Draft Regulation 18 Sandwell Local Plan

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.

1.2 The landowner controls a site at The Crescent, Queslett Road, Great Barr. The landowner has previously made a ‘Call for Sites’ submission in respect of its land.
Soundness

1.3 According to paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), for the Local Plan to be sound it must be:

a) Positively prepared - provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified - that is, an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective - it must be deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.

1.4 For reasons that we explain in subsequent Sections of these Representations, the Reg 18 Draft Local Plan is not sound as currently prepared, but it is capable of being made sound with modifications.

Structure

1.5 The remainder of these representations is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – considers the Council’s approach to its housing need and requirement, the extent of identified supply and the scale of the unmet need;

• Section 3 – comments on the Council’s proposed spatial strategy (i.e. how it proposes to distribute development and accommodate growth) and approach to Green Belt; and

• Section 4 – comments on the Council’s approach to Site Selection;

• Section 5 – provides our own assessment of the ‘deliverability’ of the site for housing development, including its availability, suitability and achievability and explains why it should be considered for allocation for housing development;
• Section 6 – sets out our conclusions on the soundness of the draft plan and modifications required to the plan and supporting evidence.

2. Housing Need, Requirement, Supply & Extent of Unmet Need

2.1 The NPPF states that:

“strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless
• the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” (NPPF paragraph 11).”

Local Housing Need

2.2 The Draft SLP confirms that Sandwell needs to identify land for 29,773 homes in the period 2022 to 2041. We are satisfied that the Council has correctly calculated its local housing need applying the standard method. However, the NPPF is clear that the local housing need calculated using the standard method should be treated as a ‘minimum’ starting point for determining the number of homes needed in the area.

2.3 The PPG confirms that there are other factors that need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated to determine whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates. Further evidence is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the standard method figure reflects the actual need for housing in the Borough.

2.4 We note that the housing need identified in the draft SLP is based on a plan-period of 2022-2041. Whilst this would exceed the minimum requirement for strategic policies to look ahead over at least 15 years, given the timescales for the preparation and submission of the Plan and that the Council anticipates that the Plan may not be adopted in until early 2026, this would only leave 15 years (i.e. the minimum period set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF) on adoption. The Council should, therefore, consider extending the plan period to ensure that the strategic policies in the plan look ahead and plan appropriately for the longer term.

Housing Requirement and Scale of Unmet Need

2.5 The Council is proposing to set its housing requirement at 11,167 homes. The Council’s approach to setting the housing requirement appears to be entirely driven by its assessment of the supply of suitable land available within the urban area of the Borough rather than its starting point being first to assess and establish the appropriate requirement before considering how this could be met.

2.6 The draft SLP is, therefore, proposing to plan for only approximatley 37% of its overall housing need. Whilst it is accepted that the Borough is unlikely to be able to meet its needs in full given the scale of the need and constraints on the supply of land available in the Borough, the draft SLP would leave 62% of the minimum local housing need for Sandwell not being planned for.

2.7 A plan which only provides for a third of its minimum local housing need cannot possibly be consistent with the national policy which seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing nor can it be considered “positively prepared” because the strategy does not as a minimum, seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs and is not currently informed by agreements with other authorities over how the unmet need will be redistributed.

2.8 The Council must do more to minimise the extent of its unmet need before going on to set out how any remaining unmet need will be addressed elsewhere to ensure that Sandwell’s needs are met in full.

2.9 There is currently insufficient information available to determine whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Co-operate. The Council’s Duty to Co-operate Statement acknowledges that there is on-going uncertainty over how unmet needs would be redistributed and met. It is essential that the Council works with neighbouring authorities on how its unmet need will be redistributed and prepares a SoCG confirming how neighbouring authorities will contribute to unmet need.

2.10 Otherwise the draft SLP essentially defers tackling the issue of its housing needs. Doing so is inappropriate and in direct conflict with the provisions of the NPPF. The NPPF requires the Local Plan to address strategic cross-boundary issues and to be underpinned by one or more Statements of Common Ground on relevant issues. Critically, it also requires strategic cross-boundary matters to be “dealt with rather than deferred”.

