Sandwell Local Plan - Reg 19 Publication

Instead of imposing significant canopy cover and replacement planting requirements, we consider that the Policy should encourage new and replacement tree planting to be delivered within development sites but, for the submitted landscaping information to demonstrate why the proposed tree planting scheme is considered to be suitable for the site in question. It should not be the role of new development sites to remedy deficiencies in tree cover elsewhere within the Borough. It is also noted that the evidence base does not consider the impact of the proposed tree planting requirements on the masterplanning and capacity of housing sites.

If the proposed tree canopy and tree replacement requirements are to be retained in this policy then reference should be included to clarify that additional planting can be deliverable in the application site and / or other adjacent land in the ownership or control of the applicant (e.g. blue line land). While not mitigating for the concerns raised above, such a an approach may assist with the provision of additional trees in the area.

Policy SNE2(7) is not considered to be sound, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF, because its requirements are not justified by appropriate information or evidence setting out how it will effectively help to deliver development.

Part 7 of Policy SNE2 states that all development should help deliver the Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy in line with the with the principles set out. Further clarity on the role and implementation of the Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy is requested at the Regulation 18 consultation stage, because the implications for development coming forward in Sandwell are unclear at this point. The Regulation 19 consultation document does not include any additional clarification in relation to how all development should help deliver the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Policy SNE3- Provision, Retention and Protection of Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows
Policy SNE3 is not considered to be sound, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF, because its requirements are not justified by appropriate evidence and the current wording is not effective in relation to the negative impacts the policy requirements will have on the deliverability of future sustainable development.

Part 9 of Policy SNE3 states that 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.
Although FCC Environment supports the principle of providing tree cover as part of new development the requirements set out in Policy SNE3 are not considered to be sound. Firstly, it is unclear how this canopy cover requirement will be calculated across the site and how this can be deliverable for residential sites which will include private gardens where there is limited / no control on what is planted or removed unless the site is within a Conservation Area. There may also be further controls over what tree species can be plant alongside adoptable roads.
Additionally, we consider that this requirement, in combination with others proposed in the plan (e.g. 3 to 1 replacement tree planting) and the mandatory requirement for the delivery of 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG) will have serious implications on the net developable area of housing sites. On the basis that Sandwell cannot currently meet its identified housing needs, this proposed policy requirement may result in an even greater housing shortfall and additional sites will be required to meet that shortfall.

The tree planting requirements may also impact on a scheme’s ability to effectively provide 10% BNG on site. A basic requirement of BNG is that any habitat affected within the development boundary shall be replaced on a ‘like for like’ or ‘like for better’ principle. The proposed requirement for 20% canopy cover could greatly limit the space available within a site for the delivery of other specific types of biodiversity habitats that are needed to provide a 10% gain. This will further negatively impact on the net developable area of housing sites.

Part 12 states that for every tree removed from a development site, a minimum of three replacement trees will be required to be planted. It is unclear how this will work with Point 10 which seeks to require large canopy trees and which would therefore limit the number of trees that could be delivered across a site. This accordingly raises concerns in relation to the effectiveness of this policy. We consider that trees which have been assessed as low quality (Category C and U) should not be afforded the same weight as higher quality trees and similarly, should not be required to be mitigated by a ratio of 3 to 1. Additionally, this is a significant replanting figure and we consider it will have implications of the net developable area of a site which in turn could impact on the potential yield of housing allocation sites.

Instead of imposing significant canopy cover and replacement planting requirements, we consider that the Policy should encourage new and replacement tree planting to be delivered within development sites but, for the submitted landscaping information to demonstrate why the proposed tree planting scheme is considered to be suitable for the site in question. It should not be the role of new development sites to remedy deficiencies in tree cover elsewhere within the Borough. It is also noted that the evidence base does not consider the impact of the proposed tree planting requirements on the masterplanning and capacity of housing sites.

If the proposed tree canopy and tree replacement requirements are to be retained in this policy then reference should be included to clarify that additional planting can be deliverable in the application site and / or other adjacent land in the ownership or control of the applicant (e.g. blue line land). While not mitigating for the concerns raised above, such a an approach may assist with the provision of additional trees in the area.

