Policy SA5: Housing Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 4065

Received: 10/12/2022

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Marshall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

No soundness to allocation along Poolhouse Road. The roads already face immense usage and the sites are remote from bus services. Bridge at Poolhouse Road/Ounsdale Road is unsuitable for excessive/heavy traffic and has been developed near in recent months. No new jobs or schools will be created by local dwellings. No plans for new doctor surgeries despite weeks long waiting list at existing facilities. No mention of additional social care help or impact on crime in area.

There are parking issues throughout the village and new supermarket will make Poolhouse Road more dangerous. Site is damaging to residents' wellbeing and parts of surrounding area already flood prior to development (including The Round Oak, Bridgnorth Road and wombrook off Poolhouse Road), which will exacerbate these issues.

Object

Representation ID: 4066

Received: 12/12/2022

Respondent: J Norris

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to land at Acton Hill Park, Stafford. Site was refused on first submission and has not been part of South Staffordshire's development plan before. Site will adversely affect residents in immediate area. The area already has large housing developments, does not have capacity for extra school places, does not have further GP capacity, does not have adequate road infrastructure and would result in loss of natural wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 4075

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Becky & Alister Harper & Barnes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to proposed site at A34 Wildwood, Stafford.

Stafford has seen large increase in homes built with 10,000+ planned in next 20 years. This is not sustainable with area's infrastructure and the negative environmental impact of the plans.

Object

Representation ID: 4079

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: A & K Harris and Parry

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The document is not justified in respect of Sites 463 and 284:
- Little or no regard for NPPF guidance on 'openness'
- Description of the sites' natural, historic and landscape characteristics given
- Allocation flies in the face of NPPF requirement to preserve/enhance landscape setting of historic settlements and views of historic setting and character
- Does not specify how removing the sites from the Green Belt will be offset
- Other sites should be considered which do not form the most open attractive countryside gateway to the village
- No evidence that attempts have been made to relocate Copart site use to elsewhere in the District or to within the Black Country

The Document is not consistent with national policy in respect of Sites 463 and 284:
- Allocation of sites will detract from improving the local environment and in terms of climate change
- The reticent approach to designating a brownfield site adjacent the village with no obvious impact on greenbelt policy set out in the framework
- The plan has not fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting development needs

Support

Representation ID: 4114

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Lapley, Stretton and Wheaton Aston Parish Council

LSWA PC notes that the comments made regarding the proposed site at Marston Road have been duly considered and the site now removed from the local plan.

Support

Representation ID: 4116

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Land Fund Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

The allocation at Land West of Wrottesley Park Road is positively prepared as it contributes to meeting the housing need for South Staffordshire and supporting the national objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Directing development towards Perton is an appropriate strategy which is based on proportionate evidence.Subject to successfully securing planning permission, the site will be built within the next five years. Thus, it is deliverable over the plan period.The proposed allocation is consistent with national policy as the site presents an opportunity to bring forward
residential development on a highly sustainable site which will contribute to meeting all three sustainability
objectives set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF (2021).

Object

Representation ID: 4120

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: D Morgan PLC

Agent: Peacock and Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site 116 and 131 could be developed on an equivalent basis to Coven or Essington whilst incorporating significant areas of landscaping and tree planting with footpath / cycle links from the site connecting to Campions Wood, Plum Wood, Strawberry Wood, the Forest of Mercia Way and existing footpath / cycle network in Cheslyn Hay including to Landywood Station on the Chase Line.Sites 116 and 131 can access a number of services and facilities by pedestrian and cycle routes in addition to a choice of public transport modes, both bus and rail with interconnectivity including accessing a Bus Station in Cannock Town Centre within 10-15 minutes for onward journeys within the Travel Zone. Sites are adjacent a Tier 1 settlement that was considered highly sustainable in 2002 High Court judgment.

Support

Representation ID: 4121

Received: 22/11/2022

Respondent: BSA Environmental ltd.

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Our client owns this site and fully supports the allocation of its site for housing, for the reasons stated in the Plan and the associated evidence base.

Phase 1 geo-environmental; ecological; and landscape assessments have already been undertaken, along with a feasibility layout for 10 dwellings and it is confirmed that there are no overriding constraints to prevent the early development of this modest site, which would be well suited to a small house-builder.

In the circumstances, we can confirm that this brownfield site is eminently suitable, available and capable of delivering new homes in the first part of the Plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 4122

Received: 22/11/2022

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Site 139 was scrutinised and endorsed by the Council and the Inspector through the SAD process and it was subsequently removed from the Green Belt, placed within the Inset boundary for Great Wyrley and allocated for housing.

Circumstances have not changed since the allocation It therefore remains wholly appropriate that the allocation should be retained and carried forward in the emerging Local Plan (eLP) and we fully support and endorse its continued allocation,

A pre-application enquiry has been submitted and following a satisfactory response to the pre-application enquiry, we anticipate that a planning application will follow early in the new year.