2.11 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) considers consider six options for the scale of housing growth the planned for, as follows:
• A – meet housing need based on annual levels of delivery for the last 10 years (do nothing) - 12,523 dwellings
• B - meet entire standard method figure – 29,773 dwellings

• C – meet entire standard method figure using 2021 census figures – 23,522 dwellings

• D – meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA – 9,044 dwellings
• E - meet a proportion of local housing need based on supply and small windfalls in current SHLAA plus aspirational growth in Regeneration Areas and Centres – 11,167 dwellings
• F – meet housing need and contribute 2,000 homes to wider HMA needs – 30,206 dwellings

2.12 It is not clear how the options tested in the SA have been identified or the reasons that alternatives were selected. This requires further clarification and justification. However, we do not consider that all reasonable alternatives have been considered or that those which have been considered are realistic. The reasonable alternatives which have been considered are also insufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made.

2.13 Options A, D and E vary between 9,044 and 12,523 dwellings (a difference of 3,479 dwellings) and would only deliver between 30-42% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. Options B, C and F vary between 23,522 dwellings and 30,206 dwellings and would deliver between 79-101% of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method. There is no ‘mid-range’ option tested which would consider the implications of a greater proportion of the minimum local housing need calculated using the standard method being met.

2.14 Notwithstanding our concerns over the SA, it concludes that Options D and E are best performing. It does not acknowledge that Option A (which delivers a slightly larger amount of homes than Option D and E) comes in at a close third. The SA simply states that the options for providing higher levels of housing are “unlikely to be deliverable”. Whilst we agree that it is unlikely for the Council to meet its minimum local housing need in full, given that Option A reflects previous rates of delivery in the Borough over the last 10 years this option appears to have been prematurely discounted and that other reasonable alternatives that could potentially deliver higher levels of growth have not been appropriately considered.

2.15 The fact that the Council has chosen Option E over ‘Option A’ which would deliver a greater amount of housing and reflects the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. simply translates forward past rates of delivery in the Borough) further demonstrates that the draft SLP is would result in Sandwell taking a backwards step in terms of housing delivery in a situation where it already has a poor record of housing delivery1 and risks inhibiting economic growth in the Borough over the plan period.

2.16 The Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that the SLP is essentially seeking to deliver less homes in the next 10 years than the Borough has delivered in the previous 10 years, despite: i) the national policy objective remaining to boost significantly the supply of homes; ii) the on-going national housing crisis; iii) the scale of the unmet need; and iv) the lack of any certainty over how the unmet need would be distributed to neighbouring authorities. As such, the approach to setting the housing requirement is clearly unsound and, in the circumstances, it is imperative that the Council is doing everything it can to plan for more housing in the Borough.

Housing Land Supply

2.17 The Council states that it is only able to demonstrate a supply of suitable residential land to deliver 11,167 homes over the plan period. Table 5 of draft Policy SHO1 sets out the Council’s proposed sources of housing land supply. This includes a mixture of:
• Sites under construction - 1,060 homes

• Sites with planning permission or prior approval – 998 homes

• Other commitments (as set out in the 2022 SHLAA) – 61 homes

• Gypsy and Traveller Pitches – 10 homes

• Housing allocations – 6,951 homes

o on occupied employment land - 2,234 homes

o ‘Other’ housing allocations – 3,094 homes

o with planning permission – 1,545 homes

o on sites under construction – 78 homes

• Windfall Allowance (on small sites <10 homes) – 1,868 (approx. 133 dwellings per annum from year 5)

• Additional floorspace in centres – 219 homes

2.18 However, there are inconsistencies between the information presented in Table 5 of the draft SLP and the SHLAA (2022) which are not explained in the draft SLP or accompanying evidence. For example, Table 14 of the Council’s SHLAA identifies sites with planning permission for 2,431 dwellings. However, Table 5 of the Local Plan refers to sites with planning permission 2,543 dwellings (i.e. 112 dwellings more than identified in the SHLAA), after a 5% ‘discount’ or non-implementation rate has
apparently been applied to existing permissions. On this basis, the SLP appears to overestimate the number of dwellings with planning permission. This requires further clarification to ensure that the Council is not overestimating its existing supply of sites with planning permission.

2.19 At Table 5 the Council splits its proposed housing allocations into four categories with different ‘discounts’ or ‘non-implementation rates’ applied to each category of allocation. However, Appendix B of the draft SLP which identifies the proposed allocations and the supporting evidence does not make it clear which allocations fall into each category. It is, therefore, impossible to confirm whether or not the Council has made appropriate assumptions in terms of the supply available from its proposed allocations or if it has applied the discounts for non-implementation that it says it has to proposed allocations.

2.20 The discount rates applied to the Council’s supply require further justification and may require adjusting, including to take into account on-going work on viability. Further clarification is also required as to how those discount rates have been applied to individual sites to demonstrate that the housing land supply identified in Policy SHO3 is robust.

2.21 Paragraph 7.5 of the draft SLP states that “existing allocations likely to gain permission after 2025” have been subject to a density uplift. The SHLAA provides an indication of which sites a density uplift was applied for the purpose of that document. However, it is not clear whether the same sites have been subject to a ‘density uplift’ for the purpose of calculating the proposed supply set out in Table 5 of the SLP. Whilst the density uplifts appear to broadly align with the proposed minimum densities identified in draft Policy SHO3, further justification is required to demonstrate that such high densities are realistic and deliverable in Sandwell, noting the requirements of other draft development management policies and the high proportion of homes to be delivered on brownfield sites which are often present challenges in viability terms.

2.22 The Council’s supply assumes that 219 dwellings would come forward in place of vacant retail floorspace in the Borough’s centres. However, the calculations which underpin this figure are set out in the Council’s SHLAA and appear to be based on entirely arbitrary assumptions in terms of how much floorspace might be converted to housing. There is no certainty that the floorspace would be brought forward for housing and it is, in our view, inappropriate for the Council to be relying on this as part of its supply.

Housing Delivery and Trajectory

2.23 In order for the Local Plan to be sound it must provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period. Because the Council must also identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement, the Plan is also required to identify specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period then sufficient developable sites, or broad areas of growth for the remainder of the plan period.

2.24 Paragraph 74 of the Framework highlights that strategic policies should include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of development for specific sites. Local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies.

2.25 The Council’s housing trajectory can be found at Appendix I of the Plan. It does not provide a breakdown of the different sources of supply. It is not, therefore, clear when each draft housing allocation is expected to come forward or the number of completions anticipated over time. As a result there is no detail provided to support the assumptions made in the trajectory in terms of the timescales in which each site is likely to come forward for development and the rates that they will be

built out and whether these are realistic. Instead, we can only assume that the Council has based its assumptions on these matters on the very limited site specific information contained in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which was published in 2022. However, the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered in each year in Appendix I of the SLP is inconsistent with the trajectory at Appendix 3 of the SHLAA. It is, therefore, impossible to reach conclusions on whether the draft allocations are deliverable and developable, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF and if the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land on adoption and maintain a supply throughout the plan period.

2.26 The Council proposes to divide its housing requirement into four phases with housing targets for each phase identified in Table 5 of Policy SHO1. However, the Trajectory included at Appendix I of the draft SLP refers to an annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year but also includes an annual requirement which varies year to year. The annual draft housing plan target does not align with the ‘phased housing targets’ identified in Table 5. It is not, therefore, clear whether the Council is seeking to agree a ‘stepped’ requirement across the four phases identified in Table 5 or if it is intending its supply to be assessed against the annual draft housing plan target of 587.7 dwellings per year. If the Council is seeking a stepped housing requirement then further justification is required in accordance with the NPPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 68-021-20190722).

3. Spatial Strategy and Approach to Green Belt
3.1 Policy SDS1 sets out the proposed Development Strategy. It confirms that as much new development as possible will be developed on previously developed land and sites in the urban area, with allocations located where there are the highest levels of sustainable transport and access to services. It also refers to regeneration of existing housing and employment areas and focussing growth and regeneration into West Bromwich, other town centres and regeneration areas.

3.2 Paragraph 3.85 of the supporting text to draft Policy DSD6 states that it is the Council’s view that “there are no exceptional circumstances in Sandwell that would justify amending current boundaries and releasing any areas of green belt for new development”. It goes onto state that while “there is an identified shortfall of land suitable for housing and economic development, this of itself does not outweigh the need to maintain the openness and permanence of the green belt within Sandwell, especially given the densely developed and urban character of most of the rest of the borough”.

3.3 Whilst we agree that the focus of development should be on the urban area and in the most sustainable locations, i) the Council’s inability to meet its development needs; ii) the scale of the unmet need; and iii) the absence of any agreed Statement of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities about how the unmet needs might be redistributed, means that it is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough in order for the Plan to be considered sound. This includes carrying out a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries to identify and allocate suitable sites in the Green Belt which could towards the development needs of the Borough during the plan period. For these reasons, we fundamentally disagree with the Council’s assertion that “exceptional circumstances” do not exist for release of land from the Green Belt.