Given the challenge explored in national policy development between balancing considerations of energy efficiency, cost (in different stages of a building’s lifecycle) and housing supply, we do not consider it sound for policy SCC1 to in effect explicitly seek to pre-empt the FHS and lock in options that are still being consulted on and evaluated at a national level. The following changes are proposed to make this policy sound:

1. SCC1(1)(a) and (b): this Policy should be worded such that it only applies until the FHS (as expressed through amendments to Part L of the Building Regulations) is introduced. Thereafter, the FHS and Building Regulations should apply.
2. SCC1(1)(c): this Policy should be expressed in terms of positive weight (for exemplar developments) rather than as a matter of minimum compliance, i.e. taking a similar approach to SCC(2)(a).

FCC Environment is supportive of the climate change mitigation goals of Local Plan policies. The Edwin Richards Quarry site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver a significant amount of housing which is sustainable and which meets the expected forthcoming Future Homes Standard (FHS) when introduced through Building Regulations updates.

However, there are specific aspects of the draft policy wording that we do not consider are sound, on the basis of the evidence presented and/or the position with respect to national policy.

It is noted that the justification for the Target Emission Rates (TER) and Target Fabric Energy Efficiency (TFEE) requirements in SCC1(a)-(c) rests in part upon a statement that this policy “protects against the FHS [Future Homes Standard] being withdrawn…, watered down or delayed beyond its purported 2025 introduction date…” (Evidence Base Report Output 3a Appendix , Table 1).

Secondly, whilst the proposed TER is broadly consistent with the FHS proposals consulted on by the government in December 2023, the justification and explanation for the additional TFEE requirements indicates that this is intended to further constrain developers such that the FHS TER (or local policy TER) performance standard cannot be met only through use of heat pumps or solar PV.

The government’s FHS consultation included two options for the notional building, with heat pumps and with or without PV, and did not propose the TFEE uplifts. The government’s consultation noted that there are considerations of up-front build cost to be balanced against operational bills, which may therefore affect overall housing supply. It has taken evidence on this through the consultation. Publication of an adopted FHS with building regulations amendments is pending.

Policy SCC1(3)(d) should therefore be worded only to require major developments to consider the suitability, feasibility and viability of connection to a decentralised heat or energy network, taking into account the lifecycle carbon intensity of doing so, rather than having a default position of a general expectation to connect to such a network.

As we noted in our Regulation 18 stage submission, whilst heating networks may have the potential to serve very high density development (e.g. town centre apartment schemes), they are not always effective or viable, particularly for housing development. From Savills experience and based on a review of implemented schemes, district heating in many cases can be inefficient because heat is lost (up to 50%) when transferring to the dwellings / users. There are also significant disbenefits to the end-users of heat networks, because they will be locked into one energy source, without the ability to change supplier.

Policy (3)(d) states a “general expectation to pursue a connection” to an “existing or imminently planned network”, which may be waived subject to tests set out in the policy. This general expectation to connect remains unsupported by evidence in the Cost Appendix, Table 1, which discusses only the reasons for prohibiting connection to the gas grid, and does not engage with the feasibility, viability or efficiency of district heating networks.
Particularly in the case of an “imminently planned” network, there can be no surety over the delivery or timing of such a network; and in the interim, this could leave new residential development without a viable energy supply or forced to revert to less-efficient solutions, effectively holding housing delivery to ransom. In this and cases of ‘under-development’ networks, it also raises the risk of requiring fossil-fuelled interim solutions, as is seen currently with temporary gas-fired energy centres being required for Bristol’s heat network.

Furthermore, Policy 3(a) conflicts with the remainder of this Policy. It states that the use of fossil fuels will not be considered acceptable. However, the remainder of the Policy supports connections to heat networks that are likely to include direct or indirect fossil fuel use (e.g. “industrial uses, data centres, … energy from waste”).

The evidence base for the requirement in Policy 4(a) to provide 39% of residual regulated energy through on-site renewable energy is explicitly based on maximising developer spending on solar PV within the assumed viability budget (Cost Appendix, Table 1), rather than a lifecycle-based evaluation of the optimum low-carbon energy supply to a proposed development, which may vary. As noted above, the government has consulted on options for the FHS as to whether inclusion of solar PV (40% of ground floor area – a different metric) should form part of the FHS notional building.

