Draft Regulation 18 Sandwell Local Plan

Policy SH01 and residential allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street”

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 – 2041 and includes 6,951 homes from “Housing Allocations that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period.
Appendix B of the draft Plan sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations, including Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2030.

Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They intend to put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

As such, our client remains generally supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan – following its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan.

However, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.
Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:
-
The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client submitted an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of a pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market, and ultimately one that could have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation at a density of 80 dph is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development density of 56dph – for example.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SMD1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the greening of Sandwell (for example) and SH03 which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of these draft policies on behalf of our client also.
As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are indicative but they should nonetheless be be amended to reflect a deliverable proposal, and to avoid delivery at this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s reference to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.57 years’ worth of housing land and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period. The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory projects that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32, compounded by the Council’s continued reliance on windfall sites (being the 3rd largest contributor to the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period (delivering 17% of homes needed in Sandwell). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on delivery at undeliverable densities from brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

The draft Plan sets out that 11,167 net new homes can be delivered over the Plan period (2022 to 2041) but recognises that this figure, when measured against the Council’s calculated Local Housing Need (currently calculated at 29,773 homes over the Plan period), represents a significant shortfall, and generates a substantial unmet need (of 18,606) homes within Sandwell over the Plan period.

In this context, significantly more sites must be allocated for residential development in Sandwell, including green field sites. This would reduce the burden of delivery from brownfield sites which, if the allocated brownfield sites are going to make the contribution they need to make in delivering much needed homes in Sandwell, a more realistic, and flexible, policy approach is needed to facilitate delivery from the allocated brownfield sites, like SH55, which are often subject to more stringent policy criteria than windfall sites (for example) – and demonstrates why the Council has to rely so heavily on windfall sites.

In essence, the brownfield allocation sites are being relied on too heavily to deliver the homes needed and this is leading to unrealistic and undeliverable development densities, which are at odds with other policy aspirations being inflexibly applied. A more flexible approach is needed to avoid continued stifling of these sites.

The draft Plan Proposals Map indicates that a cycle path is proposed to be routed along the Cape Arm but the Map itself is unclear if this route is proposed to the north of the Cape Arm or to the south, and suggests it is actually to be located within the canal. The Grove Lane Masterplan shows the cycle path on the southern (hospital) side of the Cape Arm and its route should be clarified within the Local Plan Proposals Map.

If this route is delivered on the northern side of The Cape Arm it will further reduce the net density / deliverability from SH55. That said, the area on the southern side, adjacent to the Midlands Metropolitan Hospital site, would readily connect over Cranford Street onto the cycle path which has been delivered through the residential development to the north, and thus connect onto the wider network running along the Birmingham Canal further to the north – suggesting the southern side of The Cape Arm is preferable for the cycle path.

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility)

Requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness”.

However, it is not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve the minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness.

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements.

Draft Policy SH06 (Financial Viability Assessments for Housing)

Sets out at its part 4) that on sites where applying the affordable housing or accessibility and wheelchair user requirements set out in Policies SHO4 and SHO5 can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Whilst the recognition that any such provision needs to be viable is welcome, financial viability is key for all policy requirements if much needed residential development is going to come forward. With this in mind, draft Policy SH06 must refer to other policy requirements, such as SMD1 (Design Quality) for example, and make it clear that if any policy requirements make the development unviable, the optimum provision will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix, development density and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Draft Policy SMD1 (Design Quality) part 2)

Requires (all) developments to demonstrate that its listed criteria have been addressed and at part 3) requires (all) major developments to contribute to the greening of Sandwell by delivering against its listed criteria.

However, the draft Policy’s prescriptive approach lacks flexibility and is likely to impact upon deliverability of development – particularly allocated brownfield sites which are subject to other policy requirements and masterplan aspirations which, if inflexibly applied, are stifling development from them. The Policy also needs to recognise that development must be viable in order to deliver its requirements.

