Draft Regulation 18 Sandwell Local Plan

It is noted that Sandwell Council needs to identify land for 29,773 homes by 2041. However, the supply of suitable residential land identified by Sandwell Council stands at 11,167 homes, leaving an unmet need for 18,606 homes in the Plan period. The draft plan recognises that there is a finite supply of land readily available for development and it is very likely that it would not currently be possible to meet the full extent of Sandwell’s housing need within Sandwell itself. The Edwin Richards Quarry site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver a significant amount of housing, within the Plan period and into the subsequent plan period.

Policy SDS3 part 1a. states that towns and local communities outside West Bromwich and the regeneration areas will provide 503 new homes. This 503 homes figure is not explicitly referenced elsewhere in the Plan (e.g. within Policy SHO1 (Table 5), Policy SHO2 or Appendix B).

Clarification of how this figure has been calculated and how it relates to the proposed allocated sites outside of West Bromwich and the regeneration areas is requested.

Part 9 of Policy SNE3 states that tree planting on new development sites should make a minimum contribution of 20% canopy cover and a recommended contribution of 30% canopy cover across the site, especially in areas where evidence demonstrates that current levels of canopy cover are lower than the local average.

Although FCC supports the principle of providing tree cover as part of new development We object to this requirement for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is unclear how this canopy cover requirement will be calculated across the site and how this can be deliverable for residential sites which will include private gardens where there is limited / no control on what is planted or removed unless the site is within a Conservation Area. There may also be further controls over what tree species can be plant alongside adoptable roads.

Additionally, we consider that this requirement, in combination with others proposed in the plan (e.g. 10% biodiversity net gain and 3 to 1 replacement tree planting) will have serious implications on the net developable area of housing sites. On the basis that Sandwell cannot currently meet its identified housing needs, this proposed policy requirement may result in an even greater housing shortfall and additional sites will be required to meet that shortfall.
The tree planting requirements may also impact on a scheme’s ability to effectively provide 10% BNG on site. A basic requirement of BNG is that any habitat affected within the development boundary shall be replaced on a ‘like for like’ or ‘like for better’ principle. The proposed requirement for 20% canopy cover could greatly limit the space available within a site for the delivery of other specific types of biodiversity habitats that are needed to provide a 10% gain. This will further negatively impact on the net developable area of housing sites.

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

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

Part 1-4 of Policy SCC2 relates to decentralised energy networks and district heating provision. Part 1 requires any development including 10 homes or more to include opportunities for decentralised energy provision within the site, unless it can be demonstrated that the development is not suitable, feasible or viable for district heat or decentralised energy networks. While FCC supports measures to promote renewable energy provision, we object to this policy clause due to the lack of evidence to support the requirements set out.

Furthermore, Part 2 states that where there is existing decentralised energy provision available close to the site, the development will be expected to link into it, or should be designed to accommodate a subsequent connection if a source has not yet become operational. We object to this policy clause as it does not take into consideration whether the use of decentralised energy will be an effective or viable option for the development proposed.

It is noted that the Plan is not supported by any evidence base documents which consider the appropriateness of linking to decentralised energy facilities or for providing such energy provision on site. Appropriate clear evidence should be provided if reference to heat networks is to be retained in the SLP. Whilst such heating projects may have the potential to serve very high density development (e.g. town centre apartment schemes), they are not always effective or viable, particularly for housing development. From Savills experience and a review of implemented schemes, district heating in many cases can be inefficient because heat is lost (up to 50%) when transferring to the dwellings / users.

FCC already works with and provides heat to district heating systems and supports their use where viable, given their association with they fully understand the complexities of developing and operating. Although there are many successful examples there are also many of examples where district heating schemes have been implemented but have not been effective or have resulted in significant operational issues and costs. Examples include the Beddington Energy from Waste (EfW) scheme in Croydon and Bluebell Meadows in the Isle of White. Additionally, as part of the Cranbrook new settlement a District Heating was installed and an Energy Centre constructed on site. However, due to unacceptable cost and significant technical difficulties with the system, alternative sources of off-site energy are now being considered to link into the system from outside of the new settlement.

There are also significant disbenefits to the end-users of heat networks, because they will be locked into one energy source, without the ability to change supplier. There are also no sector specific protections for heat network consumers, as there are for other utilities users.