Solar PV provision at scale is subject not only to cost, available roof space and shading considerations, but also to the grid connection capacity available from the Distribution Network Operator. This is because the peak of generation will not typically match the peak of demand and it is necessary for electricity to also be exported (at least to a degree, considering the relatively high cost and lifecycle carbon intensity of household-scale battery storage systems).

The viability tests of 4(c) and (d) are therefore crucial. Whilst 4(c) is considered sound overall, it is not clear whether 4(d) sits within the test of 4(c) – i.e. whether the “technical reasons” of 4(d) constitute factors meaning the 39% is not “feasible or viable” and therefore whether the fallback >35 kWh/m2 requirement of 4(d) is equally subject to the “to the greatest extent feasible and viable” proviso of 4(c). This should be the case, as the Evidence Base indicates that 35 kWh/m2 is intended to be the equivalent of the 39% target, so should be subject to the same consideration of feasibility and viability, not an alternative/fallback standard. A rewording and consolidation of these two policies is therefore requested.

Footnote 116 should also be amended to make clear that other exceptional circumstances may also apply, such as those related to grid connection capacity, which are not fully within a developer’s control.

Policy 4(e) is not considered sound because it does not account for the difference in PV viability between low- and higher-rise building types in a development. As acknowledged in the evidence base for SCC1(5), on a higher-rise building, there is less roof space to provide PV relative to the number of residential units and energy demand of occupants; and roof space may also need to contribute to BNG. This is recognised in the FHS consultation, where different requirements are set for blocks of flats. As currently worded, in cases where a mixture of houses and higher-density blocks of flats are combined in a development, 4(e) could be interpreted as requiring that any shortfall in the PV provision on flats would need to be supplied from additional PV on the roofs of “other units” in the development (i.e. houses) – in effect requiring a either a private network / private wire agreement between them, or higher capacity to store or export electricity from the houses, financially benefiting one group of owners/tenants over another. Viability of PV should be considered on a per-building basis and while it may be possible to utilise other space on a site for PV (in line with policy 4(f)), any shortfall on one “unit” should not be required to be made up on another “unit” that will be under different private ownership.

The evidence base for the requirement in Policy 4(a) to provide 39% of residual regulated energy through on-site renewable energy is explicitly based on maximising developer spending on solar PV within the assumed viability budget (Cost Appendix, Table 1), rather than a lifecycle-based evaluation of the optimum low-carbon energy supply to a proposed development, which may vary. As noted above, the government has consulted on options for the FHS as to whether inclusion of solar PV (40% of ground floor area – a different metric) should form part of the FHS notional building.

Solar PV provision at scale is subject not only to cost, available roof space and shading considerations, but also to the grid connection capacity available from the Distribution Network Operator. This is because the peak of generation will not typically match the peak of demand and it is necessary for electricity to also be exported (at least to a degree, considering the relatively high cost and lifecycle carbon intensity of household-scale battery storage systems).

The viability tests of 4(c) and (d) are therefore crucial. Whilst 4(c) is considered sound overall, it is not clear whether 4(d) sits within the test of 4(c) – i.e. whether the “technical reasons” of 4(d) constitute factors meaning the 39% is not “feasible or viable” and therefore whether the fallback >35 kWh/m2 requirement of 4(d) is equally subject to the “to the greatest extent feasible and viable” proviso of 4(c). This should be the case, as the Evidence Base indicates that 35 kWh/m2 is intended to be the equivalent of the 39% target, so should be subject to the same consideration of feasibility and viability, not an alternative/fallback standard. A rewording and consolidation of these two policies is therefore requested.

Footnote 116 should also be amended to make clear that other exceptional circumstances may also apply, such as those related to grid connection capacity, which are not fully within a developer’s control.

