the obligation of identifying sufficient land for homes.

Vulcan supported the wording of Objective 7 as drafted in the Regulation 18 Local Plan. The Council has commented to acknowledge and welcome this support. The wording of Objective 7 is unchanged in the Regulation 19 Local Plan. Vulcan wishes to make no further comment on this matter.

The Vulcan site comprises part of a wider area of ‘Housing Allocations’ as identified on the Sandwell Local Plan Regulation 19 Policies Map.

As part of the Regulation 18 consultation, the Vulcan representations fully supported the inclusion of Brades Road as a residential allocation. It was remarked that site is clearly consistent with the Government agenda of brownfield first and maximising development within areas with high sustainability credentials that are accessible by a choice of means of transport. Likewise, Vulcan supported the inclusion of adjoining land on Dudley Road East (site ref. SH21) for the same reasons.

The Regulation 18 Appendix B sets 2033 as the date for anticipated delivery timescale (completion year) of Brades Road. As part of its Regulation 18 consultation response, Vulcan encouraged a delivery date in advance of this, with there being justification for taking that approach. As set out in Vulcan’s Regulation 18 Local Plan representations, the justification for identifying delivery of residential development at the site in advance of 2033 is two-fold; firstly that Brades Road is potentially available in the short-term (with vacant possession being possible), and secondly that delivery of new homes may need to be front-loaded during the plan period. Vulcan acknowledges the significant shortfall in housing provision over the plan period and the uncertainty over housing numbers to be provided out of area through ‘duty to co‐operate’. Consequently, where sites are suitable and available, these should be identified as coming forward earlier in the housing trajectory. There is good reason to expect that delivery out of area will be skewed to the latter stages of the Sandwell Local Plan period, given that those neighbouring authorities can be expected justifiably to prioritise meeting their own housing requirements. As a result of this and the potential availability of Brades Road, the site should be recognised as an opportunity to assist with front‐loading homes to be delivered within the Sandwell area.

Regulation 19 Appendix B reiterates the previous anticipated delivery timescale (it is stated as 2033-2034). This does not reflect Vulcan’s ambitions to deliver the site on a more short-term basis, and while the predicted trajectory does not impede prompter delivery, Vulcan encourages the site being identified earlier in the delivery trajectory.

Vulcan wholly supports the proposed inclusion of Brades Road as a residential allocation, as confirmed in the Regulation 19 Appendix B and the Regulation 19 Local Plan Policies Map.

Formerly Policy SCC1 (‘Increasing efficiency and resilience’) and located within Chapter 5 (‘Climate Change’) of the Regulation 18 Local Plan, Vulcan objected to the previous draft wording as there was no assessment criteria against which the local planning authority could determine whether a development proposal would be compliant with its climate change and energy policies in the context of local requirements and site-specific circumstances. Vulcan and its advisors raised concern that the policy wording was arguably not sound given the absence of prescriptive, unambiguous assessment criteria.

The draft wording as set out in Regulation 19 draft is intended to respond to this concern. In its response to the Regulation 18 representations, the Council confirms the following:
“CC1 is intended to provide a more strategic framework for the following policies, which contain more detailed requirements. It clearly links to those other policies in the plan that contain more information and is intended to set a general context for decisions to be made. Move CC1 to form part of strategic development policy chapter”

Consequentially, the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan includes former Policy SCC1 (‘Increasing efficiency and resilience’) as Policy SDS2 (‘Increasing efficiency and resilience’) and it is relocated to Chapter 3 (‘Framework Policies’).

Vulcan and its advisors support the relocation of the policy to Chapter 3, and its proposed new wording.

Formerly SCC2 (‘Energy Infrastructure’) of the Regulation 18 Local Plan, Vulcan objected to the previous wording and raised concerns that the policy was not clear in respect of what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that a development is not suitable, feasible or viable for district heat or decentralised power networks. It was set out that the policy wording should provide clear direction in this regard, remove ambiguity and introduce additional trigger thresholds to ensure that it is sound in the context of being clear and positively prepared.

Comprising Policy SCC1 (‘Energy Infrastructure’) of the Regulation 19 Local Plan, the Council has, in-part, retained thresholds relating to minor and major development. As set out in its response to the Regulation 18 consultation, the Council has sought to provide developers with flexibility to make a case for a lack of viability / feasibility and this is reflected in the revised wording of draft Policy SCC1 (‘Energy Infrastructure’). The Council acknowledges that it may not be feasible to link developments to heat networks and it is for a developer to provide clear and robust justification where connection to a district heat or decentralised power network cannot be achieved.

The wording of (what is now) draft Policy SCC1 (‘Energy Infrastructure’) has changed quite considerably since the Regulation 18 wording and addresses Vulcan’s previous objection. Vulcan acknowledges the Council’s above response and agrees with the proposed approach.

Vulcan set out its reasons for objecting to wording in the supporting text for Regulation 18 Policy SCC6 (‘Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards’) which sought to promote renewable energy generation of more than 20% within a new development.

The Council has advised in its response to Vulcan’s comment that the “20% refers to 20% of the kwh energy used by the building (heating and appliances) – which is not the same thing as carbon emissions.”

Notwithstanding the Council’s response, that specific paragraph of the supporting text is no longer included in association with Regulation 19 policy, the most relevant policies now comprising Policy SCC1 (‘Energy Infrastructure’) and Policy SCC3 (‘Climate-adapted Design and Construction) of the latest version of the Local Plan.

Vulcan agrees with the approach to remove the wording as was included in the Regulation 18 Local Plan.

The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 introduces a requirement for all major residential development to complete the CIBSE TM59 overheating assessment on the route to compliance with Building Regulations Part O. It confirms “The simplified Part O route is not considered acceptable.” It confirms that all major non-residential development should compete the CIBSE TM52 overheating assessment.

Any overheating prevention strategy can fundamentally influence design and can often conflict with natural daylighting via large window opening which then requires compensatory measures including air-cooling strategies which can conflict with Part L requirements. For this reason, Vulcan objects to the proposed wording of Policy CCC3 and proposes it is updated to require any overheating assessment to take account of Part L requirements for natural ventilation. The policy should not refer to overheating assessments in isolation, but instead acknowledge that these could be one of a number of assessments undertaken to promote appropriate design within a development. The policy should also enable a judgement on a site by site basis. Certain assessments pertaining to particular solutions may be appropriate in some instances, but not others.

Vulcan raised objection to the wording of Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’) as it was drafted to apply to all forms of development with no distinction. Vulcan accepted that all development proposals could be subject to design materials choices in the context of managing heat risk but this would be more pertinent to larger scale development. Similarly, Vulcan and its advisors noted that the cooling hierarchy set out in the draft policy was not necessarily appropriate or applicable to all development proposals.

Vulcan and its advisors set out that draft Policy SCC3 should be revised such that it is clear for which size/scale of development the draft policy can be reasonably applied and include a clear indication of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that expectations cannot be viably or reasonably met, including in context with the cooling hierarchy. The Regulation 18 submission outlined that added clarification is necessary to ensure that the draft policy is sound in the context of it being clear, positively prepared and fit for purpose in seeking to manage in the most effective way heat risk from new development.

The Council response to Vulcan’s comments is:
- To amend the wording to establish that the policy will apply to new buildings used for residential, employment or educational purposes. In terms of residential properties, this will apply to all schemes where there is the potential to address issues around orientation in a positive way.
- That it disagreed that only larger sites will need to address heat risk – all sites will potentially be able to manage the orientation and design used for most forms of development occupied by people.
- That the requirement is for developers to demonstrate there is a clear and robust reason not to address the requirements of the policy ‐ this is for the developer to identify, not for the LPA to suggest.
- That Part O of the amended building regulations addresses the need to promote passive ventilation over mechanical ventilation policy based on one in the London Plan (Policy 5.9 heating and cooling)

The Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’) is now reworked into Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 (‘Climate-adapted Design and Construction’).

Vulcan and its advisors acknowledge the Council’s position as outlined in the response to Regulation 18 consultation. It is accepted that with regards to managing heat risk (and the intentions of Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’)), the policy wording outlines principles which should be considered as part of a development design evolution. These are, however, not prescriptive requirements.

The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 introduces a requirement for all major residential development to complete the CIBSE TM59 overheating assessment on the route to compliance with Building Regulations Part O. It confirms “The simplified Part O route is not considered acceptable.” It confirms that all major non-residential development should compete the CIBSE TM52 overheating assessment.

Any overheating prevention strategy can fundamentally influence design and can often conflict with natural daylighting via large window opening which then requires compensatory measures including air-cooling strategies which can conflict with Part L requirements. For this reason, Vulcan objects to the proposed wording of Policy CCC3 and proposes it is updated to require any overheating assessment to take account of Part L requirements for natural ventilation. The policy should not refer to overheating assessments in isolation, but instead acknowledge that these could be one of a number of assessments undertaken to promote appropriate design within a development. The policy should also enable a judgement on a site by site basis. Certain assessments pertaining to particular solutions may be appropriate in some instances, but not others.

In addition to the above, Vulcan set out its reasons for objecting to wording in the supporting text for Regulation 18 Policy SCC6 (‘Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards’) which sought to promote renewable energy generation of more than 20% within a new development.

The Council has advised in its response to Vulcan’s comment that the “20% refers to 20% of the kwh energy used by the building (heating and appliances) – which is not the same thing as carbon emissions.”

Notwithstanding the Council’s response, that specific paragraph of the supporting text is no longer included in association with Regulation 19 policy, the most relevant policies now comprising Policy SCC1 (‘Energy Infrastructure’) and Policy SCC3 (‘Climate-adapted Design and Construction) of the latest version of the Local Plan.

Vulcan agrees with the approach to remove the wording as was included in the Regulation 18 Local Plan.

The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 introduces a requirement for all major residential development to complete the CIBSE TM59 overheating assessment on the route to compliance with Building Regulations Part O. It confirms “The simplified Part O route is not considered acceptable.” It confirms that all major non-residential development should compete the CIBSE TM52 overheating assessment.

Any overheating prevention strategy can fundamentally influence design and can often conflict with natural daylighting via large window opening which then requires compensatory measures including air-cooling strategies which can conflict with Part L requirements. For this reason, Vulcan objects to the proposed wording.

Vulcan raised objection to the wording of Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’) as it was drafted to apply to all forms of development with no distinction. Vulcan accepted that all development proposals could be subject to design materials choices in the context of managing heat risk but this would be more pertinent to larger scale development. Similarly, Vulcan and its advisors noted that the cooling hierarchy set out in the draft policy was not necessarily appropriate or applicable to all development proposals.

Vulcan and its advisors set out that draft Policy SCC3 should be revised such that it is clear for which size/scale of development the draft policy can be reasonably applied and include a clear indication of on what grounds applicants will be able to demonstrate that expectations cannot be viably or reasonably met, including in context with the cooling hierarchy. The Regulation 18 submission outlined that added clarification is necessary to ensure that the draft policy is sound in the context of it being clear, positively prepared and fit for purpose in seeking to manage in the most effective way heat risk from new development.

The Council response to Vulcan’s comments is:
- To amend the wording to establish that the policy will apply to new buildings used for residential, employment or educational purposes. In terms of residential properties, this will apply to all schemes where there is the potential to address issues around orientation in a positive way.
- That it disagreed that only larger sites will need to address heat risk – all sites will potentially be able to manage the orientation and design used for most forms of development occupied by people.
- That the requirement is for developers to demonstrate there is a clear and robust reason not to address the requirements of the policy ‐ this is for the developer to identify, not for the LPA to suggest.
- That Part O of the amended building regulations addresses the need to promote passive ventilation over mechanical ventilation policy based on one in the London Plan (Policy 5.9 heating and cooling)

The Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’) is now reworked into Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 (‘Climate-adapted Design and Construction’).

Vulcan and its advisors acknowledge the Council’s position as outlined in the response to Regulation 18 consultation. It is accepted that with regards to managing heat risk (and the intentions of Regulation 18 Policy SCC3 (‘Managing Heat Risk’)), the policy wording outlines principles which should be considered as part of a development design evolution. These are, however, not prescriptive requirements.

The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC3 introduces a requirement for all major residential development to complete the CIBSE TM59 overheating assessment on the route to compliance with Building Regulations Part O. It confirms “The simplified Part O route is not considered acceptable.” It confirms that all major non-residential development should compete the CIBSE TM52 overheating assessment.

Any overheating prevention strategy can fundamentally influence design and can often conflict with natural daylighting via large window opening which then requires compensatory measures including air-cooling strategies which can conflict with Part L requirements. For this reason, Vulcan objects to the proposed wording of Policy CCC3 and proposes it is updated to require any overheating assessment to take account of Part L requirements for natural ventilation. The policy should not refer to overheating assessments in isolation, but instead acknowledge that these could be one of a number of assessments undertaken to promote appropriate design within a development. The policy should also enable a judgement on a site by site basis. Certain assessments pertaining to particular solutions may be appropriate in some instances, but not others.

For consistency and to demonstrate soundness, it is therefore recommended that the policy wording is updated to the below or similar:

“A site-specific flood risk assessment must be undertaken where a development proposal is in Flood Zone 2 or 3, or is in Flood Zone 1 and one is triggered for reasons set out in national policy and guidance. The Flood Risk Assessment should address the below as applicable”.

In its comments relating to Regulation 18 Policy SCC4 (‘Flood Risk’), Vulcan emphasised the importance of the wording being clear on what basis the proposed distance limitations on development that is proximate to an ordinary watercourse are derived. The representations also highlighted a requirement for detailed justification for the proposed limitations, and how the policy text as drafted relates to any local byelaws set under the Land Drainage Act 1991.

In its response to Vulcan’s representations, the Council advised:

“The policy wording was included in the Black Country Plan, from which this policy is taken. It was suggested by consultants undertaking the SFRA for the BCP, who were asked to provide an update to the original Black Country Core Strategy policy on flooding and water. the suggested policy wording as proposed by the consultants can be found in the SFRA included on the BCP evidence base webpage.”

The Council also outlined its intention to introduce flexibility through reference to the Environment Agency / Lead Local Flood Authority. This has been fulfilled in the proposed wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC5 (‘Flood Risk’) which is updated to the following:

“Not allowing built development within five metres of an ordinary watercourse and within ten metres of the top of the bank of a main river unless a different appropriate width is agreed by either the Environment Agency or Lead Local
Flood Authority.”

The Regulation 19 wording of Policy PCC5 states “All developments are required to undertake a site-specific flood risk assessment” with criteria to satisfy. This is inconsistent with the Framework and PPG where a site-specific flood risk assessment is triggered for all development in Flood Zones 2 and 3, and in Flood Zone 1 where an application site measures 1 hectare or more, or comprises land which has been identified by the Environment Agency as having critical drainage problems, or is land identified in a strategic flood risk assessment as being at increased flood risk in future, or is land that may be subject to other sources of flooding, where its development would introduce a more vulnerable use. For consistency and to demonstrate soundness, it is therefore recommended that the policy wording is updated to the below or similar:

“A site-specific flood risk assessment must be undertaken where a development proposal is in Flood Zone 2 or 3, or is in Flood Zone 1 and one is triggered for reasons set out in national policy and guidance. The Flood Risk Assessment should address the below as applicable”.

Vulcan supports the overall intention of the policy in reflecting national requirements for the completion of flood risk assessments.

Vulcan raised objection to the Regulation 18 draft wording of Policy SCC5 (‘Sustainable drainage and surface water management’), which stated that “All new developments should incorporate SuDS and all development proposals should provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance, and management of SuDS.” Vulcan objected on the grounds of the wording being inconsistent with the Framework and that it should be amended to meet the test of soundness.

SuDS should be prioritised ahead of other drainage solutions (as per the water hierarchy contained in the Framework) but there must be flexibility for developers to provide evidence of what can be achieved on a particular site having regard to the drainage hierarchy, and where drainage solutions other than SuDS would be more practicable.

Vulcan raised objection to the Regulation 18 draft wording of Policy SCC5 (‘Sustainable drainage and surface water management’), which stated that “All new developments should incorporate SuDS and all development proposals should provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance, and management of SuDS.” Vulcan objected on the grounds of the wording being inconsistent with the Framework and that it should be amended to meet the test of soundness.