Parts 1-4 of Policy SCC2 should be removed from the plan due to the lack of evidence to support the requirement for decentralised energy networks and district heating provision.

Part 5 of Policy SCC2 states for large-scale development proposals including 100 homes or more, developers should create proposals for addressing energy provision on such sites and agree them with the local planning authority to establish the lowest lifetime carbon energy provision. Part 6 sets out further detailed information that will need to be provided in relation to Part 5. We object to the need for these requirements because Part L of the Building Regulations and the Future Homes Standards will appropriately cover this issue.

Part 3 of Policy SSC6 states that major developments creating ten or more homes must incorporate the generation of energy from renewable or low carbon sources sufficient to off-set at least 20% of the estimated residual energy demand of the development on completion. We object to this requirement because it is not evidenced. The NPPF (para 34) states that Development Plan Policies should not undermine the deliverability of the plan. The emerging plan is not currently supported by documentation which assesses the viability of the proposal in conjunction with the other proposed Policy requirements.

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

It is agreed that new developments should have access to sufficient open space to serve the needs of its future residents. Such open space could be provided on site or in the surrounding area. The amount and type of additional open space required should also be related on to the provision and quality of existing open space near to the site. However, it is highlighted that, due to the constrained urban nature of Sandwell, flexibility will be required in relation to the provision of open space within new developments. The pressing need for new homes will have to be balanced against the amount of open space required for such development. The quality of open space, as opposed to simply the quantity, should be a key factor when considering proposals for new housing development. As such, while FCC acknowledges the importance of providing open space for the residents of Sandwell, we object to a numerical standard being set in policy.

Additionally, the ratio of 3.63 hectares of space per 1,000 population, set out in the policy needs to be supported by clear evidence.

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

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

Part 1 of Policy SHO5 states that all new homes will meet Building Regulations Requirement M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) standards. Part 2 goes on to state that, on scheme of 10 units or more, 15% of units will be M4(3) (wheelchair User Dwellings) compliant.

The PPG states that Councils have the option to “set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519). The NPPF also requires all policies to be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence which should be adequate, proportionate and focused on supporting and justifying planning policies (paragraph 31). The PPG (Reference ID: 56-005- 20150327 to 56-011-20150327) sets out the evidence necessary to justifying a policy requirement for optional standards which includes:

• the likely future need;
• the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed;
• the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock;
• variations in needs across different housing tenures: and
• viability.

The evidence gathered to justify this policy requirements, in accordance with the above, is not clearly set out. This needs to be clarified.

The PPG does not state what level of requirement should be set within Local Plan policies. It is considered that requiring all new dwellings to be built to the Category M4(2) standards and for 15% to also be M4(3) compliant, will result in significantly larger dwellings and in turn fewer dwellings being delivered on sites. The NPPF is clear that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land (Paragraph 124). Furthermore, Sandwell Council already acknowledges that it has a significant undersupply of residential sites and is reliant on other local authorities for delivery. The Council should therefore be making the most efficient use of land on its sites proposed for allocation as determined on a site-by-site basis. The NPPF (paragraph 34) also states that Development Plan policies should not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. The emerging plan is not currently supported by documentation which assesses the viability of this proposal in conjunction with other proposed policy requirements. While the need to provide housing that is accessible and adaptable is recognised, we object to the requirement to build all dwellings to Category M4(2) standards and 15% to M4(3) standards as this will not be consistent with national planning policy and is not evidenced.

We also object to Part 4 of Policy SHO5, which states that on developments of 100 homes or more, where there is currently a demand for self-build and custom build plots (defined as the number of entries added to the self-build and custom build register in the most recent base period for the local authority where the site is located), at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match demand if lower.

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

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

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

It is noted that Sandwell Council needs to identify land for 29,773 homes by 2041. However, as set out in Policy SHO1 the supply of suitable residential land identified by Sandwell Council stands at 11,167 homes, leaving an unmet need for 18,606 homes in the Plan period. Further clarity is sought in relation to table 5 ‘Housing Land Supply’ and how the 11,167 units supply figure has been calculated. It is not clear from the table or the supporting evidence.