Policy 4(e) is not considered sound because it does not account for the difference in PV viability between low- and higher-rise building types in a development. As acknowledged in the evidence base for SCC1(5), on a higher-rise building, there is less roof space to provide PV relative to the number of residential units and energy demand of occupants; and roof space may also need to contribute to BNG. This is recognised in the FHS consultation, where different requirements are set for blocks of flats. As currently worded, in cases where a mixture of houses and higher-density blocks of flats are combined in a development, 4(e) could be interpreted as requiring that any shortfall in the PV provision on flats would need to be supplied from additional PV on the roofs of “other units” in the development (i.e. houses) – in effect requiring a either a private network / private wire agreement between them, or higher capacity to store or export electricity from the houses, financially benefiting one group of owners/tenants over another. Viability of PV should be considered on a per-building basis and while it may be possible to utilise other space on a site for PV (in line with policy 4(f)), any shortfall on one “unit” should not be required to be made up on another “unit” that will be under different private ownership.

Policy SCC1(5) requires s.106 developer payments into a local authority-administered renewable energy offset fund where the preceding policy requirements concerning on-site renewables are not met. As such the comments made in relation to SCC1(4) on tests of viability are equally applicable to SCC1(5).

If this requirement were accepted in principle, there remain problems with the evidence used to derive the £1.37/kWh (this is understood to be annual kWh, i.e. a single up-front offset payment for one year’s kWh shortfall; the supporting text could make this clearer) figure in the policy.

Firstly, based on the Evidence Base Report and Savills experience, this policy appears to break new ground in requiring an energy-based rather than carbon-based offset price. A similar approach and figure was considered among options in a study for several London Boroughs (https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/delivering_net_zero_-_main_report.pdf) but is not adopted policy. Careful attention to it is required.

The price has been calculated based on costs published by the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) based on data from the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) for installations of 10-50 kWp capacity. As the name suggests, these are very small (e.g. single rooftop scale) installations. It is reasonable to consider whether a centralised, local authority-administered scheme would be likely to pool contributions to develop larger installations with economies of scale. This likelihood is discussed in the Evidence Base Report. It states (Cost Appendix, Table 1, page 6) that “it is assumed that the Council’s delivered projects will use funds pooled from multiple contributions, allowing economies of scale to be achieved”. It notes that the cost for >10 kWp installations, still from the MCE data, is much lower at £0.98/kWh. This implies a 40% margin to the local authority from such developer contributions may be realised. The Evidence Base states that this would “provide room” for administrative costs but there is no specific evidence given as to the scale of those costs, and a 40% margin is much greater than any reasonable scheme administration cost.

Furthermore, administration costs are being double-counted in the Evidence Base. Output 4 - Offsetting Appendix , page 12, shows that the £1.37/kWh figure is actually calculated from £1.24/kWh plus a 10% margin for administration and delivery. This means the £1.37/kWh already includes an allowance for the overhead. It is also noted that the Cost Appendix (Output 4 – Offsetting. Rev 1. 6 August 2024), Table 1 at one point states “The cost of £1.35/kWh used in the calculation…” [of cost for policy SCC1(5); emphasis added]. This slightly lower figure may be a typographical error or may indicate that a different number was erroneously used in viability calculations.

It is not clear that microgeneration-scale costs are the correct benchmark for a centrally-administered energy offset scheme which is likely to develop larger installations. Based on the data in the DESNZ levelised cost of energy report for energy generation technologies in 2023 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed400148b99fe/electricity-generation-costs-2023.pdf), Tables 2 and 3, the cost of solar PV and onshore wind can be calculated as £0.24/kWh and £0.64/kWh respectively, expressed in the same way as the Sandwell cost. These are projected by DESNZ to decrease further in future. Given the range of costs depending on scale of installation, the £1.37/kWh figure appears to represent the high end, and the viability of requiring lower figures has not been fully considered.

Besides assuming microgeneration-scale schemes, the approach taken to the cost in policy SCC1(5) also effectively assumes a lock-in to solar PV in the Council’s energy offsetting portfolio. With recent national policy changes, onshore wind may also be viable and have lower cost than microgeneration-scale solar PV.

