Policy SA3 – Strategic development location: Land North of Linthouse Lane

Object

Representation ID: 4042

Received: 26/11/2022

Respondent: Diane Saunders

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The traffic through Essington is already heavy around rush hour and made worse by cut through traffic and parked school traffic. Roads around Essington are not very wide creating issues with lorries. A further 1,200 houses could mean over 2000+ cars to clog up the village. Linthouse Lane has no direct access to the Strategic Road Network; alternative site should be allocated with A road access. Suggest a bypass system to direct traffic for junction 11 around Essington. Suggest painting yellow lines by the shop on the corner of Kingsway and Brownshore Road to reduce congestion. Roads are currently liable to flooding. Getting to work and about for local residents is already difficult enough without further traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 4057

Received: 10/11/2022

Respondent: Gavin Woodward

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Request Land north of Linthouse Lane is reconsidered as it is the only Green Belt in the area and with climate change green areas are needed in towns and cities to help the planet.

Object

Representation ID: 4059

Received: 05/12/2022

Respondent: Sylvia Bentley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Land north of Linthouse Lane. Infrastructure cannot support such a large development, with another 2000+ cars coming onto Linthouse Lane and Kitchen Lane. Roads are already congested throughout Wolverhampton and the site would affect ambulance traffic. There are no doctors surgeries, dentist, primary and secondary schools that could cope with the development. Proposed country park should be on the Wedensfield side of the development to provide a green lung for residents.

Object

Representation ID: 4060

Received: 05/12/2022

Respondent: Jean Aston

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Have concerns with the housing proposed at Linthouse Lane, Wednesfield. The extra vehicles could create an area constantly gridlocked with more air pollution. This will add to the loss of Green Belt and farmland. The Country Park should be moved to the Wednesfield side of the former mineral railway.

Object

Representation ID: 4067

Received: 12/12/2022

Respondent: A Nicklin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Linthouse Lane due to safety concerns from peak traffic in Essington village and poor air quality from cars. Major concerns and issues include:
- High levels of traffic in Essington at peak times
- Traffic congestion from Kitchen Lane up Upper Sneyd Road and around school opening and closing times
- Lack of provision for new school places
- Traffic on Blackhalve Lane, Kitchen Lane and Linthouse Lane increasing road issues in the village

Cannock A460 road can only be accessed via single track road in places development traffic and would increase traffic through Essington village. Major traffic increases along Linthouse Lane would also occur. Construction traffic going through Essington currently ignores weight restrictions, how would future construction traffic avoid this?

Further constraints regarding traffic and flooding annotated on map.

Object

Representation ID: 4119

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: D Morgan PLC

Agent: Peacock and Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Sustainable development should utilise public transport, provide a genuine choice of transport modes - Site SA3 fails to achieve this. Allocated in a rural location for significant growth despite being in Tier 3 Essington. Site is remote from any railway stations, not within Cannock Town Centre Catchment Area or Travel Zone, and only served by a very limited bus service. Does not meet NPPF para 142 requirements for Green Belt release.

Object

Representation ID: 4154

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: CPRE West Midlands Regional Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

See objections to policies DS4 & DS5

Comment

Representation ID: 4208

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Connectivity and Sustainability, Staffordshire County Council

H) This references infrastructure requirements and does include education. Does infrastructure include Home to School Travel, as this may also be required for this site.

Suggest Policy is changed to read:
K) Necessary contributions towards offsite infrastructure, including highways and active travel mitigation measures, education including school transport, leisure and health provision.

Object

Representation ID: 4284

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Member of Parliament for South Staffordshire

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

National policy has changed significantly, especially in December 2022, and significant updates should be made to the plan. The written statement made on 6th December by the Secretary of State announced several changes, including a move to make housing need targets advisory. The district council should take advantage of these material changes to ensure that the character of our communities and our Green Belt are properly protected. A commitment was also given to allow a two year period for plans to be revised for plans at an advanced stage of preparation.