As such, the Policy must be amended to provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that development is viable, and ultimately deliverable, whilst delivering its requirements where possible, or where viable.

This more flexible approach is provided in draft Policy SH04 and draft Policy SH05 for example, which make it clear, and are explicit, that affordable housing provision and wheelchair accessibility standards (respectively) are required but only ‘subject to financial viability’.

Policy SH01 and residential allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street”

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 – 2041 and includes 6,951 homes from “Housing Allocations that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period.
Appendix B of the draft Plan sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations, including Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2030.

Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They intend to put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

As such, our client remains generally supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan – following its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan.

However, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.
Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:
-
The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client submitted an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of a pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market, and ultimately one that could have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation at a density of 80 dph is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development density of 56dph – for example.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SMD1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the greening of Sandwell (for example) and SH03 which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of these draft policies on behalf of our client also.
As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are indicative but they should nonetheless be be amended to reflect a deliverable proposal, and to avoid delivery at this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s reference to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.57 years’ worth of housing land and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period. The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory projects that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32, compounded by the Council’s continued reliance on windfall sites (being the 3rd largest contributor to the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period (delivering 17% of homes needed in Sandwell). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on delivery at undeliverable densities from brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

The draft Plan sets out that 11,167 net new homes can be delivered over the Plan period (2022 to 2041) but recognises that this figure, when measured against the Council’s calculated Local Housing Need (currently calculated at 29,773 homes over the Plan period), represents a significant shortfall, and generates a substantial unmet need (of 18,606) homes within Sandwell over the Plan period.

In this context, significantly more sites must be allocated for residential development in Sandwell, including green field sites. This would reduce the burden of delivery from brownfield sites which, if the allocated brownfield sites are going to make the contribution they need to make in delivering much needed homes in Sandwell, a more realistic, and flexible, policy approach is needed to facilitate delivery from the allocated brownfield sites, like SH55, which are often subject to more stringent policy criteria than windfall sites (for example) – and demonstrates why the Council has to rely so heavily on windfall sites.

In essence, the brownfield allocation sites are being relied on too heavily to deliver the homes needed and this is leading to unrealistic and undeliverable development densities, which are at odds with other policy aspirations being inflexibly applied. A more flexible approach is needed to avoid continued stifling of these sites.

The draft Plan Proposals Map indicates that a cycle path is proposed to be routed along the Cape Arm but the Map itself is unclear if this route is proposed to the north of the Cape Arm or to the south, and suggests it is actually to be located within the canal. The Grove Lane Masterplan shows the cycle path on the southern (hospital) side of the Cape Arm and its route should be clarified within the Local Plan Proposals Map.

If this route is delivered on the northern side of The Cape Arm it will further reduce the net density / deliverability from SH55. That said, the area on the southern side, adjacent to the Midlands Metropolitan Hospital site, would readily connect over Cranford Street onto the cycle path which has been delivered through the residential development to the north, and thus connect onto the wider network running along the Birmingham Canal further to the north – suggesting the southern side of The Cape Arm is preferable for the cycle path.

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility)

Requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness”.

However, it is not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve the minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness.

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements.

Draft Policy SH06 (Financial Viability Assessments for Housing)

Sets out at its part 4) that on sites where applying the affordable housing or accessibility and wheelchair user requirements set out in Policies SHO4 and SHO5 can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Whilst the recognition that any such provision needs to be viable is welcome, financial viability is key for all policy requirements if much needed residential development is going to come forward. With this in mind, draft Policy SH06 must refer to other policy requirements, such as SMD1 (Design Quality) for example, and make it clear that if any policy requirements make the development unviable, the optimum provision will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix, development density and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Draft Policy SMD1 (Design Quality) part 2)

Requires (all) developments to demonstrate that its listed criteria have been addressed and at part 3) requires (all) major developments to contribute to the greening of Sandwell by delivering against its listed criteria.