Finally, the Sandwell Local Plan does not appear to have given consideration to developing a Local Area Energy Plan (LAEP) nor to integrating in the future with a Regional Energy Strategic Plan (RESP). The LAEP framework, as used by other authorities such as Peterborough City Council ( https://democracy.peterborough.gov.uk/documents/s48237/6.%20Appendix%201%20Peterborough%20Local%20Area%20Energy%20Plan.pdf) , sets an evidence-based approach to energy projects within a local authority to meet decarbonisation goals. Ofgem’s forthcoming RESP framework provides a regional Strategic Board (made up of local and devolved government and network company representatives) to plan for the energy system co-operatively. These processes, including the regional co-operation between neighbouring authorities that they favour, are material to how any energy offsetting fund administered by Sandwell can most cost-efficiently meet its goals, and therefore to the price set for s.106 contributions in this regard.

Policy SCC1(5) requires s.106 developer payments into a local authority-administered renewable energy offset fund where the preceding policy requirements concerning on-site renewables are not met. As such the comments made in relation to SCC1(4) on tests of viability are equally applicable to SCC1(5).

If this requirement were accepted in principle, there remain problems with the evidence used to derive the £1.37/kWh (this is understood to be annual kWh, i.e. a single up-front offset payment for one year’s kWh shortfall; the supporting text could make this clearer) figure in the policy.

Firstly, based on the Evidence Base Report and Savills experience, this policy appears to break new ground in requiring an energy-based rather than carbon-based offset price. A similar approach and figure was considered among options in a study for several London Boroughs (https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/delivering_net_zero_-_main_report.pdf) but is not adopted policy. Careful attention to it is required.

The price has been calculated based on costs published by the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) based on data from the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) for installations of 10-50 kWp capacity. As the name suggests, these are very small (e.g. single rooftop scale) installations. It is reasonable to consider whether a centralised, local authority-administered scheme would be likely to pool contributions to develop larger installations with economies of scale. This likelihood is discussed in the Evidence Base Report. It states (Cost Appendix, Table 1, page 6) that “it is assumed that the Council’s delivered projects will use funds pooled from multiple contributions, allowing economies of scale to be achieved”. It notes that the cost for >10 kWp installations, still from the MCE data, is much lower at £0.98/kWh. This implies a 40% margin to the local authority from such developer contributions may be realised. The Evidence Base states that this would “provide room” for administrative costs but there is no specific evidence given as to the scale of those costs, and a 40% margin is much greater than any reasonable scheme administration cost.

Furthermore, administration costs are being double-counted in the Evidence Base. Output 4 - Offsetting Appendix , page 12, shows that the £1.37/kWh figure is actually calculated from £1.24/kWh plus a 10% margin for administration and delivery. This means the £1.37/kWh already includes an allowance for the overhead. It is also noted that the Cost Appendix (Output 4 – Offsetting. Rev 1. 6 August 2024), Table 1 at one point states “The cost of £1.35/kWh used in the calculation…” [of cost for policy SCC1(5); emphasis added]. This slightly lower figure may be a typographical error or may indicate that a different number was erroneously used in viability calculations.

It is not clear that microgeneration-scale costs are the correct benchmark for a centrally-administered energy offset scheme which is likely to develop larger installations. Based on the data in the DESNZ levelised cost of energy report for energy generation technologies in 2023 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6556027d046ed400148b99fe/electricity-generation-costs-2023.pdf), Tables 2 and 3, the cost of solar PV and onshore wind can be calculated as £0.24/kWh and £0.64/kWh respectively, expressed in the same way as the Sandwell cost. These are projected by DESNZ to decrease further in future. Given the range of costs depending on scale of installation, the £1.37/kWh figure appears to represent the high end, and the viability of requiring lower figures has not been fully considered.

Besides assuming microgeneration-scale schemes, the approach taken to the cost in policy SCC1(5) also effectively assumes a lock-in to solar PV in the Council’s energy offsetting portfolio. With recent national policy changes, onshore wind may also be viable and have lower cost than microgeneration-scale solar PV.