Object

Representation ID: 4123

Received: 10/12/2022

Respondent: Croft Development Consultancy UK Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Slither of land in South Staffordshire district that makes up part of a wider site proposed for release from the Green Belt in the emerging Cannock Chase Local Plan should be removed from the Green Belt too. It makes no sense to retain this sliver of land within the green belt, given that its previously developed land the same rationale should be applied for its removal from the Green Belt as Cannock used.

The development will not impact on the openness of the area and the Council should give more weight to the strategic allocation in Cannock's emerging plan that will create a sustainable development that relates well to the urban edge of Cannock, ultilises PDL and is well served by public transport and other community facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 4148

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Cannock Chase AONB

Site 036c: Development on the higher elevations would be open to views from the AONB. Proposed site access is a concern as much of the site's screening depends on retention of tree belt and infrastructure along A34.

Request a development brief/masterplan for the site that includes the following requirements:
- The wooded buffer alongside the A34 retained, protected and enhanced, along with retention and enhancement of other site vegetation.
- Dwellings with higher elevations located on the lower parts of the site and away from the south and southeast parts of the site
- A vegetated buffer including tree and hedge planting on the site’s southern boundary to filter views of development.
- A sensitive approach to lighting to minimise light spillage to help conserve the darker skies of the AONB and reduce impacts on wildlife

Site 016: Key requirements for this site are noted and welcomed

Object

Representation ID: 4155

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: 4168

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Landywood Primary School

For development of land next to Landywood Primary School, drop-off area will require the following:
- Needs to be long lay-by with one way system, not conventional car parking area
- Need gate at the start and end/exit of the road to lay-by
- Need lots of parking bays all in parallel along a lay-by (at least 40)
- Should be designed to allow for temporary pull-ins - do not want parents to park and get out of cars
- Gate will be installed where pavement arrives into the school site to allow member of staff to welcome students

Request a meeting to discuss concept for floodlit multisport area.

Comment

Representation ID: 4188

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Miller Homes

Agent: PlanIt

We fully support the identification of land at Keepers Lane and Wergs Hall Road as a residential development site within the Plan. We do, however, consider that the reference to a minimum capacity of 317 dwellings on the site allocation Pro forma, should be reviewed. The quoted capacity of the site should be revised to 340 to 400 dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 4196

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Wombourne Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The document is not justified in respect of Sites 463 and 284:
- Little or no regard for NPPF guidance on 'openness'
- Description of the sites' natural, historic and landscape characteristics given
- Allocation flies in the face of NPPF requirement to preserve/enhance landscape setting of historic settlements and views of historic setting and character
- Does not specify how removing the sites from the Green Belt will be offset
- No assessment of agricultural land or recognition of employment provision provided
- Other sites should be considered which do not form the most open attractive countryside gateway to the village
- Whilst not ideal, limited development along the Bridgnorth Road could be a suitable alternative to prevent loss of the ‘gateway to the village’
- No evidence that attempts have been made to relocate Copart site use to elsewhere in the District or to within the Black Country

The Document is not consistent with national policy in respect of Sites 463 and 284:
- Allocation of sites will detract from improving the local environment and in terms of climate change
- The reticent approach to designating a brownfield site adjacent the village with no obvious impact on greenbelt policy set out in the framework
- The plan has not fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting development needs

Object

Representation ID: 4215

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Burgess

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

A housing allocation immediately adjacent to a borough that has exceeded its housing targets is not necessary. This and other greenfield sites should not be allocated for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 4220

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Connectivity and Sustainability, Staffordshire County Council

Is the statement which appears on most site-specific housing allocations forms in Appendix C, sufficient to imply that the developments need to undertake a Transport Assessment and mitigate their impact where required? Or is this requirement detailed elsewhere in the Local Plan and its policies?


Appendix C - column regarding ‘Proposed Access’ needs amending on all sites to cover 'vehicular and active travel access'.

Appendix C, Site references 239 (Perton) and 036c (South of Stafford) need amendments to key requirements wording

Comment

Representation ID: 4223

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

Site 036c - This land is for Stafford Borough Council overspill and it an unsuitable intrusion into the Open Countryside. It is not connected to the villages of Penkridge or Acton Trussell and therefore unconnected to all the village services. The possibility of approximately 160 dwellings from sites 005 and 006 may be considered acceptable to the community to 2038. Site 005 Cherrybrook is contentious with concerns regarding access, flooding and overdevelopment in view of its close proximity to the M6. Site 006 is in the green belt and may be an obvious choice for consideration for infill housing growth.

Object

Representation ID: 4228

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: J Richardson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Wombourne will be spoilt, the unique character of the village will be gone forever.

Comment

Representation ID: 4237

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Mr P Shenton

Objection. V.poor access from HimleyLane. Limited access for pedestrians into village. HimleyLane cannot be widened. Access to shops and village centre is dangerous.

HimleyLane Junction is dangerous. Effectively four-way crossing. Buses regularly use.pavement.