However, the draft Policy’s prescriptive approach lacks flexibility and is likely to impact upon deliverability of development – particularly allocated brownfield sites which are subject to other policy requirements and masterplan aspirations which, if inflexibly applied, are stifling development from them. The Policy also needs to recognise that development must be viable in order to deliver its requirements.

As such, the Policy must be amended to provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that development is viable, and ultimately deliverable, whilst delivering its requirements where possible, or where viable.

This more flexible approach is provided in draft Policy SH04 and draft Policy SH05 for example, which make it clear, and are explicit, that affordable housing provision and wheelchair accessibility standards (respectively) are required but only ‘subject to financial viability’.

Policy SH01 and residential allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street”

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 – 2041 and includes 6,951 homes from “Housing Allocations that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period.
Appendix B of the draft Plan sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations, including Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2030.

Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They intend to put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

As such, our client remains generally supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan – following its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan.

However, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.
Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:
-
The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client submitted an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of a pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market, and ultimately one that could have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation at a density of 80 dph is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development density of 56dph – for example.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SMD1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the greening of Sandwell (for example) and SH03 which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of these draft policies on behalf of our client also.
As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are indicative but they should nonetheless be be amended to reflect a deliverable proposal, and to avoid delivery at this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s reference to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.57 years’ worth of housing land and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period. The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory projects that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32, compounded by the Council’s continued reliance on windfall sites (being the 3rd largest contributor to the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period (delivering 17% of homes needed in Sandwell). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on delivery at undeliverable densities from brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

The draft Plan sets out that 11,167 net new homes can be delivered over the Plan period (2022 to 2041) but recognises that this figure, when measured against the Council’s calculated Local Housing Need (currently calculated at 29,773 homes over the Plan period), represents a significant shortfall, and generates a substantial unmet need (of 18,606) homes within Sandwell over the Plan period.

In this context, significantly more sites must be allocated for residential development in Sandwell, including green field sites. This would reduce the burden of delivery from brownfield sites which, if the allocated brownfield sites are going to make the contribution they need to make in delivering much needed homes in Sandwell, a more realistic, and flexible, policy approach is needed to facilitate delivery from the allocated brownfield sites, like SH55, which are often subject to more stringent policy criteria than windfall sites (for example) – and demonstrates why the Council has to rely so heavily on windfall sites.

In essence, the brownfield allocation sites are being relied on too heavily to deliver the homes needed and this is leading to unrealistic and undeliverable development densities, which are at odds with other policy aspirations being inflexibly applied. A more flexible approach is needed to avoid continued stifling of these sites.

The draft Plan Proposals Map indicates that a cycle path is proposed to be routed along the Cape Arm but the Map itself is unclear if this route is proposed to the north of the Cape Arm or to the south, and suggests it is actually to be located within the canal. The Grove Lane Masterplan shows the cycle path on the southern (hospital) side of the Cape Arm and its route should be clarified within the Local Plan Proposals Map.

If this route is delivered on the northern side of The Cape Arm it will further reduce the net density / deliverability from SH55. That said, the area on the southern side, adjacent to the Midlands Metropolitan Hospital site, would readily connect over Cranford Street onto the cycle path which has been delivered through the residential development to the north, and thus connect onto the wider network running along the Birmingham Canal further to the north – suggesting the southern side of The Cape Arm is preferable for the cycle path.

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility)

Requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness”.

However, it is not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve the minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness.

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements.

Draft Policy SH06 (Financial Viability Assessments for Housing)

Sets out at its part 4) that on sites where applying the affordable housing or accessibility and wheelchair user requirements set out in Policies SHO4 and SHO5 can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Whilst the recognition that any such provision needs to be viable is welcome, financial viability is key for all policy requirements if much needed residential development is going to come forward. With this in mind, draft Policy SH06 must refer to other policy requirements, such as SMD1 (Design Quality) for example, and make it clear that if any policy requirements make the development unviable, the optimum provision will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix, development density and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Draft Policy SMD1 (Design Quality) part 2)

Requires (all) developments to demonstrate that its listed criteria have been addressed and at part 3) requires (all) major developments to contribute to the greening of Sandwell by delivering against its listed criteria.