Finally, the Sandwell Local Plan does not appear to have given consideration to developing a Local Area Energy Plan (LAEP) nor to integrating in the future with a Regional Energy Strategic Plan (RESP). The LAEP framework, as used by other authorities such as Peterborough City Council ( https://democracy.peterborough.gov.uk/documents/s48237/6.%20Appendix%201%20Peterborough%20Local%20Area%20Energy%20Plan.pdf) , sets an evidence-based approach to energy projects within a local authority to meet decarbonisation goals. Ofgem’s forthcoming RESP framework provides a regional Strategic Board (made up of local and devolved government and network company representatives) to plan for the energy system co-operatively. These processes, including the regional co-operation between neighbouring authorities that they favour, are material to how any energy offsetting fund administered by Sandwell can most cost-efficiently meet its goals, and therefore to the price set for s.106 contributions in this regard.

All of the above points raised in our representations to Policy SSC1 need to be addressed to ensure that the policy is justified, effective and consistent with national policy, in accordance with the requirements of a ‘sound’ local plan, as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It is essential that the policy requirements are based on proportionate evidence, are deliverable over the plan period and enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy. At present this is not the case for the reasons detailed.

The justification text for this policy (paragraph 5.32) prescriptively lists three methods and states that alternatives proposed by an applicant will be subject to consideration by the Council on evidence-based merits. However, as these are guidance and certification documents in an emerging field (not specified calculation methodologies to establish a particular performance figure for policy compliance), the prescription of particular methods (with Council approval required for alternatives) is not considered necessary or reasonable. There is no evidence given as to the costs of each method in the Evidence Base, which merely states “not expected to create a significant additional amount of cost”. However, certification standards such as PassivHaus (one of those listed) go well beyond the requirement of SCC1(6) and are likely to incur material costs both to compliance and certification.

Overall, all of the above points raised in our representations to Policy SSC1 need to be addressed to ensure that the policy is justified, effective and consistent with national policy, in accordance with the requirements of a ‘sound’ local plan, as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It is essential that the policy requirements are based on proportionate evidence, are deliverable over the plan period and enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy. At present this is not the case for the reasons detailed.

This policy specifies that the national building regulations Part O simplified method is not considered acceptable, and requires additional CIBSE TM59 thermal modelling. There is no clear justification or viability assessment in the Evidence Base Report for why the nationally-accepted method is considered unacceptable in all cases for major development. TM59 thermal modelling is a more onerous exercise. As part of the FHS consultation referenced above, the government has also requested comments on the existing Part O methods ahead of a potential revision to Part O. As such it is not considered justified for the policy to exceed the national requirement in this case, particularly as the national requirement is under revision.

Policy SSC3(4) is not considered to be sound because its requirements are not justified by appropriate evidence.

This policy specifies that the national building regulations Part O simplified method is not considered acceptable, and requires additional CIBSE TM59 thermal modelling. There is no clear justification or viability assessment in the Evidence Base Report for why the nationally-accepted method is considered unacceptable in all cases for major development. TM59 thermal modelling is a more onerous exercise. As part of the FHS consultation referenced above, the government has also requested comments on the existing Part O methods ahead of a potential revision to Part O. As such it is not considered justified for the policy to exceed the national requirement in this case, particularly as the national requirement is under revision.

Policy SSC4 is not considered to be sound, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF, because its requirements are not justified by appropriate evidence and the current wording is not effective in relation to enabling the deliverability of future sustainable development.

SCC4(1) Embodied carbon reporting - This policy prescribes the use of RICS Whole Life Carbon Assessment guidance without specifying a particular version or publication. Whilst the RICS guidance (2nd Edition, Version 3, August 2024) is one example of good practice for this type of assessment, there are others in use such as the GLA’s whole life carbon guidance or the UK Green Building Council’s guidance ; and over the life of the Local Plan, other guidance may be published and come to be widely used. It would be more appropriate to reference an approach compliant with the underlying BS EN 15978 standard rather than a particular guidance document.

Secondly, it is usually not meaningfully possible to complete a detailed Whole Life Carbon assessment at the outline planning stage. Whilst the typical structure of assessment put forward by RICS and others can be followed, much information will be unavailable or require generic assumptions at the outline stage, and full compliance with the RICS standard is not likely to be feasible. The GLA guidance recognises this with two stages of assessment for outline and detailed design.

