Object

Representation ID: 4695

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Acres Land & Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is illogical to determine the number of houses in a strategic location to meet the ambitions of the LEA to build a new first school. Further, it is the view of Bilbrook PC that the current school is adequate to serve requirements without the addition to the urban extension. The willingness of the developer to provide a first school should be irrelevant and unjustified; this would need to be done anyway for a scheme of its size.

Paragraph 8.39 of the Strategic Growth Study identifies the strategic separation between Wolverhampton and Codsall/Bilbrook as 'notable'. This allocation will remove this gap, and be compounded by local employment development.

The 2018 Green Belt review does not point to the allocation of SA1 (land east of Bilbrook). Further, the 2014 LUC Method Statement identified that Parcels 1 and 3 to the east of Bilbrook made a considerable contribution to the purposes of Green Belt: they had a 'strong' impact upon purpose a, and a 'moderate' impact upon purpose b. This harm is acknowledged in the Housing Site Selection Topic Paper, whilst the illustration in paragraph 5.41 does not indicate the true impact upon the Green Belt.

The site conflicts with the recommendations and findings of the Strategic Growth Study 2018 (where development to the east of Codsall/Bilbrook was warned against), and the Green Belt Study identified as having a 'strong' purpose.