3.4 Moreover, the Council’s strategy and approach to the Green Belt is fundamentally at odds with that taken by the consortium of Black Country Authorities in the preparation of the now abandoned Black Country Plan (BCP). The Regulation 18 Draft version of that BCP which was consulted upon in autumn 2021 confirmed that the Black Country Authorities (including Sandwell) considered that there were “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release, that it had identified land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to Green Belt and the landscape. In that context, the draft BCP proposed to release land from the Green Belt for housing in Sandwell.

3.5 The draft SLP does not provide any evidence which justifies the change in approach to the Green Belt from that contained in the BCP.

3.6 The SA provides no justification for why development on land within the Green Belt was not considered as part of any of the “reasonable alternative” spatial strategy options assessed in the SA despite the release of land from the Green Belt for housing being considered as part of the SA for the draft BCP. The failure to consider Green Belt release as part of any of the “reasonable alternatives” is a fundamental flaw which must be addressed.

3.7 The Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) attempts to justify the Council’s change in approach to the Green Belt by noting that:
• “Sandwell has very little green belt”

• “the areas of undeveloped and open land it does contain are extremely important to the Borough’s environment and the health and wellbeing of its population.”;

• “the important role it plays in preventing coalescence with adjoining towns and settlements within and beyond Sandwell’s boundaries and the importance of maintaining open land within the borough.” and

• “the status of Sandwell Valley as green belt and the importance of existing parks and open spaces to local communities and environments it would be neither reasonable nor appropriate to consider them as locations for additional housing”.

3.8 The only other justification provided is at Paragraph 7.8 of the Spatial Strategy Paper (2023) which states that the Government “gave a broad indication recently (2023) that it does not expect local authorities to designate green belt sites to meet housing need, even if there is a shortfall. Green belt (and other open space sites) in Sandwell are also subject to constraints such as nature conservation designations, historic or archaeological interest, high landscape value, flooding and similar issues”.

3.9 However, the revised NPPF is yet to be published and it is not yet known exactly what changes it will contain. Whilst the Council asserts that all of its Green Belt land is of such importance that it is not reasonable or appropriate to consider it as an option for housing development, the Council provides no evidence to back up its statements or justify the change in approach from that taken by in draft BCP.

3.10 The Council’s proposed spatial strategy and approach to the Green Belt would result in the majority of the housing needs generated in Sandwell being directed to neighbouring authorities, including authorities with their own Green Belt constraints. The draft SLP risks failing to take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and inconsistency with national policy.

4. Site Selection
4.1 We agree that the Council should consider and assess any site with the capacity to accommodate at least 10 dwellings.

4.2 The Council’s Site Assessment Report states that a “number of sites within the Green Belt were previously assessed through the Black Country Plan process. The release of Green Belt land for housing does not accord with the proposed spatial strategy for the Draft SLP. Therefore, any site within the Green Belt is considered to have gateway constraints and to not be suitable for development.”

4.3 For the reasons set out in Section 3, the Council’s approach to site selection and in particular its failure to consider and fully assess the suitability of Green Belt sites for housing development is a fundamental flaw in its approach to site selection. This means that the Council will have prematurely discounted sites which are suitable for housing development, such as the site.

4.4 This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the Regulation 18 Draft Black Country Plan proposed to allocate Green Belt a small number of sites in Sandwell for housing. These sites were assessed by the Black County Authorities, including Sandwell, as suitable for housing development in only July 2021 but have been discounted at the first stage of the Council’s site assessment process as Green Belt is treated as a “gateway constraint” which means that sites are not considered suitable for development.

4.5 For the reasons set out above, the Council’s approach to site assessment and selection is unsound. It is essential that the Council explore all options to meet the housing needs of the Borough. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the suitability of all sites, including land within the Green Belt, to accommodate housing development.

5. The Site
5.1 The site extends to approximately 0.45Ha (see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). It is located immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Great Barr. It is approximately 800m to the east of the Scott Arms District Centre.

5.2 The site is roughly rectangular but the boundary also extends to cover The Crescent which is a private drive owned by the same landowner. The site is vacant and is currently covered in scrub vegetation.

5.3 The site is set at roughly the same level as the existing dwellings on The Crescent and is raised above the level of Queslett Road to the south. The site slopes from west to east.

5.4 The site is bound to the west by existing dwellings on The Crescent, to the north by grazing land and woodland, to the south by Queslett Road, beyond which is existing housing, and to the east by Holly Wood Nature Reserve, beyond which is the M6.

Site Assessment

5.5 Paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify and update annually a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing.