The wording of policy SCC4(1) should therefore allow for a two-stage approach between outline planning and reserved matters (with level of detail appropriate to each) or require the WLC assessment only for full planning / reserved matters applications.

SCC4(4) Demolition audits - This policy requires a minimum size threshold for demolished buildings/structures to be reasonable. A full pre-demolition audit following BRE guidance for, e.g., a small section or wall or outbuilding on a site would not be reasonable or beneficial. Policy wording requiring consideration to be given to materials re-use in such cases, without a full audit, is requested.

Policy SSC4 is not considered to be sound, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF, because its requirements are not justified by appropriate evidence and the current wording is not effective in relation to enabling the deliverability of future sustainable development.

SCC4(1) Embodied carbon reporting - This policy prescribes the use of RICS Whole Life Carbon Assessment guidance without specifying a particular version or publication. Whilst the RICS guidance (2nd Edition, Version 3, August 2024) is one example of good practice for this type of assessment, there are others in use such as the GLA’s whole life carbon guidance or the UK Green Building Council’s guidance ; and over the life of the Local Plan, other guidance may be published and come to be widely used. It would be more appropriate to reference an approach compliant with the underlying BS EN 15978 standard rather than a particular guidance document.

Secondly, it is usually not meaningfully possible to complete a detailed Whole Life Carbon assessment at the outline planning stage. Whilst the typical structure of assessment put forward by RICS and others can be followed, much information will be unavailable or require generic assumptions at the outline stage, and full compliance with the RICS standard is not likely to be feasible. The GLA guidance recognises this with two stages of assessment for outline and detailed design.

The wording of policy SCC4(1) should therefore allow for a two-stage approach between outline planning and reserved matters (with level of detail appropriate to each) or require the WLC assessment only for full planning / reserved matters applications.

SCC4(4) Demolition audits - This policy requires a minimum size threshold for demolished buildings/structures to be reasonable. A full pre-demolition audit following BRE guidance for, e.g., a small section or wall or outbuilding on a site would not be reasonable or beneficial. Policy wording requiring consideration to be given to materials re-use in such cases, without a full audit, is requested.

It is noted that SHW4 includes wording that states that where the required provision of open space on-site would make the development unviable or where there is no physical capacity to include it, the Council will accept a commuted sum for nearby off-site provision in lieu, or for the improvement of existing facilities within walking distance. Whilst acknowledgement is welcomed that some sites may not be able to physically provide a policy compliant level of onsite open space, the requirement for a financial contribution towards off-site site provision should also be subject to a viability test

Additionally, the ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population, set out in the policy needs to be supported by clear evidence. The Draft Green Spaces Strategy Implementation and Business Plan 22/23 – 25/26 notes that ‘Sandwell Borough has significant amounts of green space, which make up nearly 24% of the total land area’ (paragraph 3.3). As such there should be scope for flexibility to ensure that residential schemes can come forward with a flexible approach to open space provision when required.

Policy SHW4 is not considered to be sound, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF, as its requirements are not justified by appropriate evidence and the current wording is not effective in relation to enabling the deliverability of future sustainable development.

Part 2 of Policy SHW4 states that on new housing sites of 2ha or over, new unrestricted open space at a minimum ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population will be required, and that the open space will be provided on site.

It is agreed that new developments should have access to sufficient open space to serve the needs of its future residents. Such open space could be provided on site or in the surrounding area. The amount and type of additional open space required should also be related on to the provision and quality of existing open space near to the site. However, it is highlighted that, due to the constrained urban nature of Sandwell, flexibility will be required in relation to the provision of open space within new developments. The pressing need for new homes will have to be balanced against the amount of open space required for such development. The quality of open space, as opposed to simply the quantity, should be a key factor when considering proposals for new housing development. As such, whilst FCC Environment acknowledges the importance of providing open space for the residents of Sandwell, numerical standards should not be set in policy without the policy wording containing sufficient flexibility to take into account the specific characteristics of individual sites and schemes.