However, the draft Policy’s prescriptive approach lacks flexibility and is likely to impact upon deliverability of development – particularly allocated brownfield sites which are subject to other policy requirements and masterplan aspirations which, if inflexibly applied, are stifling development from them. The Policy also needs to recognise that development must be viable in order to deliver its requirements.

As such, the Policy must be amended to provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that development is viable, and ultimately deliverable, whilst delivering its requirements where possible, or where viable.

This more flexible approach is provided in draft Policy SH04 and draft Policy SH05 for example, which make it clear, and are explicit, that affordable housing provision and wheelchair accessibility standards (respectively) are required but only ‘subject to financial viability’.

Policy SH01 and residential allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street”

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 – 2041 and includes 6,951 homes from “Housing Allocations that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period.
Appendix B of the draft Plan sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations, including Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2030.

Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They intend to put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

As such, our client remains generally supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan – following its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan.

However, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.
Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:
-
The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client submitted an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of a pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market, and ultimately one that could have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation at a density of 80 dph is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development density of 56dph – for example.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SMD1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the greening of Sandwell (for example) and SH03 which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of these draft policies on behalf of our client also.
As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are indicative but they should nonetheless be be amended to reflect a deliverable proposal, and to avoid delivery at this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s reference to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.57 years’ worth of housing land and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period. The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory projects that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32, compounded by the Council’s continued reliance on windfall sites (being the 3rd largest contributor to the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period (delivering 17% of homes needed in Sandwell). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on delivery at undeliverable densities from brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

The draft Plan sets out that 11,167 net new homes can be delivered over the Plan period (2022 to 2041) but recognises that this figure, when measured against the Council’s calculated Local Housing Need (currently calculated at 29,773 homes over the Plan period), represents a significant shortfall, and generates a substantial unmet need (of 18,606) homes within Sandwell over the Plan period.

In this context, significantly more sites must be allocated for residential development in Sandwell, including green field sites. This would reduce the burden of delivery from brownfield sites which, if the allocated brownfield sites are going to make the contribution they need to make in delivering much needed homes in Sandwell, a more realistic, and flexible, policy approach is needed to facilitate delivery from the allocated brownfield sites, like SH55, which are often subject to more stringent policy criteria than windfall sites (for example) – and demonstrates why the Council has to rely so heavily on windfall sites.

In essence, the brownfield allocation sites are being relied on too heavily to deliver the homes needed and this is leading to unrealistic and undeliverable development densities, which are at odds with other policy aspirations being inflexibly applied. A more flexible approach is needed to avoid continued stifling of these sites.

The draft Plan Proposals Map indicates that a cycle path is proposed to be routed along the Cape Arm but the Map itself is unclear if this route is proposed to the north of the Cape Arm or to the south, and suggests it is actually to be located within the canal. The Grove Lane Masterplan shows the cycle path on the southern (hospital) side of the Cape Arm and its route should be clarified within the Local Plan Proposals Map.

If this route is delivered on the northern side of The Cape Arm it will further reduce the net density / deliverability from SH55. That said, the area on the southern side, adjacent to the Midlands Metropolitan Hospital site, would readily connect over Cranford Street onto the cycle path which has been delivered through the residential development to the north, and thus connect onto the wider network running along the Birmingham Canal further to the north – suggesting the southern side of The Cape Arm is preferable for the cycle path.

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility)

Requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness”.

However, it is not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve the minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness.

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements.