5.6 Paragraph 68 also requires LPAs to identify a supply of deliverable sites for the first five years of the plan and specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

5.7 Annex 2 establishes that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing should be:

• available now;

• offer a suitable location for development now, and;

• be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Availability

5.8 The site is vacant land owned entirely by the landowner who is keen to promote the site for development. Assuming that the site is identified as a proposed allocation in the emerging Sandwell Plan and release from the Green Belt, the landowner would put the site onto the market quickly, with the aim of selling it to a developer/ housebuilder to enable it to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period.

5.9 The existing access via The Crescent is also within the same landownership.

5.10 There is no legal ownership impediments to development. Accordingly, the site is available now in NPPF terms.

Suitability

5.11 The site is immediately adjacent to the urban edge of Great Barr with housing to the south and west. The site is within walking distance of the Scott Arms District Centre and is 300m from the Scott Arms Medical Centre. It is also within 650m of Whitecrest Primary School.

5.12 It is within 400m of bus stops on Queslett Road, to the west, which provide frequent bus services (No. 5 and 881 services) to Sutton Coldfield and West Bromwich (roughly every 10-20 minutes). It is approximately 2.2km from the nearest railway station (Hamstead) which provides regular services to Walsall and Wolverhampton.

5.13 It is, therefore, clearly in a highly suitable and sustainable, location for further housing growth in the District.

Other Technical Matters

Flood Risk

5.14 According to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Map, the site lies entirely in Flood Zone 1, meaning the site has the lowest level of risk from flooding. Therefore, flood risk and drainage does not represent a significant constraint to development.

Trees and Ecology

5.15 The site comprises open land occupied by grassland and scrub vegetation. The site forms part of the ‘Holly Wood and Pasture Site of Importance for Nature’ (SINC) which is a non-statutory designated site. The site is also adjacent to the Hollywood Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which also forms part of the SINC. SINCs are selected on the basis that they meet criteria for local wildlife site selection for sites of importance at a regional level.

5.16 Tyler Grange has been appointed to carry out ecological surveys on the site. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 5 September 2023. The survey confirmed that the site comprises ‘other neutral grassland’ (species poor semi-improved grassland) that is in up to moderate condition and areas of dense scrub and tall herbs.

5.17 The site was designated as a SINC based on a habitat survey carried out in 1998 which indicated that the site had been identified as good quality semi-improved grassland. The survey recorded that the habitat on site was unimproved neutral grassland.

5.18 Tyler Grange has reviewed the results of its most recent survey against the most up to date Birmingham and the Black Country Local Wildlife Sites Guidance for Selection Criteria, updated in March 2018.

5.19 Tyler Grange has, therefore, concluded that the grassland onsite is not considered to meet priority habitat descriptions (LBAP9 or UK BAP10) and would not meet the SINC selection criteria.

5.20 Tyler Grange has advised that the site could be developed for housing without adverse impacts on adjacent designated sites subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

5.21 It considered that subject to development of an appropriate strategy for mitigation and enhancements the site could be developed for housing without unacceptable ecological impacts.

5.22 The requirement for 10% Biodiversity Net Gain ought to be capable of being satisfied through a combination of on site measures and offsetting which could include offsite habitat creation/enhancement or a financial contribution made to the Council or habitat bank via a planning obligation, secured through a S.106 agreement or other legal mechanism.

5.23 A copy of the Ecology Technical Note prepared by Tyler Grange is enclosed at Appendix 2.

5.24 Ecology ought, therefore, not to represent a fundamental constraint to development at the site.

5.25 We are not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site.

Highways and Access

5.26 It is anticipated that vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from The Crescent. However, the site also has a frontage with the Queslett Road. The landowner is seeking advice from a highways consultant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved from The Crescent.

5.27 It is unlikely that the development of the site for the number of homes contemplated would result in any unacceptable impacts on the capacity or operation of the highway network.

5.28 The site is accessible to a range of local facilities and services in Scott Arms District Centre and to public transport.

Heritage

5.29 The site is identified as forming part of the ‘Great Barr Hall’ Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG), associated with Grade II listed Great Barr Hall.

5.30 Asset Heritage Consulting has been appointed to carry out an assessment of the heritage significance of the site, its capacity for development in heritage terms and the potential impact of housing development on the significance of heritage assets.

