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

Support

Representation ID: 5331

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support allocation of Land North of Linthouse Lane as a strategic development location.

Object

Representation ID: 5332

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerned about absolute requirements in the policy such as delivery of historic environment mitigation measures which are identified by the Council. Policy refers to integrating former Prestwood and avoiding any direct impacts. Such a requirement is inconsistent with national policy relative to Heritage Assets in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 5409

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Simon Brodie

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Linthouse Lane allocation. Insufficient local services 7 infrastructure to support development. Loss of farmland. Loss of heritage. Loss of habitat -bats present. Loss of Green Belt contrary to recent Government policy announcements.

Object

Representation ID: 5446

Received: 17/12/2022

Respondent: J Gainey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- Loss of farmland
- Loss of Greenspace
- Brownfield first
- Inadequate road network
- Inadequate health and education services

Object

Representation ID: 5447

Received: 17/12/2022

Respondent: M Gainey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- Loss of farmland
- Loss of greenspace
- Brownfield first
- Inadequate road network
- Inadequate health and educational services
- Risk of surface water flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 5478

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs A Moore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to proposal
Loss of Green Belt.
Roads already gridlocked.
Doctors and schools at capacity
Undermines public health strategies by developing green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 5479

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Christopher Moore

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to proposal
Loss of Green Belt.
Roads already gridlocked.
Doctors and schools at capacity
Undermines public health strategies by developing green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 5490

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: W J Taylor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Use brownfield sites rather than prime agricultural land.
Maintain the distinct character of Essington. To this end the inclusion of the Country Park is vital.
Traffic through Essington is borderline safe. Access to the new development should be steered away from the village, including during construction. Road infrastructure improvements to M54 and M6 should be implemented in time to absorb the additional traffic.
Preservation of various public footpaths is important as they are well used.

Object

Representation ID: 5501

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Michael Wallace

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Negative impact on local highway network both during the construction phase and arising from the occupation of the new development.
Increase traffic generation will increase noise and air pollution
Need to protect the existing PRoW network.
Weak public transport proposals.
Insufficient consideration has been given as to how this new urban development will integrate with the existing urban areas of Wednesfield.
More consultation should be undertaken with the residents of Wednesfield.
If the development is to proceed then mitigation will be required to include the siting of the country park to be placed on the Wednesfield side; mitigate educational impacts; mitigate impacts on health services and indicate how the new development will be served by police and fire services.
Brownfield sites should be utilised before Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 5512

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Friends of Essington

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Linthouse Lane
- loss of farmland
- improvements to existing road infrastructure required.
- promote country park to maintain separation between development and Essington.

Comment

Representation ID: 5518

Received: 17/12/2022

Respondent: J Gainey

Suggest moving the planned ‘country park’ (P.49) to south of the railway line and put it on Linthouse Lane and move housing to north of the railway line. This will provide a green buffer zone between Wolverhampton and proposed housing development with enough space for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 5575

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

A location for a potential canal crossing is not shown on the Concept Plan, and would need to be discussed with the Trust, and other relevant authorities/landowners. There are a number of historic (unlisted) bridges in the near vicinity which will need to be considered.

Increased use of the towpath should be considered, it is currently not in good condition and should be improved.