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

In relation to the housing allocations proposed, the inclusion of ERQ (site ref. SH37) is strongly supported. The proposed allocation suggests a capacity of c.526 dwellings in the Plan period; with a further c.100 dwellings in the post-Plan period (total site capacity c.626 dwellings). It is noted that this quantum includes the reserved matters planning application for 278 dwellings in the western area of the ERQ site. A resolution to grant has been given at Planning Committee and reserved matters approval will be issued imminently.

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

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

The current quarry void has approximately 5.3 million metres cubed of capacity until it is filled with soils and similar non-putrescible materials. Using a cubed density of 1.6 results in a remaining infill tonnage of 8.48 million tonnes of material (soil). Over past years the infill rates have varied as would be expected for a commercial operation of this type not backed by long term guaranteed contacts. As such the annual quantum of fill may vary but realistically the quarry could be filled within 12 years subject to annual inputs of circa 750,000te. This represents a reasonable assumption, but it should however be noted that this cannot be guaranteed and the landfill completion, may ultimately take longer if less materials is available than currently expected.

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

Trajectory v2.1 predicts the landfill operations ceasing by 2033, assuming c.1 million tonnes entering site on average a year. A fill rate of c.1 million tonnes has been achieved in a year previously but is at the higher level of fill expected. This would thus allow residential development to commence on phases 6-8 in 2034 (assuming that the necessary planning permission is secured during the early 2030s). While this level of fill is unlikely over a sustained number of years. the trajectory shows how on this basis the site could potentially be built out during the Plan period .

Trajectory v2.2 demonstrates the implications of a reduced rate of fill (c.750,000 tonnes per year for 12 years) and shows that it would still be possible to achieve 526 dwellings in the Plan period whilst retaining a reasonable and deliverable assumption of 40 dwellings completed per year. We would highlight that in Savills experience, in recent years some developers have been achieving 50+ completions per year on a single site.

It is noted that Sandwell Council needs to identify land for 29,773 homes by 2041. However, as set out in Policy SHO1 the supply of suitable residential land identified by Sandwell Council stands at 11,167 homes, leaving an unmet need for 18,606 homes in the Plan period. Further clarity is sought in relation to table 5 ‘Housing Land Supply’ and how the 11,167 units supply figure has been calculated. It is not clear from the table or the supporting evidence.

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

In relation to the housing allocations proposed, the inclusion of ERQ (site ref. SH37) is strongly supported. The proposed allocation suggests a capacity of c.526 dwellings in the Plan period; with a further c.100 dwellings in the post-Plan period (total site capacity c.626 dwellings). It is noted that this quantum includes the reserved matters planning application for 278 dwellings in the western area of the ERQ site. A resolution to grant has been given at Planning Committee and reserved matters approval will be issued imminently.

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

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

The current quarry void has approximately 5.3 million metres cubed of capacity until it is filled with soils and similar non-putrescible materials. Using a cubed density of 1.6 results in a remaining infill tonnage of 8.48 million tonnes of material (soil). Over past years the infill rates have varied as would be expected for a commercial operation of this type not backed by long term guaranteed contacts. As such the annual quantum of fill may vary but realistically the quarry could be filled within 12 years subject to annual inputs of circa 750,000te. This represents a reasonable assumption, but it should however be noted that this cannot be guaranteed and the landfill completion, may ultimately take longer if less materials is available than currently expected.

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

Trajectory v2.1 predicts the landfill operations ceasing by 2033, assuming c.1 million tonnes entering site on average a year. A fill rate of c.1 million tonnes has been achieved in a year previously but is at the higher level of fill expected. This would thus allow residential development to commence on phases 6-8 in 2034 (assuming that the necessary planning permission is secured during the early 2030s). While this level of fill is unlikely over a sustained number of years. the trajectory shows how on this basis the site could potentially be built out during the Plan period .

Trajectory v2.2 demonstrates the implications of a reduced rate of fill (c.750,000 tonnes per year for 12 years) and shows that it would still be possible to achieve 526 dwellings in the Plan period whilst retaining a reasonable and deliverable assumption of 40 dwellings completed per year. We would highlight that in Savills experience, in recent years some developers have been achieving 50+ completions per year on a single site.