Sandwell Local Plan - Reg 19 Publication

In its representations to the Regulation 18 consultation and the proposed wording of Policy SDS2 (‘Regeneration in Sandwell), Vulcan set out that higher density residential development on brownfield land included in the identified Regeneration Areas may significantly assist the local authority in meeting its housing shortfall.

In its response to the Vulcan representations, the Council emphasised that Policy SHO3 sets out minimum density standards for new development and that “the Council will encourage proposals to exceed the minimum requirement where appropriate and the scheme is designed well.” The Council also referred to its statutory duty to prepare a Design Code and that this “will provide design guidance for housing developments and explain how high density residential development can be designed well.”

Vulcan is encouraged that the Council considers the stated density figures as being minimums, and the support for regeneration areas being critical to the delivery of new homes.

The policy reference is now Policy SDS3 (formerly SDS2) but the wording as drafted in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is largely consistent with the wording in the Regulation 18 version. Vulcan is broadly supportive of the wording, although remains of the view that it could be stronger to confirm densities are a minimum and higher density development should be considered where appropriate and where design allows. Whilst densities can be read as minimum densities, they can inadvertently set the context for particular areas / sites and so where there is potential for higher density it is helpful if this is acknowledged. Every opportunity needs to be taken for high density development, particularly in sustainable brownfield locations.

Vulcan raised no fundamental objection to the Regulation 18 wording of Policy SEC1 (‘Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs’). Vulcan did, however, set out justification for changes to the wording to make it clear where the Council supports alternative uses on existing employment sites, specifically those sites where the Council supports transition from employment to residential.

The wording of the Regulation 19 version of Policy SEC1 (‘Providing for Economic Growth and Jobs’) is closely similar, with no explicit confirmation that there are instances where the Council supports transition from employment to residential (or other land uses).

While it is acknowledged that Vulcan’s site at Brades Road is proposed to be allocated for residential development, for avoidance of ambiguity it remains Vulcan’s stance that Policy SEC1 should acknowledge that there are certain existing employment sites where the Council supports transition to residential land uses, and the importance of such sites in delivering sufficient homes for the Borough.

As part of its Regulation 18 representations, Vulcan supported the inclusion of the clarification at Policy SEC3 (‘Local Employment Areas’) Part 3 which confirms “Not all areas will be suitable for all uses.” Vulcan also set out reasoning for:
1. Inclusion of specific reference to the fact that housing policies include existing/former employment sites and areas, alongside other employment areas being retained for employment use; and
2. Requiring that any planning applications for new employment development be subject to a consideration of potential impact on neighbouring land uses, both existing and proposed.

The Council acknowledged the above comments.

The wording of Policy SEC3 (‘Local Employment Areas’) as included in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is identical to that included in the Regulation 18 version of the Local Plan. Whilst the views included within Vulcan’s representations have not been incorporated, the wording of the policy is very clear that “Local Employment Areas are shown on the Policies Map.” With the benefit of the Regulation 19 Policies Map, it is clear that Vulcan’s assets at Brades Road do not comprise a defined ‘Local Employment Area’. It is taken as read that impact on surrounding land uses and development plan allocations would be material considerations in the context of any planning application. As a result, it is not deemed critical that these previous submissions are reflected in the policy wording, and Vulcan can support the wording as is drafted.

Not Applicable - Vulcan maintains that Policy SHO1 needs to be clear on the approach to meeting the housing requirement and it is accepted that this text supports the policy approach to housing trajectory. Therefore Vulcan raises no further comment in respect of the supporting text clarification of the policy wording.

In its representations to the Regulation 18 Local Plan, Vulcan recommended that draft Policy SHO1 (‘Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth’) confirms how the quoted requirement of net additional homes was calculated. In its associated response, the Council confirmed those comments were noted.

The draft wording of Policy SHO1 (‘Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth’) as contained in the Regulation 19 Local Plan is closely similar to the previous draft wording. In the Regulation 18 policy it reads “Sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net homes over the period 2022-2041.” In the Regulation 19 version, it reads “Sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 10,434 net new homes over the period 2024-2041.” There is a reduction to the number of homes (a reduction of 733 from 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 to 2041, to 10,434 net new homes over the period 2024-2041). Across the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 iterations, Tables 5 and 7 respectively set out the ‘Housing Land Supply’ – the total of which is 11,167 for Regulation 18 and 10,434 for Regulation 19. The updated requirement reflects what the Council considers can be realistically delivered having regard to sites under construction, sites with planning permission, and proposed allocations. Representations by other parties to the Regulation 18 consultation raised concerns of the supply, with one respondent stating, ‘that the Local Plan only proposes to deliver 11,167 homes between 2022 – 2041 against an identified need of 29,773 homes, representing a shortfall of 18,606 homes, over 60%’ (Gladman Developments Ltd).

As part of the Justification text supporting both the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 Policy SH01, the following is included:

“The Plan period has been divided into four phases, covering every five years from 2024. Housing targets for each phase are provided in Table 5. These are based on the housing trajectory set out in Appendix I, with further detail provided in the SHLAA. The trajectory demonstrates a steady supply of housing completions over the Plan period, justifying consistent housing targets throughout the Plan period. As set out in the NPPF (paragraph 76), the Council is seeking to confirm through the SLP the existence of a five - year housing land supply from the year of adoption (2025). For this purpose, the buffer applied to housing supply (as set out in the housing trajectory) will be 20%, in line with the most recent Housing Delivery Test results (2023).”

Vulcan acknowledges the above extract of Justification which informs Policy SHO1. While Vulcan maintains that Policy SHO1 needs to be clear on the approach to meeting the housing requirement, it is accepted that this text supports the policy approach to housing trajectory and therefore Vulcan raises no further comment in respect of the supporting text clarification of the policy wording.

In its representations to the Regulation 18 Local Plan, Vulcan commented that draft Policy SHO3 (‘Housing Density, Type and Accessibility’) should be explicit that a table provided in the Justification section provides a recommendation rather than prescriptive requirement for a residential development proposal. Likewise, Vulcan set out that Policy SHO3 should be consistent with Policies SHO4 AND SHO5 to be explicit that dwelling mix and mix of tenures will be site specific and subject to a consideration of local needs at the time of a proposed development coming forward.

The Regulation 19 version of Policy SHO3 (also ‘Housing Density, Type and Accessibility’) is closely similar to the wording of the Regulation 18 version.

Consistent across both Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 drafts, Policy SHO3 sets out that “Developments of ten homes or more should provide a range of house types and sizes that will meet the accommodation needs of both existing and future residents, in line with the most recently available information.” This offers flexibility to house types which may differ over time and in geographical area within the Borough.

The flexibility afforded when considering the appropriateness of housing density, type and accessibility within a development proposal is welcomed by Vulcan, and the draft wording of Policy SHO3 is supported in this regard.

Vulcan supported the acknowledgement in Criteria 1 and 4 of Regulation 18 Policy SHO4 (‘Affordable Housing’) that the range of tenure to be provided and the proportion of any affordable housing should both be dependent upon an assessment of financial viability. The specific wording supported was the following:

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

In its response to the above, the Council noted and welcomed this support.

Part 4 of Regulation 19 Policy SHO4 (‘Affordable Housing’) is identical to that at Part 4 of Regulation 18 Policy SHO4. Accordingly, Vulcan and its advisors support this wording.

As part of its Regulation 18 representations, Vulcan highlighted that Criterion 2 of Policy SHO4 potentially failed that test of soundness and was inconsistent with the NPPF. The objection related to wording which triggered “a minimum proportion of affordable housing” which was inconsistent with the earlier position whereby viability could preclude delivery of affordable housing on a residential development.

In its response, the Council confirms that Criterion 2 “states the minimum proportion to be provided, subject to viability is 25%” and for this reason disputes there is inconsistency.

The Regulation 19 wording of Policy SHO4 (‘Affordable Housing’) clearly sets minimum provisions and acknowledges that these should be provided “where this is financially viable.” Accordingly, where a viability case is made it may be a residential development can be accepted where there is no on-site affordable housing (or alternative contribution for off-site provision) or a proportion of affordable housing which is less than the minimum rate.

The Regulation 19 Policy SHO4 Criterion 2 includes new thresholds whereby the minimum proportion of on-site affordable housing varies depending on the nature of the relevant site. The wording states “All developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing on site where this is financially viable.” Accordingly, policy recognises that viability may preclude delivery of on-site affordable homes. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided, as set out in draft Policy SHO4, are as follows:
a. On all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones – 10% affordable housing;
b. On greenfield sites in medium value zones – 15% affordable housing;
c. On all sites in higher value zones – 25% affordable housing.

The above minimum thresholds are supported by Vulcan, subject to the where financially viable caveat. The above acknowledges that providing a minimum of 25% affordable homes in a low value zone and on a brownfield site in a medium zone area could substantially threaten delivery – hence a reduction to 10% with allowance for further reduction should this be justified on viability grounds.

Vulcan remains of the view that the self / custom build requirement for 5% of dwellings within a 100+ dwelling development could be prejudicial to effective delivery of development on a site. Vulcan remains of the view that this wording should be removed from policy.

In its comments relating to draft Policy SHO5 (‘Delivering Wheelchair Accessible and Self / Custom Build Housing’), Vulcan raised concerns that the Regulation 18 wording was unclear and ambiguous, and the ability to meet its requirements could be influenced by financial viability. Vulcan continued to state this failed the test of soundness and was inconsistent with the Framework. Vulcan placed importance on policy being clear and where any requirement is dependent on a demonstrable need, demonstration that development viability would not be adversely impacted upon.

In relation to the self / custom build housing component of Policy SHO5, Vulcan considered it inconsistent with national guidance that a requirement for 5% of a 100+ dwelling proposal must constitute self / custom build plots. Vulcan objected to Policy SHO5 Part 4 on the basis of it not acknowledging that site characteristics might justify self‐build / custom build exemption within a 100+ dwelling development, irrespective of whether there is a current register need (as per the Council’s self / custom build register). Vulcan set out potential exemption on viability or other grounds of sites from self‐build/custom build requirements should be set out clearly in Policy SHO5 (4).

In its response to representations made via the Regulation 18 consultation, the wording of the draft Regulation 19 SHO5 (now titled ‘Delivering Accessible and Self / Custom Housing’) has changed quite significantly.

The minimum proportion requirement for accessible and adaptable or wheelchair user housing has been removed from the Regulation 19 wording. This change is supported by Vulcan.

The draft wording maintains the requirement for all new homes to meet M(2) (Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings) requirement in Building Regulations. However, in the Council’s responses to Regulation 18 representations, including the Vulcan submission, it is confirmed that “Once M4/2 has been adopted, the policy will be amended accordingly.” It appears, therefore that the Council acknowledges the scope for removal of the M(2) requirement, as and when it becomes a requirement of Building Regulations. Vulcan reiterates that the policy should not duplicate building regulations requirements, and outside of this acknowledge the material considerations of need and development viability.

The Council did not provide a specific response to Vulcan’s comments relating to the proportion of a 100+ dwelling development which should comprise self / custom home plots. Where other respondents raised concern with this figure, the Council justified its proposed approach by stating the following:

“Policy SHO5 only requires a supply of self‐build plots where there is an unmet need from self‐build registers. The Policy also allows for plots to be advertised for a reasonable period and if there is no demand they can revert to standard housing. “

Vulcan remains of the view that the self / custom build requirement for 5% of dwellings within a 100+ dwelling development could be prejudicial to effective delivery of development on a site. Vulcan remains of the view that this wording should be removed from policy.

For consistency, the policy wording should not seek to trigger such requirements in circumstances where there are no national requirements.

Vulcan raised objection to part of the draft wording of Policy SHW3 (‘Air Quality’) as contained in the Regulation 18 version of the Local Plan. The concern specifically related to a requirement that “New development must be at least air quality neutral following any required mitigation.” The concern was this would be inconsistent with policy contained in the Framework and within the PPG.

The Council acknowledged Vulcan’s concerns and responded to advise the policy would be amended to clarify a requirement for improvements to air quality.

The above wording as quoted from the Regulation 18 version of the Local Plan has been omitted and replaced with the following:

“New development must demonstrate how its occupiers and users would be affected by air quality and how the development itself affects air quality.”

Vulcan and its advisors support the proposed alteration, however, it is proposed that the related requirements should exclusively relate to major development proposals and / or sites located within an Air Quality Management Area (‘AQMA’). The PPG confirms no assessment should be triggered where a development is not anticipated to give rise to concerns about air quality. Accordingly, it is deemed excessive for policy to trigger require an air quality assessment for minor development proposals and sites outside of AQMAs. For consistency, the policy wording should not seek to trigger such requirements in circumstances where there are no national requirements.

The proposed wording of Policy SHW4 as contained in the Regulation 19 Local Plan should be amended to include the clarification provided by the Council in response to Regulation 18 comments. This could be critical to securing sufficient delivery of homes to meet the requirements set out in the emerging Local Plan.

In assessing the wording of the Regulation 18 version wording of Policy SHW4 (‘Open Space and Recreation’), Vulcan noted the policy failed to acknowledge that the expectation of contribution to unrestricted open space should be based upon whether there is a demonstrable shortfall and/or resultant need in the locality of a development site.

In its response to the above feedback, the Council advised the following:

“The figure of 3.63ha per 1,000 population was identified in the last Green Spaces Strategy and represents the current level of provision available to residents in this highly urbanised borough. The SLP will go through a viability assessment and issues like this will be taken into account when the work is being undertaken.

The aim is to maintain this level of provision across the borough ‐ it is the case that certain areas of Sandwell are much better provided for than others, but other areas, particularly in the main urban core, suffer from a significant lack of opportunities.

The policy can be clarified to spell out the geographical requirements as necessary.”

The proposed wording of Policy SHW4 as contained in the Regulation 19 Local Plan should be amended to include the clarification provided by the Council in response to Regulation 18 comments. This could be critical to securing sufficient delivery of homes to meet the requirements set out in the emerging Local Plan.

Vulcan and its advisors supported the wording of draft Policy SNE2 as drafted in the Regulation 18 Local Plan. The Council has commented to acknowledge and welcome this support.

The wording of SNE2 is largely unchanged in the Regulation 19 Local Plan. A bullet point has been omitted from the previous draft version (that bullet point relating to site clearance (or other related activities) which would lower the biodiversity value of a site prior to 30 January 2020). Vulcan has no comment to make on that amendment.