Significant changes to Site313. Council and residents misled. Process and inclusion of Site313 in preferred plan is flawed.

Site 313 now extends further North and further into Greenbelt, East towards Himley whereas original proposal didn’t and doesn’t give access to thin strip of land to North, which was designated as safeguarded land. Changes to proposals for original Site313 are significant and not inline with planning Inspectorates recommendations.

Object

Representation ID: 4268

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Amadis Holdings Ltd

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Two parcels of land to the west of Yew Tree Lane should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development to deliver much needed market and affordable housing. The site is a logical location for development with strong defensible Green Belt boundaries and would provide public open space and create pubic access to surrounding Green Belt. The land is capable of delivering 120-140 dwellings and would make a significant contribution to the district’s overall housing requirement. The site is in a sustainable location a short distance from a number of services and facilities. Policy SA5 should be amended to include the additional land off Yew Tree Lane for a minimum capacity of 120 homes.

Support

Representation ID: 4280

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Hampton Oak Developments

Agent: PlanIt

Support the allocation at Hall End Farm for residential development.However, we do not believe that the site will deliver the minimum 17 homes which is referred to on the allocation Pro forma.The Housing Site Proforma should be amended. The site area should be quoted as 0.7 Hectares and the minimum capacity should be changed from 17 dwellings to c15 dwellings.

The allocation of site 251 should also be increased to include land to the south and east which could deliver approx 45 units. This is located in an acceptable walking distance of services and facilities. The site can be designed in a way which “rounds off” the southern edge of Pattingham by continuing the existing building line to the east and can provide POS. There are no known constraints to the development of the site. In the event that Allocation 251 is not enlarged we invite the Local Planning Authority to remove the site from the Green Belt and identify is as Safeguarded Sites for the reasons which we have explained in response to Policy DS1.

Object

Representation ID: 4286

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: 4294

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Messrs - Jenks & Letts

Agent: PlanIt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Site 419A and B, Land at Codsall, should be enlarged to include the additional parcel of land to the south of the site which would make for a logical extension. Policy SA5 should be amended to include the additional land which is identified by these representations within the list of allocated sites for a minimum capacity of 65 homes.

The Plan is presently unsound because of its failure to identify Safeguarded Land to meet the district’s longer term housing needs without the need for further reviews of the district’s Green Belt boundaries. If this site is not included as an allocation, it should be identified as Safeguarded Land within a new policy.

Object

Representation ID: 4312

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Acton Trussell, Bednall and Teddesley Hay Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object strongly to inclusion of Site 036c. Core Strategy 2012 Policy OC1 states Open Countryside should not be used for development of any kind and should be protected for its own sake, with Strategic Objective 1 recognising the importance attached to Green Belt and Open Countryside. Strategic Objective 2 recognises the importance of protecting and retaining most important gaps and the very large Wildwood Estate is adjacent to the proposed sites with local residents raising coalescence concerns. The site is good quality agricultural land and forms an important wildlife corridor. Development will reduce environmental amenities and affect the existing wildlife.

The site is within 1km of the Cannock Chase AONB and will affect its surroundings. SSDC has a duty to cooperate on housing needs, but the site would have been objected to by Stafford Borough. There is no relationship to the existing urban form and the site is remote from any settlement or services in South Staffordshire. South Staffordshire previously object to the plans in 1996 and refused planning permission when 17/00505/OUT was submitted in 2017. The Parish Council is extremely concerned about the increase in traffic as residents from the site access junction 13 of the M6.

Object

Representation ID: 4325

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: A Yendole

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Reference to development South of Stafford should not have been included in the New Local Plan, including reference in Policy SA5 and the proforma in Appendix C. The development does not demonstrate it would provide appropriate infrastructure to mitigate the impact. To date there is limited information in the latest IDP to show that education impacts can be mitigated, that affordable housing and leisure contributions will be provided to Stafford and that setting impacts on the Cannock Chase AONB will be acceptable.

Evidence received from Staffordshire County Council demonstrates that this area of Stafford Town is not able to accommodate further school provision. The County Council also previously informed Stafford Borough Council that the education contributions will need to be secured from this development towards additional primary school places. The Borough Council looks forward to receiving confirmation that the affordable housing provided by this site.

Development to the south of Stafford Town settlement boundary would be in the immediate setting of the AONB and lead to a detrimental impact on the AONB so should not go ahead. The AONB Management Plan 2019-24 emphasises the importance of maintaining the quality and distinctiveness of the landscape character.

Comment

Representation ID: 4376

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Bloor Homes is promoting Land at Grange Farm, Coven for residential development. This site is suitable, available and achievable and should be considered if it is determined through the Examination in Public that omission sites are necessary to make the Local Plan sound.
This land represents a logical site for development within the sustainable settlement of Coven, providing an opportunity for delivering approximately 189 new homes with associated supporting infrastructure.
Development of the site would effectively infill an area of undeveloped land within the established confines of the village. