Policy SA5: Housing Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 3990

Received: 23/11/2022

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association (IWA)

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Penkridge site 006 Land at Boscomoor Lane has had no public consultation as it was not proposed in the 2021 Preferred Options plan. It is unnecessary given the major housing allocation North of Penkridge. It is Green Belt land, the suggestion that it has lower value is subjective, and no very special circumstances have been demonstrated. Despite a key requirement being to retain and reinforce trees and hedgerow to protect views from the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area, it will significantly damage its open rural setting. This is not justified nor consistent with national policy on Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 3998

Received: 25/11/2022

Respondent: Mr S Farmer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Having written to complain and having given good reasons why there should not be development on site 416 I have received no evidence that the council has considered these nor have they provided any counter-reasons for going ahead (nor have the council supplied any evidence on it's website or via emails or in the Final Local Plan of its consideration of all the issues raised and its counter-arguments) which suggests they have not considered all opposition nor have they given any reasons for ignoring residents concerns.

This makes the Final Local Plan unsound and biased.

Object

Representation ID: 4007

Received: 27/11/2022

Respondent: Mrs Judith Babbs

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site 036C, Land at Weeping Cross.

This proposed development, although in SSD will impact directly on Stafford itself. The schools, doctors, hospital, and roads are already inadequate for the borough.

Stafford has seen a huge surge of new housing in every area.

The land is productive farm land.

People need green spaces for health and well being.

Permission for this development would give the go ahead for even more expansion of the surrounding green space.

Object

Representation ID: 4010

Received: 27/11/2022

Respondent: Mrs C Banham

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Wildwood development on the grounds of a lack of amenities particularly public transport and schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 4011

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Victoria Davey

Concerned about plans at Pattingham Hall End/Dodd's Field due to flooding of site with small amounts of rain and flooding of nearby houses which has previously happened.

Support

Representation ID: 4013

Received: 07/12/2022

Respondent: Mr M Hollinshead

Support policy in its current format now that Site 272 Dunsley Drive is rejected and assessed as not performing as well as the initial assessment indicated.

Work commissioned by residents raises following points re Site 272:
• It is elevated and highly visible
• Is in an area of particularly sensitive Green Belt
• There would be no 'defensible' boundary
• There would be significant damage to the Historic Environment and Conservation Area
• Vehicular access is not possible given the current site boundary
• A hazardous road crossing for pedestrians

Object

Representation ID: 4021

Received: 01/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Peter Baker

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object most strongly to the addition of 390+ houses on the Green Belt in Lower Penn.

The pressure on local services like GP surgeries, Dentists, Clinics and Schools is already more than can be met without expansion.

The lanes that traditionally connect villages are rutted and pot-holed with excessive traffic. Planks Lane and Ounsdale Road are choked with school traffic in the mornings and late afternoons but so are all the roads leading along lanes between villages. Stationary traffic spills out toxic exhaust fumes and the lanes connecting Lower Penn are particularly unsuited to more traffic. We need to plant more trees and oxygenating plants to try to balance this.

Unclear who will benefit from proposed development at Lower Penn. Green Belts help to meet the challenge of Climate Change. Green Belts should be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 4024

Received: 27/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Vernon Hunt

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Housing development at Wildwood would make traffic more difficult along the A34 and at the crossroad near the Chetwyned arm. Development would also have an impact of local amenities- schools, GP surgeries etc.

Object

Representation ID: 4025

Received: 03/12/2022

Respondent: Mr John Sutton

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The proposal to build 81 houses south of Stafford (Weeping Cross) should be removed from the Plan. It is contrary to the Open Countryside Policy, uses productive agricultural land, will generate higher traffic flows on the narrow and dangerous Acton Hill Road which will inevitably be used for access to the M6 at Junction 13, generate further traffic flows through Acton Trussell to the detriment of local residents and set a precedent for further similar development to the west and south compounding the issues already set out.

Object

Representation ID: 4030

Received: 28/11/2022

Respondent: Andrew Marshall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Developments in recent years in Weeping Cross and adjoining area have wiped out green belt land with no benefit. Roads, schools, GP surgeries cannot cope, Strongly object to new housing development in Wildwood area South of Stafford.

Comment

Representation ID: 4032

Received: 29/11/2022

Respondent: Mr A Parrott

The land provides an important wildlife link between Cannock Chase AONB, Deepmore Meadows and Hazelstrine Wood. There are 25 trees and ancient thorn hedge on or around the site. Various wildlife sightings have also been spotted on the site.

Acton Hill Lane is heavily used by commuters and is very tight in places and the village community centre cannot be accessed via footpath. Little positive impacts will be achieved and more traffic will be put on Action Hill Rd.

Object

Representation ID: 4033

Received: 01/12/2022

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S Preece

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Oppose the development in Wildwood Stafford due to impacts on infrastructure and aesthetics of area. Schools in local area are oversubscribed, meaning more traffic to allow children to travel to schools in surrounding area, but small lanes cannot accommodate the traffic and road onto the A34 would cause problems.

Loss of fields would affect the health of the local population and biodiversity. Local wildlife has been sighted on site. Development could cause flooding in close proximity. Hospitals and local GPs are already difficult to use due to waiting times.

Object

Representation ID: 4034

Received: 30/11/2022

Respondent: Mr & Mrs R & L Randall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Sternly object to more houses being built on edge of Wildwood due to local schools not having enough places, 2-3 week waiting lists for GPs, A34 traffic, effects on countryside and wildlife, hospital capacity and impact on utilities.

Object

Representation ID: 4035

Received: 28/11/2022

Respondent: J Richardson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Has any serious consideration been given to the Copart site as an alternative to Billy Buns Lane? How will the aesthetics/spirit of the village be maintained at Billy Buns Lane/Gilbert Lane? Industrial areas in Wombourne should be redeveloped to avoid Green Belt. Wombourne is already congested. Totally opposed to all recommendations, if Wombourne is to expand it should be done on the west side of the village not the north/east side.

Object

Representation ID: 4036

Received: 29/11/2022

Respondent: Mrs Olwyn Richardson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Strongly disapprove of development due to exist onto congested A34 and lack of improvements to road infrastructure. Cumulative impacts from other development in surrounding area will also affect A34 and there are numerous new housing developments within 2 miles.

Schools in the area are not being developed to cope with new residents and it is already difficult to get a local doctors appointment. Loss of local wildlife and woodland would occur.

Object

Representation ID: 4037

Received: 29/11/2022

Respondent: Mr J Rowley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Do not want 390+ homes on Green Belt in Lower Penn. Pressure on local services (medical centre and schools) is already excessive and roads are becoming busier and more dangerous, particularly at Windmill Lane and on Langley Road at Fiveways. Green Belt helps to meet the challenge of Climate Change and should be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 4038

Received: 04/12/2022

Respondent: Mr David Baldwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to proposed housing at Acton Hill, Wildwood, Stafford.

The site is prime agricultural land and not in a sustainable location. Schools and doctors are full and significant distance away, increasing need to travel. No footway, street lighting or pedestrian/cycle links to services. Roads between A34 and Acton Trussell cannot accommodate more traffic. Unsafe access onto A34. Wildlife will be disturbed and bus routes are infrequent.

Object

Representation ID: 4039

Received: 04/12/2022

Respondent: Mr A Gainey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Linthouse Lane development. Loss of Green Belt would affect well-being of residents. Wolverhampton does not have many green spaces, Essington already has a country park. Brownfield must be investigated further first. Significant increase in traffic congestion would occur and the Strategic Transport Assessment fails to recognise narrow parts of Wood Hayes Road and Kitchen Lane. One primary school may not be enough for 2000+ families and no secondary school is provided. GP surgery at Griffiths Drive is already over capacity.

The country park should be moved on to Linthouse Lane and housing should be put north of the railway line. This would improve Wolverhampton residents' mental welfare, improve drainage proposals, prevent excess traffic congestion, visually separate the development from Wolverhampton and be fairer on Wolverhampton residents.

Object

Representation ID: 4043

Received: 29/11/2022

Respondent: Mr Martyn Share

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to site 313. Himley Lane is very narrow and could cause a potential dangerous accident. There are much more safer and attractive options for further development in Swindon to be looked at and considered.
The plan will have a direct negative effect/impact on climate change.

Comment

Representation ID: 4044

Received: 19/11/2022

Respondent: Joanne Soars

Bhylls Lane is already a busy road used by children going to and from school and would experience extra traffic. The local schools are full, would South Staffs fund local Wolverhampton schools? Local doctors are also full, where would new patients go? Land in South Staffs could be built on rather than Wolverhampton green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 4045

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Staffordshire County Council (Minerals)

Both of the allocations for Cheslyn Hay (site refs: 119a and 523) adjoin operational mineral sites. These allocations are already in the Site Allocations DPD as safeguarded land and are subject to a key requirement which states: 'Site layout and design should be based on an environmental assessment that takes into account permitted mineral operations and avoids additional restrictions being imposed on those operations'. This requirement should be restated for both allocations in appendix C.

Object

Representation ID: 4046

Received: 07/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Simon George

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to inclusion of 81 units near Weeping Cross:
- Inhabitants would rely on Stafford infrastructure without Stafford BC receiving council tax
- local GP service is already overwhelmed
- The A34 Cannock Road is overused
- Schools on east side of Stafford are already full, forcing further journeys further afield
- Stafford BC is opposed to the development and can meet its housing target without it, so the site's inclusion conflicts with the duty to cooperate and is unnecessary

The site should be removed
-

Object

Representation ID: 4047

Received: 08/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Tom Higgins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to sites 284 & 463. New building here will destroy character and feel of rural approach to the church and conservation area and impact visual receptors from traffic island. Plan should be considered unsound because it is not in accordance with the Wombourne Conservation Area Management Plan (WCAMP). It would harm the historic environment, does not reflect Parish Council and resident feedback and multiple parts of the WCAMP refer to the importance of a buffer zone to the conservation area in the area occupied by the site. Site 463 is a working farm and the eviction of the tenant farmer could result in them being homeless.

Object

Representation ID: 4049

Received: 05/12/2022

Respondent: Lady Jacqueline Jinks

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to 80 homes and Travellers site on edge of Stafford. The consultation period has been shortened as residents did not receive consultation letter on 11/11/22. 2017 and 2021 applications were rejected on sound grounds. Site will cripple infrastructure and damage wildlife, flora and fauna. Acton Hill Lane will become heavily congested. The site would open up surrounding land for development. None of the facts have changed since the 2017 application. The site is isolated from other developments and amenities in South Staffs.

Object

Representation ID: 4050

Received: 07/12/2022

Respondent: J.E and G Knight

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land off Acton Hill, A34 Cannock Road should not be included in plan. It is Green Belt agricultural land and is needed for farming. There is not the infrastructure for this development. The road system cannot bear more traffic. All schools in the area are oversubcribed. Medical facilities are at breaking point. The original development was refused planning permission and nearby permission has increased traffic and infrastructure pressure.

Comment

Representation ID: 4051

Received: 11/12/2022

Respondent: Miss Stephanie Tompson

The proposed site at the back of Dodd's Field Pattingham is already water logged and the adjacent estate is at risk of flooding. Pattingham is a small country side farming village and we should protect Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 4052

Received: 05/12/2022

Respondent: Theresa Vaccaro

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Townsend Field by Wombourne High Street should not be built on. It benefits neighbours' mental health by giving a feeling of access to the countryside. Each dwelling needs one or two lawns to produce oxygen and a patio at the rear. A tree in the front lawn will help stabalise the soil and transpire heavy rain.

Object

Representation ID: 4058

Received: 02/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Michael Plumb

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

036c Land at Weeping Cross
Restate objections to development for housing on the southern edge of Stafford. The site is sensitive Open Countryside and impact upon local environment and wildlife, agricultural land and local services. Site would set a precedent for future development in surrounding area and would detract from nearby Cannock Chase AONB. Government proposals to remove five year supply where plans are up to date would mean housing targets become advisory, The intrinsic qualities of this area should continue to be recognised and protected.

Support

Representation ID: 4061

Received: 13/12/2022

Respondent: Mr T Attwater

Hope the housing development at Dodd's Field Pattingham goes ahead to provide more affordable homes for sale or rent and a mix of different-sized properties to cater for families with and without children and single people.

Object

Representation ID: 4062

Received: 11/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Keith Beech

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to housing development at Wildwood Stafford (036c). Residents will use Wildwood and Stafford town facilities without Community Charge towards their upkeep. Local road system is already clogged up. Stafford is using brownfield sites for new housing, such sites should exist in SSDC. Environmental impacts will result from loss of green fields and hedgerows. Development only benefits SSDC housing targets.