The Council responded to these comments and confirmed that it would “Amend SCC5 to require major developments to incorporate SuDS unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate, and to expect other schemes to do so wherever possible and deliverable.”

The revised policy as contained in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan (also updated reference and title to Policy SCC6 ‘Sustainable drainage’) does remove the requirement for all developments in Sandwell to incorporate SuDS and for development proposals to provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance and management of SuDS. However, Vulcan remains of the view that the wording does not go far enough. The redrafted text now includes the following:

“All development should demonstrate that the design has incorporated sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) that prioritise natural drainage solutions to control surface water in accordance with the SuDS hierarchy.”

With regards to minor development proposals, it states the following with regards to SuDS in minor development:

“a. Minor development is expected to:
i. Implement SuDS designed in accordance with local requirements for SuDS136.
ii. Restrict surface water flow by a minimum of 30% over pre-development runoff rates. Surface water flow rates should never exceed the rate of discharge from the development prior to redevelopment for that event.
iii. Provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance and management of SuDS.”

As acknowledged by the Council in responding to the Regulation 18 representation, SuDS should be prioritised ahead of other drainage solutions (as per the water hierarchy contained in the Framework) but there must be flexibility for developers to provide evidence of what can be achieved on a particular site having regard to the drainage hierarchy, and where drainage solutions other than SuDS would be more practicable.

For the reasons outlined above, Vulcan maintains its objection to the draft wording of Regulation 19 Policy SCC6 (‘Sustainable drainage’).

In addition to the above, Vulcan set out its reasons for objecting to wording in the supporting text for Regulation 18 Policy SCC6 (‘Renewable and Low Carbon Energy and BREEAM Standards’) which sought to promote renewable energy generation of more than 20% within a new development.

The Council has advised in its response to Vulcan’s comment that the “20% refers to 20% of the kwh energy used by the building (heating and appliances) – which is not the same thing as carbon emissions.”

Notwithstanding the Council’s response, that specific paragraph of the supporting text is no longer included in association with Regulation 19 policy, the most relevant policies now comprising Policy SCC1 (‘Energy Infrastructure’) and Policy SCC3 (‘Climate-adapted Design and Construction) of the latest version of the Local Plan.

Vulcan agrees with the approach to remove the wording as was included in the Regulation 18 Local Plan.

Vulcan commented on the draft Regulation 18 wording of Policy SDM1 (‘Design Quality’), with neither support nor objection raised. Vulcan and its advisors encouraged clear policy with design expectations and detail of how proposals would be tested against policy, having regard to national guidance and material considerations.

In its response to representations to the Regulation 18 Local Plan, the Council acknowledges Vulcan’s comments and reiterated that the Sandwell Local Plan “states that a design code for the borough will be prepared – until such time, extant local and national guidance will be used as necessary to provide a context for decisions on design.”

The wording of Regulation 19 Policy SDM1 (‘Design Quality’) is closely similar to the draft wording as provided in the Regulation 18 Local Plan, an exception being the inclusion of a tenth principle; that principle being “the need to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change in accordance with the relevant policies in the plan”.

Vulcan has no further comment to make on the draft wording of Policy SDM1, as contained in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

In its representations to the Regulation 18 wording of Policy SDS1 (‘Development Strategy’), Vulcan stated the policy should be clear on how the projected provision for net additional homes is arrived at, and what provisions will be taken to ensure that delivery matches projected requirements. The Council noted these comments.

The wording of the Regulation 19 version of Policy SDS1 (now titled ‘Spatial Strategy for Sandwell’) is closely similar to the predecessor wording, except (importantly) includes updated figures relating to the minimum number of new homes to be delivered (10,434 now compared to 11,167 in the Regulation 18 draft) and requirement for employment land (1,221ha compared to 1,206 in the Regulation 18 draft).

Other alterations to the policy wording are two additional criteria which it is expected would be addressed in development proposals to ensure growth is sustainable. The new criteria (e. and g.) are as follows:

“taking a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to development including respecting existing site constraints including utilities situated within sites;”

“ensuring all new development is designed to encourage sustainable travel and minimise detrimental impacts on the transport network”

Vulcan supports the inclusion of the above criteria.