Sandwell Local Plan - Reg 19 Publication

Part 2 of Policy SHO3 requires new schemes of 10 homes or more to achieve the densities and accessibility standards set out in Table 6 ‘Minimum Housing Densities and Accessibility’. However, given the limited land available for development in Sandwell, these requirements are considered to be overly prescriptive. The policy should acknowledge that site specific circumstances, housing mix and design approach (including in relation to public realm and car parking), will inform the appropriate density for a site. Some sites which can deliver a significant amount of high quality residential development may not meet the specific accessibility standards set out in Table 6 but are still appropriate residential sites

Policy SHO3(2) 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 SHO3 requires new schemes of 10 homes or more to achieve the densities and accessibility standards set out in Table 6 ‘Minimum Housing Densities and Accessibility’. However, given the limited land available for development in Sandwell, these requirements are considered to be overly prescriptive. The policy should acknowledge that site specific circumstances, housing mix and design approach (including in relation to public realm and car parking), will inform the appropriate density for a site. Some sites which can deliver a significant amount of high quality residential development may not meet the specific accessibility standards set out in Table 6 but are still appropriate residential sites.

It is noted that NPPF paragraph 124 seeks out a range of factors which should be taken into account in demonstrating efficient use of land. Policy SHO3 should be sufficiently flexible to enable these to be accommodated. The use of minimum densities across the Plan area is not required by the NPPF.

While the policy refers to affordable housing being provided ‘where financially viable’. It is considered that the following wording revision to policy is required for clarity:

2. All developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing on site where this is financially viable. Only in exceptional circumstances would a commuted sum be acceptable instead of on-site provision. Smaller sites, which could reasonably be expected to form part of a major development in the future, will also need to take this policy into account. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided, subject to financial viability, is……

In light of the need to redevelop brownfield sites and the expected higher development costs, it is considered that Part 2a. should states ‘On all sites in a lower zone and brownfield sites in medium and higher value areas – 10% affordable housing’.

Policy SHO4 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.

While the policy refers to affordable housing being provided ‘where financially viable’. It is considered that the following wording revision to policy is required for clarity:

2. All developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing on site where this is financially viable. Only in exceptional circumstances would a commuted sum be acceptable instead of on-site provision. Smaller sites, which could reasonably be expected to form part of a major development in the future, will also need to take this policy into account. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided, subject to financial viability, is……

Additionally, it is noted that policy SHO4 has been revised to set out that on all sites in higher value areas, 25% affordable housing should be provided, whether they are greenfield sites or brownfield sites.
The evidence set out in the Local Plan Viability Report which concludes that in higher value areas brownfield sites can provide 25% affordable housing is questioned. A range of necessary remediation works and associated costs may result from developing brownfield sites and will be specific to the circumstance of each site. This uncertainty in relation to costs needs to be factored into the rationale for the policy and the supporting viability evidence.

Policy should encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites as a priority. In doing so it needs to acknowledge that sites such as the Edwin Richards Quarry, in their current condition, are brownfield sites which can delivery significant amounts of development but also have unique abnormal development costs in relation to issues such as ground stability and foundation design.

At present the Local Plan Viability Addendum (Sept. 2024) assesses the viability of 9no. brownfield sites in the high value area. Of those sites only one is close to the size of the Edwin Richard Quarry site, at 350 units. All of the high value brownfield sites are found to be either marginally viable or not viable at all when tested against 25% affordable housing delivery under the ‘worst case’ scenario, which is fully policy-compliant and ‘represents a more conservative approach, designed to test the robustness of the Local Plan under challenging conditions’ (paragraph 6.68). The ‘pragmatic’ scenario shows more of the tested sites being viable, although this is based on reduced building costs and it is unclear what quantum of abnormal costs has been factored in.

In light of the need to redevelop brownfield sites and the expected higher development costs, it is considered that Part 2a. should states ‘On all sites in a lower zone and brownfield sites in medium and higher value areas – 10% affordable housing’.

The provision of self or custom build plots should be the subject of discussion with those who have expressed an interest, and once the Council has an understanding of the type and range of sites that are sought, allocations (for example in the form of clusters) could be identified for self and custom build opportunities within Sandwell or such sites can alternatively come forward within the windfall allowance.

Policy SHO5(2-5) 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.

Parts 2-5 of Policy SHO5 state that on developments of 100 homes or more, where there is currently a demand for self-build and custom build plots (defined as the number of entries added to the self-build and custom build register in the most recent base period for the local authority where the site is located), at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match demand if lower.

Sandwell Council has not provided sufficient evidence to support the requirements set out in Part 2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) sets out ways in which the Council should consider supporting self and custom build which includes: developing policies in their Local Plan for self-build and custom housebuilding and “engaging with landowners who own sites that are suitable for housing and encouraging them to consider self-build and custom housebuilding” [Savills emphasis]. There is no requirement in the PPG for self or custom build plots to be provided as part of allocations and landowners should only be ‘encouraged to consider’ promoting their land for self and custom build housing.

The policy does refer to this being a requirement only where there is a demand through the self-build and custom build register. However, it is highlighted that the register does not test whether people have the means to acquire the land and privately construct their own property. There are also practical issues to consider in providing self and custom building housing plots on an allocated site. For example, the day to day operation of such sites and consideration of potential health and safety issues of having multiple individual construction sites within one development. It is also necessary to understand what approach Sandwell Council is expecting self-build projects to take where a site being brought forward by a national housebuilder is the subject of a design code.

The provision of self or custom build plots should be the subject of discussion with those who have expressed an interest, and once the Council has an understanding of the type and range of sites that are sought, allocations (for example in the form of clusters) could be identified for self and custom build opportunities within Sandwell or such sites can alternatively come forward within the windfall allowance.

It is considered that a flexible approach to the application of NDSS should be included in policy, to ensure that high quality homes of various sizes and costs can be brought forward across Sandwell and that best use is made of land available.

Policy SDM2 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.

Part 1 of Policy SDM2 states that new residential development (including the conversion of buildings) will be required to meet the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS), except where it can be clearly evidenced that the implementation of the NDSS would cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset.

As set out in NPPF para 130 (part f) and footnote 49, “policies may also make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space standard can be justified”. The need for a policy which requires all new homes to be NDSS compliant should therefore be supported by an up to date evidence base, demonstrating the need for the policy, the implications on housing delivery and viability, and the timing of when such a requirement should be brought in. This has not been produced to support Policy SDM2.

It is considered that a flexible approach to the application of NDSS should be included in policy, to ensure that high quality homes of various sizes and costs can be brought forward across Sandwell and that best use is made of land available.