The Local Plan should be paused while these changes take effect, revise down its housing numbers in line with new proposed guidance and ensure it can protect as much Green Belt as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 4311

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Councillor Phil Bateman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We remain concerned and upset at proposals for 1,900 homes in Wednesfield. There is already severe estate congestion due to a 1950s housing estate being built. Land north of Linthouse Lane will create great hardship for years to come on surrounding estates. The scheme should be thrown out.

Construction traffic will bring misery for years to come, increasing pressure on local economy and across the City/Black Country. It is also inconsistent with the declared Climate Crisis by Wolverhampton. Ancient public footpaths will be affected by scheme and need to be protected. Whilst there is clear agreement between the WMCA about the support for Brinsford Parkway there is no similar proposal for land North of Linthouse Lane. A couple of bus routes does not indicate we are taking the Climate Crisis seriously.

More consultation is needed with Wednesfield residents, including on transport assessments/planning applications. Increased pollution levels will affect Wednesfield residents. The Country Park should be placed on the Wednesfield side of the former mineral railway to provide the green lungs that the current arable farm land and Green Belt provides.

Development will throw huge pressure on Wednesfield and Wolverhampton North East schools where places are at a premium. More issues will develop around the already very stretched GP practice and dental and hospital services. The development will affect public health by cutting off green belt for established and diverse communities. Little or no thought has been given to Fire and Police services with no plans for how these services will be provided.

Object

Representation ID: 4313

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: West Midlands Combined Authority

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Formally object to the inclusion of Linthouse Lane. The site provides access to green space for residents of both South Staffordshire and Wolverhampton. Sites like these are crucial to tackling health inequalities by providing ready access to space for recreation and exercise, as well as benefiting air quality and biodiversity.

Concerned by the ability of infrastructure to cope with increased demand, for example junctions with Wood End Road, Kitchen Lane, Griffiths Drive and Linthouse Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 4332

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: National Grid C/O Avison Young

Following a review of the above Development Plan Document, we have identified that one or more proposed development sites are crossed or in close proximity to National Grid assets. This includes Land North of Linthouse Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 4336

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: The British Horse Society

Active travel developments in this area could take the opportunity to upgrade public footpath Essington 3W to bridleway to be inclusive of cyclists and equestrians. ‘Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users’ (NPPF, s100).

Object

Representation ID: 4366

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: CPRE Staffordshire

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Council is seeking an excessive area of land for new housing development in this location. Gross site areas are at unduly low densities and no detail is given of net developable areas, maximum numbers of dwellings or land requirements for other uses. No detail is given of infrastructure needs such as highways, drainage/sewerage, playing fields and associated facilities. No information is provided on funding, phasing or thresholds for provision of facilities and services.

At 35dph only 56ha of land is required. The proposal includes a school but is in a three-tier area. Where are secondary age children to be educated? Have the education authorities in Wolverhampton and Staffordshire agreed education provision and funding with South Staffordshire Council?

Object

Representation ID: 4394

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Clause within policy relating to historic environment needs to be site specific rather than referring to a separate document - this is not a sound approach. Clause (g) should set out the specific mitigation measures, including that planning applications should include both details to address the physical protection of the non-designated moat from damage but also a positive management plan for its conservation, inlcuding its setting relationship with the nearby Scheduled Moat site. Further given the setting of the Shropshire Union Canal Conservation Area the mitigation measures for retaining existing tree and hedgerows is essential and additional planting will be an enhancement opportunity.

Comment

Representation ID: 4503

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Cameron Homes notes the identification of four strategic housing allocations and the included housing trajectory at Appendix H of the Publication Plan.
Cameron Homes considers a more detailed housing trajectory should be included to ensure the reliance on these strategic sites does not undermine the timely delivery of housing against a non-stepped trajectory, recognising the assumed reduction in completions to 2026.

Comment

Representation ID: 4533

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Cameron Homes notes the identification of four strategic housing allocations and the included housing trajectory at Appendix H of the Publication Plan.
Cameron Homes considers a more detailed housing trajectory should be included to ensure the reliance on these strategic sites does not undermine the timely delivery of housing against a non-stepped trajectory, recognising the assumed reduction in completions to 2026.

Comment

Representation ID: 4559

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Cameron Homes notes the identification of four strategic housing allocations and the included housing trajectory at Appendix H of the Publication Plan.
Cameron Homes considers a more detailed housing trajectory should be included to ensure the reliance on these strategic sites does not undermine the timely delivery of housing against a non-stepped trajectory, recognising the assumed reduction in completions to 2026.

Comment

Representation ID: 4616

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Four Ashes Road LTD

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Four Ashes Road Ltd notes the identification of four strategic housing allocations and the included housing trajectory at Appendix H of the Publication Plan. It is considered a more detailed housing trajectory should be
included to ensure the reliance on these strategic sites does not undermine the timely delivery of housing against a non-stepped trajectory, recognising the
assumed reduction in completions to 2026.

Comment

Representation ID: 4672

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Keon Homes notes the identification of four strategic housing allocations and the included housing trajectory at Appendix H of the Publication Plan. Keon Homes considers a more detailed housing trajectory should be included to ensure the reliance on these strategic sites does not undermine the timely delivery of housing against a non-stepped trajectory, recognising the assumed reduction in completions to 2026.

Comment

Representation ID: 4712

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Lovell Homes notes the identification of four strategic housing allocations and the included housing trajectory at Appendix H of the Publication Plan. Lovell Homes considers a more detailed housing trajectory should be included to ensure the reliance on these strategic sites does not undermine the timely delivery of housing against a non-stepped trajectory, recognising the assumed reduction in completions to 2026.

Comment

Representation ID: 4727

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: National Highways

With regard to policies SA1 to SA4 we have south to agree a methodology with Staffordshire County Council (as local highways authority). This uses the SATURN model for the M54 - M6 link road proposal to inform site promoters' own technical assessments. This will inform the need for any form of highway mitigation works on the SRN, which is still to be determined.

Comment

Representation ID: 4777

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Terra Strategic

The Council should ensure that the proposed timescales for the delivery of their larger strategic sites are
realistic. The strategic allocations should also be supported by a sufficient supply of smaller sites which
are readily available and deliverable to ensure the Council has a robust supply, in line with paragraph 69
of the NPPF. Land available for housing delivery within the District is restricted by the Green Belt. Therefore, the Council should consider allocating additional sites outside of the Green Belt which are available, deliverable and achievable within the Plan period, such as Land at Penkridge Road, Acton Trussell.

Object

Representation ID: 4852

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In summary, there is significant reliance on the delivery of housing on four strategic sites where considerable uncertainty remains over the potential rates of housing delivery. In addition, these sites will result in ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of harm to the Green Belt that could potentially be avoided by allocating land in other areas, such as land in Tier 4 settlements.
As a consequence, the Plan is considered to be unsound as it is not justified (is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives) nor effective (deliverable over the Plan period).

Object

Representation ID: 4882

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jones

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Insufficient consideration has been had to increased traffic leaving the site and heading eastwards. The traffic survey and assessment of traffic movement and impact on adjacent junctions does not reflect wider implications of traffic generated by the Linthouse Lane proposal.

Local roads are already congested at peak time. The junction between Kitchen Lane and Upper Sneyd Lane is poor. The approach to Bursnips Road, Sneyd Lane, and Essington Road is single track due to parked cars. The Strategic Transport Assessment (2022) did not look at the traffic impact further than the immediate locality, and particularly towards Walsall along Upper Sneyd Road. The figure used of approximately 50% of dwellings creating 1 car journey each is a low figure. The Kitchen Lane/High Hill/Upper Sneyd Road/Brownshore Lane junction has incorrectly been assessed as having traffic control lights, and is congested at peak time.

Object

Representation ID: 5023

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rapleys LLP for Vistry Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There has been dialogue as part of the DTC, however it is clear that the Regulation 19 sites have been allocated without regard (or little regard) to highway modelling, as referenced in paragraphs 5.22-23 of the IDP.
Given the size of the site and the poor surrounding highways infrastructure, there is easily a possibility that mitigation will be required and that it may not be possible given the constraints of surrounding urban development.
The site is also located within the green belt and the submitted evidence prepared by Land Use Consultants Ltd confirmed that the harm of removing this site from green belt to be high.
Comments made in relation to MA1 above, are equally applicable to this allocation, raising questions over timing of the delivery of the site within the plan period.
With all of the above in mind, it is highly possible that the final capacity may be reduced and therefore the overall number of houses provided falls short of the allocation requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 5080

Received: 23/12/2023

Respondent: Living Space Housing

The Council should ensure that the proposed timescales for the delivery of their larger strategic sites are realistic in light of Lichfield's Start to Finish report. The strategic allocations should also be supported by a sufficient supply of smaller sites which are readily available and deliverable to ensure the Council has a robust supply, in line with paragraph 69 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 5268

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: P Woolley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site SA3 is currently used for agriculture, which is important for national food security.

Not enough evidence has been gathered to establish how vacant office and retail floorspace can be converted into residential use. Greater incentives should be provided for developers to redevelop these spaces.

There are large areas of brownfield land in the Black Country that could support residential development subject to remediation.

South Staffordshire countryside should not be destroyed until all alternative options have been exhausted.

The creation of a green buffer/park between Essington and site SA3 is not enough. Which authority will take long-term responsibility for it? A gradual, preconceived process of degradation will ensure that houses are built on this space too in the future.

The infrastructure of Essington can not support the increase in traffic volume. Disagree that most traffic will be headed towards Wolverhampton. Increased traffic past the primary school will increase the risk of accidents involving children. There already exists a large volume of traffic through Essington at school travel times, and a reluctance of SSDC or SSC to address this.

The SoS has issued a statement clarifying that greater consideration should be had to the views of local residents. SSDC are giving greater weight to the residents of Wolverhampton rather than their own.

Object

Representation ID: 5270

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Neil Wheeldon

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The details concerning housing development are hidden within the Local Plan. Most residents are unaware about this development and the representations received are unrepresentative of the feeling when plans become more apparent.

Essington has had enough new housing developments over the years to accommodate population growth.

There is outstanding disused brownfield land between Hobnock Road and Burnsips Road within Essington to use. This has been in its current state for many years despite being earmarked for development. Land behind New Mercia Forest Crematorium.

Questions whether there is an assurance that no further large housing estates will be built if site SA3, Linthouse Lane is approved?

A separation should be maintained between Blackhalve Lane/High Hill and the development to protect the old mining village.

There is already an unreasonable quantum of construction traffic (mostly from Wood Farm Golf Landfill and surrounding quarries), and any increase will increase the risk of a serious accident. There has been no success in raising these issues with either SSDC or SCC, and request that a regular residents meeting is held to discuss ongoing development issues.

Access to highways is shown as a positive for this SA3. It is clear that all traffic going to the M6 will cut through Essington. There are a number of congestion points including near St. Johns school which require remedies to prevent a serious accident.

Would welcome the creation of a footpath in Blackhalve Lane. Deaths have already occurred so increased traffic will compound this situation.

Existing trees should be protected and not removed for development as farmers have managed to retain them.

Questions whether the existing St. Johns Primary School has capacity to accommodate the development or whether the development is self-sufficient in this regard. Additional traffic towards the school will increase the likelihood of a serious accident.

Object

Representation ID: 5271

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Westwood

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The development of site SA3, Linthouse Lane, will consume the only stretch of Green Belt in Wednesfield. Local residents use the area for walking, relaxing, and enjoying the diverse wildlife present.

Local infrastructure implications have not been thought out. An extra 200 households will create extra traffic, place extra demand on local health services and New Cross hospital which is already over-subscribed and inaccessible. No new doctors' surgeries or secondary education facilities are proposed.

No new retail facilities are required as there is an abundance of empty units in Wednesfield. There is already a park on Ashmore Park and a cycle track and BMX trail and sports facilities at Coppice Secondary School.

The site has been used as agriculture for many years and helps climate change and food production. Farming should be encouraged and not turned over to housing.

Brownfield sites should be developed, and empty homes should be brought back into use first.

Disagree that it is better to have a plan than not. Plans submitted by a developer can be assessed individually to see if they are suitable for their respective area.

The site has a history dating back to the Anglo-Saxons and is likely to be rich in archaeology.