It is noted that SHW4 includes wording that states that where the required provision of open space on-site would make the development unviable or where there is no physical capacity to include it, the Council will accept a commuted sum for nearby off-site provision in lieu, or for the improvement of existing facilities within walking distance. Whilst acknowledgement is welcomed that some sites may not be able to physically provide a policy compliant level of onsite open space, the requirement for a financial contribution towards off-site site provision should also be subject to a viability test

Additionally, the ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population, set out in the policy needs to be supported by clear evidence. The Draft Green Spaces Strategy Implementation and Business Plan 22/23 – 25/26 notes that ‘Sandwell Borough has significant amounts of green space, which make up nearly 24% of the total land area’ (paragraph 3.3). As such there should be scope for flexibility to ensure that residential schemes can come forward with a flexible approach to open space provision when required.

It is noted that Sandwell Council needs to identify land for 26,350 homes by 2041. However, as set out in Policy SHO1 the supply of suitable residential land identified by Sandwell Council stands at 10,434 homes, leaving an unmet need for 15,916 homes in the Plan period.

However, the draft plan recognises that there is a finite supply of land readily available for development in Sandwell Borough and it is very likely that it would not currently be possible to meet the full extent of the Sandwell Borough housing need within the Sandwell Council administrative area. In light of this it is essential that Sandwell Council makes the best use of the land which is available in the Borough. The Edwin Richards Quarry (ERQ) site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver a significant amount of housing, within the next Local Plan period and into the subsequent Local Plan period.

In relation to the housing allocations proposed, the inclusion of ERQ (site ref. SH37) is strongly supported. The proposed allocation suggests a capacity of c.526 dwellings in the Plan period; with a further c.100 dwellings in the post-Plan period (total site capacity c.626 dwellings). It is noted that this quantum includes the reserved matters planning permission (ref. DC/23/67924) for 278 dwellings in the western area of the ERQ site.

This proposed quantum of development at ERQ set out in the draft allocation is considered to be sensible, conservative and achievable at this time. There is also the potential for further housing, over and above the 626 dwelling figure to come forward on site during and / or beyond the Plan period. The final capacity of the site will be dependent on the restoration programme for the site, the speed of infilling and detailed masterplanning.

It is also noted that a battery energy storage system facility is proposed on site, with installation expected in 2025 (see screening opinion DC/23/68263). This is likely to be operational on site until circa 2055. The presence of the battery energy storage system is not anticipated to preclude the delivery of the identified c. 526 dwellings during the Local Plan period. The location of the battery energy storage system will be taken into account as part of the planning and delivery of the final phases of residential development.

The current quarry void has approximately 5.1 million metres cubed of capacity until it is filled with soils and similar non-putrescible materials. Using a cubed density of 1.5 results in a remaining infill tonnage of 7.65 million tonnes of material (soil). Over past years the infill rates have varied as would be expected for a commercial operation of this type not backed by long term guaranteed contacts. As such the annual quantum of fill may vary but realistically the quarry could be filled within 12.75 years subject to annual inputs of circa 600,000te. This represents a reasonable assumption, but it should however be noted that this cannot be guaranteed and the landfill completion, may ultimately take longer if less materials is available than currently expected.

On the basis that FCC Environment cannot guarantee the rate of material to be deposited on site each year, two trajectories are provided to show potential build out rates on site based on differing rates of landfill.

Trajectory v3.1 predicts the landfill operations ceasing by 2033, assuming c.800,000 tonnes entering site on average a year. While a fill rate of c.1 million tonnes has been achieved in a year previously it is at the higher level of fill expected, 800,000 tonnes is considered a more realistic rate. This would thus allow residential development to commence on phases 7-9 in 9.6 years equating to 2034 (assuming that the necessary planning permission is secured during the early 2030s). While this level of fill is unlikely over a sustained number of years. the trajectory shows how on this basis the site could potentially be built out during the Plan period.

Trajectory v3.2 demonstrates the implications of a reduced rate of fill (c.600,000 tonnes per year for 12.75 years) and shows that it would still be possible to achieve 526 dwellings in the Plan period whilst retaining a reasonable and deliverable assumption of 40-45 dwellings completed per year. We would highlight that in Savills experience, in recent years some developers have been achieving 50+ completions per year on a single site.