Sandwell Local Plan Main Modifications Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 1756

Received: 30/03/2026

Respondent: Friends of Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

We wish to underline our opposition to this proposed site now considered a "strategic site", formerly SH35 and SH36 which we believe to be fundamentally flawed and unsound and also not legally compliant.

Representations have been made by us and on behalf of local residents of Temple Way estate at every part of this process and that opposition expressed as a petition, continues with this proposed MM81 and policy SSH3. The rattlechain lagoon is still subject to environmental permitting under The Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016 , a legal constraint, that has not been assessed or commented upon by
the environment agency or the current site owners, it is not subject to compulsory purchase and yet Sandwell council have ignored this throughout, making this policy ridiculous and also their plan which hinges upon housing figures being delivered by 2041 unsound and not justified and not effective . We have outlined the real constraints of this policy in the attached document "rattlechain site constraints, theory vs reality."
The council appear to have shifted from their erroneous position of this site being "brownfield" which it is irrefutably not, now calling it "greenfield".

The council failed to address why this site had not been considered as strategic open space or what appraisal had dismissed this. The policy has not addressed key statements and concerns that were made during the hearing sessions , and nor is it consistent with NPPF Dec 23 paragraphs 191,
2024 NPPF removes the 4-year carve-out language present in 2023. Additional 20% buffer introduced post-2026.
Implication:
If strategic sites stall, speculative development exposure increases.
Issues:
• No revisiting of SSH3 alternatives at Main Mods stage.
• Corridor-level cumulative ecological assessment not evident.
• “Appears predominantly greenfield” language may indicate narrative reframing without comparative.
Test:
Were reasonable alternatives genuinely and comparatively assessed at each stage of modification?
Given: the plan states
• 14,449 housing shortfall
• 185ha employment shortfall
• Reliance on cross-boundary cooperation
• NPPF 2024 strengthened expectation to meet need in full
Question:
Is this policy in the plan effective under NPPF paragraph 35?

The policy has not retreated from environmentally sensitive allocations.
It has:
• Formalised them.
• Strengthened narrative defensibility.
• Embedded more detailed constraint description.
• Retained scale.
It has not:
• Inserted explicit ecological buffers.
• Embedded corridor-scale cumulative safeguards.
• Eliminated reliance on viability caveats.
• Resolved structural housing or employment shortfall.
This is a Plan using this site which has hardened procedurally — not recalibrated strategically.

Policy and sustainability assessment makes no reference to named protected species on this site, including the small blue and associated unique habitat. The peculiar circumstances at Rattlechain make it impossible to consider compensatory offset as this could not be recreated elsewhere. A priority species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, also appearing on the GB Red List (2022): Near Threatened. Additional red
list flora found on this site for vascular plants Nov 2025 have now appeared since the hearing sessions, kidney vetch, tower mustard and Narrow-leaved everlasting pea.

See attached document confirming this. DEC 2023 NPPF P185- the council have not adequately addressed this.