5.31 A copy of Asset Heritage’s Report is enclosed at Appendix 3. Asset Heritage’s Report confirms that whilst the site has a degree of intrinsic significance as part of the RPG, it was historically used for agriculture and does not form part of the designed parkland landscape. It confirms that the development of the Crescent, loss of historic field boundaries and trees that marked them and the change in use of the land have all diminished the historic character to an extent. It notes that these changes were compounded by more serious harm in the 1960s and 70s from the construction of the M6 and dualling of the Queslett Road, with the M6 severing one part of the park from another impacting on the ability to access and appreciate it as a whole.

5.32 Asset Heritage consider that the site makes a limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG and that as a result there is scope its development for housing. It confirms that the development of the site would have no effect on the main part of the RPG to the north of the M6 or Great Barr Hall itself. Overall, Asset Heritage concludes that development has the potential to cause some “less than substantial harm” to the RPG but any potential harm would be limited and at the lower end of the scale of such harm.

5.33 Paragraph 202 of the NPPF confirms that for decision-making purposes in these circumstances any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, given the extent of the Council’s unmet housing need, the public benefits of developing the site for housing would clearly outweigh any harm arising to the significance of heritage assets.

Landscape and Visual Impact

5.34 The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and existing housing bounds the site to the west. The site is well contained by existing boundary vegetation.

5.35 Housing development at the site would be in-keeping with the existing housing development and the sub-urban character of the area.

5.36 On this basis, it is not envisaged that that landscape and visual impacts of developing the site would represent a constraint to development.

5.37 The site is not assessed as part of the Black Country Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2019). However, land to the north which is also contained by built development to the west and the M6 to the east is assessed as Parcel BL51. The parcel is assessed as having low-moderate sensitivity to development and generally low sensitivity to residential development. It is considered that the site shares many characteristics with the land to the north and would have equally low landscape sensitivity to residential development.

Noise & Air Quality

5.38 The site is approximately 100m to the west of the M6 which is a potential source of noise and air pollution.

5.39 Given that there are existing dwellings to the east and west of the M6 which are located much closer to the M6 than the site we anticipate that any impacts could be appropriately mitigated through the detailed design of the proposals.

Green Belt

5.40 The site is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The Black Country Green Belt Study (2019) considers the site as part of a wider of parcel of land (Reg. B86) that extends to the north and is contained by the M6 to the east and Great Barr to the west. The parcel is assessed as performing a moderate role in:
• Checking unrestricted sprawl;

• Preventing towns from merging; and

• Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.41 It is assessed as performing a weak or no contribution in terms of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

5.42 We disagree with the conclusions of the Green Belt Study. The site does not in our view make any contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, as follows:
• The site is contained to the west by existing development. To the east it is contained by the M6 which sits on a raised highway embankment and provides a clear defensible boundary which is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. The site forms part of a wider parcel which is contained on all sides by major highway infrastructure (i.e. the M6, A4041and A34). The M6 in particular prevents urban sprawl of Great Barr. The site does not, therefore, play any role in checking the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
• The site plays no role in terms of preventing neighbouring towns from merging with one another. To the north of the Queslett Road there is other open land to either side of the M6 which maintains a gap of at least 600 metres between the eastern boundary of the site and built up edge of Pheasey. To the south of the Queslett Road existing housing already extends to the east of the site up to the M6 and beyond, effectively joining up the neighbourhoods to either side of the M6.
• Whilst the site is not built up it is visually screened by existing vegetation and boundary treatments along the southern boundary of the site. As a result of the relationship of the site with existing built development and it’s containment by the M6 from the countryside beyond means the site does not appear to form part of the countryside. It, therefore, makes no contribution to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.43 We agree that the site would perform no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town. Whilst the site forms part of a Registered Park and Garden the site is considered to make limited contribution to what is significant about the RPG. Great Barr, to the west of the site and Pheasey and Old Oscott to the east of the M6 are not a ‘historic towns’. Therefore, the site would play no role in preserving the setting and special character of a historic town.

5.44 The site is also well related to and effectively forms part of and is experienced as part of the urban area. It would, therefore, assist in the recycling of other urban land.

5.45 On this basis, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, as a result of the release of the land from the Green Belt for housing. Indeed, the site performs no greater role in preserving the openness of the Green Belt or serving the five purposes of the Green Belt than two sites which were previously proposed for release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing in the Regulation 18 Draft of the Black Country Plan (Ref. SAH226 and SAH224).

5.46 Overall, it is considered there are no technical constraints that would prevent the site from being developed for housing.

5.47 We, therefore, respectfully request that: i) the site be considered and fully assessed as part of the Council’s site selection process; and ii) that the site be allocated for housing in the Draft SLP.