Draft Policy SH06 (Financial Viability Assessments for Housing)

Sets out at its part 4) that on sites where applying the affordable housing or accessibility and wheelchair user requirements set out in Policies SHO4 and SHO5 can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Whilst the recognition that any such provision needs to be viable is welcome, financial viability is key for all policy requirements if much needed residential development is going to come forward. With this in mind, draft Policy SH06 must refer to other policy requirements, such as SMD1 (Design Quality) for example, and make it clear that if any policy requirements make the development unviable, the optimum provision will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix, development density and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Draft Policy SMD1 (Design Quality) part 2)

Requires (all) developments to demonstrate that its listed criteria have been addressed and at part 3) requires (all) major developments to contribute to the greening of Sandwell by delivering against its listed criteria.

However, the draft Policy’s prescriptive approach lacks flexibility and is likely to impact upon deliverability of development – particularly allocated brownfield sites which are subject to other policy requirements and masterplan aspirations which, if inflexibly applied, are stifling development from them. The Policy also needs to recognise that development must be viable in order to deliver its requirements.

As such, the Policy must be amended to provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that development is viable, and ultimately deliverable, whilst delivering its requirements where possible, or where viable.

This more flexible approach is provided in draft Policy SH04 and draft Policy SH05 for example, which make it clear, and are explicit, that affordable housing provision and wheelchair accessibility standards (respectively) are required but only ‘subject to financial viability’.

Policy SH01 and residential allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street”

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 – 2041 and includes 6,951 homes from “Housing Allocations that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period.
Appendix B of the draft Plan sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations, including Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2030.

Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They intend to put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

As such, our client remains generally supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan – following its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan.

However, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.
Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:
-
The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client submitted an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of a pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market, and ultimately one that could have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation at a density of 80 dph is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development density of 56dph – for example.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SMD1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the greening of Sandwell (for example) and SH03 which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of these draft policies on behalf of our client also.
As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are indicative but they should nonetheless be be amended to reflect a deliverable proposal, and to avoid delivery at this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s reference to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.57 years’ worth of housing land and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period. The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory projects that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32, compounded by the Council’s continued reliance on windfall sites (being the 3rd largest contributor to the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period (delivering 17% of homes needed in Sandwell). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on delivery at undeliverable densities from brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

The draft Plan sets out that 11,167 net new homes can be delivered over the Plan period (2022 to 2041) but recognises that this figure, when measured against the Council’s calculated Local Housing Need (currently calculated at 29,773 homes over the Plan period), represents a significant shortfall, and generates a substantial unmet need (of 18,606) homes within Sandwell over the Plan period.

In this context, significantly more sites must be allocated for residential development in Sandwell, including green field sites. This would reduce the burden of delivery from brownfield sites which, if the allocated brownfield sites are going to make the contribution they need to make in delivering much needed homes in Sandwell, a more realistic, and flexible, policy approach is needed to facilitate delivery from the allocated brownfield sites, like SH55, which are often subject to more stringent policy criteria than windfall sites (for example) – and demonstrates why the Council has to rely so heavily on windfall sites.

In essence, the brownfield allocation sites are being relied on too heavily to deliver the homes needed and this is leading to unrealistic and undeliverable development densities, which are at odds with other policy aspirations being inflexibly applied. A more flexible approach is needed to avoid continued stifling of these sites.

The draft Plan Proposals Map indicates that a cycle path is proposed to be routed along the Cape Arm but the Map itself is unclear if this route is proposed to the north of the Cape Arm or to the south, and suggests it is actually to be located within the canal. The Grove Lane Masterplan shows the cycle path on the southern (hospital) side of the Cape Arm and its route should be clarified within the Local Plan Proposals Map.

If this route is delivered on the northern side of The Cape Arm it will further reduce the net density / deliverability from SH55. That said, the area on the southern side, adjacent to the Midlands Metropolitan Hospital site, would readily connect over Cranford Street onto the cycle path which has been delivered through the residential development to the north, and thus connect onto the wider network running along the Birmingham Canal further to the north – suggesting the southern side of The Cape Arm is preferable for the cycle path.

