Sandwell Local Plan - Reg 19 Publication

The revised wording responds to Vulcan’s previous concerns in some regards. It is, however, considered the wording could be taken further to avoid ambiguity. It should specifically confirm that poor quality trees should be discounted from canopy cover calculations.

Vulcan maintains that the case for replacement tree planting should be considered on a site-by-site basis and a standard requirement should not be applicable to every site.

Vulcan raised objection to the wording of Policy SNE3 (‘Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’) as contained in the Regulation 18 version of the Local Plan. The objection principally related to:
1. Lack of acknowledgement that there will not be the justification for the retention of some trees, particularly in the context of poor specimens and wider development benefit. The policy text should be consistent with the Framework (2023), which says planning policies should ensure ‘…that existing trees are retained wherever possible’ (paragraph 131); and
2. That the requirement for replacement trees and the number to be provided should be the subject of site‐by‐site assessments, alongside a measured consideration of biodiversity net gain, as opposed to a standard requirement for tree planting a rate of 3 trees per tree lost.

In its response to the Vulcan representations, the Council acknowledged the feedback. The Council confirmed the policy justification would be amended to allow for poor quality trees to be discounted from canopy cover calculations.

The Council response continues to confirm the following:

“Given the council's wider objectives around improving the health and wellbeing of local residents as well as improving the ecological value of local habitats and addressing climate change, it believes that increasing canopy cover on development sites will generate positive benefits. Although the issue of canopy cover is not addressed in the NPPF or PPG, this does not prevent the Council from requiring developments to provide for such a requirement where there is suitable evidence and is a local priority (Sandwell Tree Strategy). Given the information provided by the Tree study, the evidence of poorer health outcomes in Sandwell and the guidance provided by the Woodland Trust, The Council feels this approach is warranted.

With regard to off-site replacements, this can be undertaken as part of BNG provision or as stand-alone green infrastructure enhancement and as such will be subject to site-related considerations.”

The proposed wording of Policy SNE3 as contained in the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is modified, including a change in respect of canopy cover. The wording as included in the Regulation 18 Local Plan was as follows:

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

The wording as proposed by the Regulation 19 version is as follows:

“Tree planting on major development sites should contribute to a minimum of 20% canopy cover (calculated by considering both the current level of canopy cover on a site and identifying the likely contribution made once new trees have established and matured) and a recommended level of 30% canopy cover across the site, especially in areas where evidence demonstrates that current levels of canopy cover are lower than the local average.”

The revised wording responds to Vulcan’s previous concerns. It is, however, considered the wording could be taken further to avoid ambiguity. It should specifically confirm that poor quality trees should be discounted from canopy cover calculations.

The wording relating to replacement tree planting is consistent between the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 versions of the Local Plan (a minimum rate of three replacement trees for every tree removed from a development site).

Vulcan maintains that the case for replacement tree planting should be considered on a site-by-site basis.

In its representations to the Regulation 18 consultation, Vulcan and its advisors supported the positive wording of draft Policy SNE6 (‘Canals’). Vulcan wholly concurred with the Council’s position that canal-side sites can provide opportunities for high-quality developments with enhanced accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-car-based modes of transport.

Vulcan encouraged further promotion of canal-side developments, with a focus on encouraging waterfront views for residential developments, and the interdependency of such development cross-referencing to urban design policies.

The Council noted and welcomed the support for the Regulation 18 wording of Policy SNE6.

The Regulation 19 Policy SNE6 (‘Canals’) wording has not been amended to reflect Vulcan’s comments. Vulcan reiterates its stance for promoting waterside views and opportunities for canal-side development to enhance non-car travel, but does not consider this fundamental to the soundness of the most recent iteration of the policy wording.

Vulcan commented on the wording of draft Policy STR8 (‘Parking Management’) as contained in the Regulation 18 Local Plan to encourage reference to the NPPF. Vulcan and its advisors also reminded the Council that the NPPF confirms maximum parking standards should only be included where there is a clear and compelling justification.

The wording of Policy STR8 (‘Parking Management’) as included in the Regulation 19 Local Plan is near identical to that of the Regulation 18 version, a difference being the previous referring to Appendix L with the latest referring to Appendix K (both being ‘Transportation Policy’). Appendix K (formerly Appendix L) confirms “there is no mention of minimum or maximum parking standards and the onus is firmly upon the Local Planning Authority to determine what is appropriate for their area by using local knowledge, benchmarking and best practice, taking into consideration the above criteria based on locally derived evidence.”

Given the representations to the Regulation 18 were an observation and the wording between Regulation 18 and 19 versions of Policy STR8 are closely similar, Vulcan makes no further submissions on the proposed wording of this policy.

Vulcan is supportive of encouraging a move away from fossil fuel vehicles through the introduction of all-electric and hybrid alternatives. Vulcan objected to the proposed wording of Regulation 18 draft Policy STR9 (‘Planning for Low Emission Vehicles’) on the grounds of the policy not being required given the national context of electric vehicles including recent amendments to the Building Regulations which set prescriptive requirements.

The Regulation 19 Policy STR9 (‘Planning for Low Emission Vehicles’) wording is closely similar to that wording found in the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan, with the inclusion of a further bullet point confirming that “Measures to encourage LEV use through travel plans and other initiatives” is a fourth principle whereby proposals for low emission vehicles will be supported.

Whilst Vulcan maintains its position that draft Policy STR9 is not required given Building Regulation requirements, it supports the principle and raises no objection to the additional principle as included in the Regulation 19 version of the draft Local Plan.

Vulcan considered the Regulation 18 wording to Policy SWA5 (‘Resource Management and New Development’) should be redrafted to include clear targets and the require applicants to provide justification for the proposed approach to waste management and the use of construction materials as part of a development project.

In its response to Regulation 18 consultation feedback, the Council confirmed acknowledgement of those representations prepared on behalf of Vulcan.

The wording of Regulation 18 Policy SWA5 is identical to that of Regulation 19 Policy SWA5. Accordingly, the draft policy does not include prescriptive requirements. Vulcan acknowledges and is supportive of the Council’s approach as it has potential to offer greater flexibility compared to minimum requirements which may not be appropriate on a site-by-site basis.

Vulcan raised no concerns with the wording of Policy SDS4 (‘Achieving Well-designed Places’), as included in the draft Regulation 18 Local Plan.

The Council acknowledged Vulcan’s feedback to draft Policy SDS4 and welcomed the support.

Comprising Policy SDS5 of the Regulation 19 Local Plan (title consistent between this and the predecessor version), the wording has been updated to place importance on a future Design Code, and require design of development to adhere to the extant Design Code.

Vulcan remains content with the wording the policy relating to achieving well-designed places (now Policy SDS5, formerly SDS4).