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility)

Requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness”.

However, it is not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve the minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness.

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements.

Draft Policy SH06 (Financial Viability Assessments for Housing)

Sets out at its part 4) that on sites where applying the affordable housing or accessibility and wheelchair user requirements set out in Policies SHO4 and SHO5 can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Whilst the recognition that any such provision needs to be viable is welcome, financial viability is key for all policy requirements if much needed residential development is going to come forward. With this in mind, draft Policy SH06 must refer to other policy requirements, such as SMD1 (Design Quality) for example, and make it clear that if any policy requirements make the development unviable, the optimum provision will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix, development density and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Draft Policy SMD1 (Design Quality) part 2)

Requires (all) developments to demonstrate that its listed criteria have been addressed and at part 3) requires (all) major developments to contribute to the greening of Sandwell by delivering against its listed criteria.

However, the draft Policy’s prescriptive approach lacks flexibility and is likely to impact upon deliverability of development – particularly allocated brownfield sites which are subject to other policy requirements and masterplan aspirations which, if inflexibly applied, are stifling development from them. The Policy also needs to recognise that development must be viable in order to deliver its requirements.

As such, the Policy must be amended to provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that development is viable, and ultimately deliverable, whilst delivering its requirements where possible, or where viable.

This more flexible approach is provided in draft Policy SH04 and draft Policy SH05 for example, which make it clear, and are explicit, that affordable housing provision and wheelchair accessibility standards (respectively) are required but only ‘subject to financial viability’.

Policy SH01 and residential allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street”

Policy SHO1 (Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth) sets out that sufficient land will be provided to deliver at least 11,167 net new homes over the period 2022 – 2041 and includes 6,951 homes from “Housing Allocations that the Plan considers can be delivered over the Plan period.
Appendix B of the draft Plan sets out details of Sandwell’s proposed allocation sites and first lists each of the Housing Allocations, including Allocation SH55 “Cape Arm / Cranford Street” which is shown as a 2.13 ha brownfield site with a potential yield of 170 homes at a net development density of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) over an indicative net developable area of 2.13 ha. Appendix B sets out that the Anticipated Delivery Timescale (completion year) for this allocated site is 2030.

Our client, Oldbury (Smethwick) Ltd, a subsidiary of Pall Mall Investments, are the owners of approximately 1.78 ha of land within Allocation SH55. They intend to put forward a residential development proposal for this land and have sought the Council’s pre-application advice to inform their latest proposals for up to 90 homes (under reference PA/22/00618).

As such, our client remains generally supportive of the continued allocation of this site for residential development within the draft Sandwell Local Plan – following its allocation for residential use in the adopted Sandwell Site Allocations Document (2012) and subsequent draft allocation in the now defunct Black Country Plan.

However, the representations made here, and to other draft policies of the draft Sandwell Local Plan, make some initial observations and suggested amendments to the draft policies to ensure they optimize the market attractiveness, viability and deliverability of development for our client’s site in particular. Our comments seek to ensure that the emerging policies are flexible enough to ensure that the anticipated, and allocated, residential regeneration of our client’s land can be achieved.
Whilst our client welcomes the continued residential allocation of the site under SH55, as it will enable them to bring forward residential development of the site when the current temporary use (facilitating the construction of the Midland Metropolitan Hospital) ceases, they have several comments / observations on the draft site allocation as follows:
-
The gross site area is shown to be 2.13 ha of brownfield land. Our client assumes that this includes both our client’s land, which at 1.78ha forms the significant majority of the allocation, and the small parcel of land that originally formed part of the site but that is now in the control of the NHS trust by virtue of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the construction of the neighbouring Midland Metropolitan Hospital. The draft Local Plan Proposals Map also suggests that a small parcel of land on the southern side of the Cape Arm is also included within this allocation.

The table provided at Appendix B suggests the indicative development capacity is 170 homes and indicates a development density of 80 dph across a net developable site area of 2.13 ha. By way of background, the former BCP draft allocation indicated a development density of 38dph at this site, equating to an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings (over the former site area of 1.85ha). Our client highlighted that this was at the lower end of the range of development densities that could be achieved at this site, and indicated that its own masterplan / site layout work had indicated an achievable site capacity (at that time) of 80 to 90 homes at a density of approximately 43 to 50 dph.

On this basis, our client submitted an indicative proposal for up to 90 dwellings (or around 50 dph) as part of a pre-application submission to the Council, demonstrating that this level and nature of development represented a viable proposal (at that time) and one that would have been most attractive to the market, and ultimately one that could have been deliverable here.

The latest draft allocation at a density of 80 dph is significantly higher (60% higher) than the density considered deliverable by our client. It is also significantly higher than the other residential allocations immediately surrounding SH55 and forming part of the wider Grove Lane masterplan area within the wider Smethwick Regeneration Area, at SH54 which has a development density of 40dph and SH58 which has a development density of 56dph – for example.

Moreover, draft allocation SH55 (within Appendix B of the draft Local Plan) suggests the developable area for SH55 is the same 2.13 ha as the total site area of 2.13 ha – suggesting either that the Council is anticipating development to cover the entire site (i.e. with no Green Infrastructure provision etc.) or that the net density calculation has been erroneously undertaken across the entire site and not reflective of a deliverable net developable area.

Ultimately, the approach taken is at odds with other policies within the draft Plan such as SMD1 (Design Quality) which requires major development proposals to contribute towards the greening of Sandwell (for example) and SH03 which takes an alternative approach to development density (for example). For the avoidance of doubt, we have submitted representations to each of these draft policies on behalf of our client also.
As such, the draft allocation must be clear that the density and capacity figures are indicative but they should nonetheless be be amended to reflect a deliverable proposal, and to avoid delivery at this allocated site being stifled by an onerous and undeliverable density and capacity requirement.

Leading on from the point above, the draft allocation’s reference to the Grove Lane Masterplan (and Smethwick Regeneration Area generally) must be recognised in context of the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) which formed the strategic Development Plan Document when the Masterplan (and Regeneration Area) were progressed, and which has ultimately failed to deliver the homes needed in Sandwell, and the wider Black Country, to date.

Sandwell’s latest published 5 year housing land supply position indicates that the Council can demonstrate just 1.57 years’ worth of housing land and in turn indicates a chronic failure to deliver sufficient homes needed to meet the Council’s identified housing need in the 5 year period. The draft Sandwell Local Plan’s housing trajectory projects that there will continue to be a chronic cumulative under supply of homes up to 2031/32, compounded by the Council’s continued reliance on windfall sites (being the 3rd largest contributor to the Council’s anticipated housing supply over the emerging Plan period (delivering 17% of homes needed in Sandwell). Relying so heavily on windfall sites reflects the Council’s continued failure to allocate a sufficient number of deliverable sites and its continued over-reliance on delivery at undeliverable densities from brownfield sites. It also highlights the conflict created from high density aspirations with onerous, unviable and ultimately undeliverable policy aspirations for design, sustainability and Green Infrastructure provision (for example).

The draft Plan sets out that 11,167 net new homes can be delivered over the Plan period (2022 to 2041) but recognises that this figure, when measured against the Council’s calculated Local Housing Need (currently calculated at 29,773 homes over the Plan period), represents a significant shortfall, and generates a substantial unmet need (of 18,606) homes within Sandwell over the Plan period.

In this context, significantly more sites must be allocated for residential development in Sandwell, including green field sites. This would reduce the burden of delivery from brownfield sites which, if the allocated brownfield sites are going to make the contribution they need to make in delivering much needed homes in Sandwell, a more realistic, and flexible, policy approach is needed to facilitate delivery from the allocated brownfield sites, like SH55, which are often subject to more stringent policy criteria than windfall sites (for example) – and demonstrates why the Council has to rely so heavily on windfall sites.

In essence, the brownfield allocation sites are being relied on too heavily to deliver the homes needed and this is leading to unrealistic and undeliverable development densities, which are at odds with other policy aspirations being inflexibly applied. A more flexible approach is needed to avoid continued stifling of these sites.

The draft Plan Proposals Map indicates that a cycle path is proposed to be routed along the Cape Arm but the Map itself is unclear if this route is proposed to the north of the Cape Arm or to the south, and suggests it is actually to be located within the canal. The Grove Lane Masterplan shows the cycle path on the southern (hospital) side of the Cape Arm and its route should be clarified within the Local Plan Proposals Map.

If this route is delivered on the northern side of The Cape Arm it will further reduce the net density / deliverability from SH55. That said, the area on the southern side, adjacent to the Midlands Metropolitan Hospital site, would readily connect over Cranford Street onto the cycle path which has been delivered through the residential development to the north, and thus connect onto the wider network running along the Birmingham Canal further to the north – suggesting the southern side of The Cape Arm is preferable for the cycle path.

Draft Policy SH03 (Housing Density, Type and Accessibility)

Requires all developments of 10 or more homes to achieve the minimum net densities set out (depending on locational sustainability) “except where this could prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness”.

However, it is not clear whether the minimum density requirements apply to the gross site area or the net developable area. As such, draft Policy SH03 should be amended to ensure that the densities required apply to the net land areas to ensure that the targets are achievable.

This required clarity is particularly important for the housing allocation sites where some of the allocation sites have a net density calculated on the net developable area but others, like SH55 for example, have a net density calculated across the whole site area and do not reflect or consider the net developable area. Consistency is needed.

However, the ability for any site to achieve the minimum density requirement will depend upon a range of site-specific factors, such as site constraints, delivery against other policy requirements (like draft Policy SMD1’s requirements to deliver sustainable design and technology and urban greening / green infrastructure for example) as well as each proposal’s ability to deliver a suitable mix needed to achieve the required density, factoring in market demand and need for example, as well as viability – which is fundamental if any homes are to be delivered at all.

Clearly the density requirement will need to balance other policy and density mix requirements, as well as both market demand and need, as well as site-specific constraints – and not just whether meeting the net density requirements would prejudice historic character and local distinctiveness.

As such, draft Policy SHO3 must be updated to ensure that there is flexibility and should express the required densities as ‘targets’ rather than ‘minimum’ requirements.

Draft Policy SH06 (Financial Viability Assessments for Housing)

Sets out at its part 4) that on sites where applying the affordable housing or accessibility and wheelchair user requirements set out in Policies SHO4 and SHO5 can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Whilst the recognition that any such provision needs to be viable is welcome, financial viability is key for all policy requirements if much needed residential development is going to come forward. With this in mind, draft Policy SH06 must refer to other policy requirements, such as SMD1 (Design Quality) for example, and make it clear that if any policy requirements make the development unviable, the optimum provision will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix, development density and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Draft Policy SMD1 (Design Quality) part 2)

Requires (all) developments to demonstrate that its listed criteria have been addressed and at part 3) requires (all) major developments to contribute to the greening of Sandwell by delivering against its listed criteria.

However, the draft Policy’s prescriptive approach lacks flexibility and is likely to impact upon deliverability of development – particularly allocated brownfield sites which are subject to other policy requirements and masterplan aspirations which, if inflexibly applied, are stifling development from them. The Policy also needs to recognise that development must be viable in order to deliver its requirements.

As such, the Policy must be amended to provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that development is viable, and ultimately deliverable, whilst delivering its requirements where possible, or where viable.

This more flexible approach is provided in draft Policy SH04 and draft Policy SH05 for example, which make it clear, and are explicit, that affordable housing provision and wheelchair accessibility standards (respectively) are required but only ‘subject to financial viability’.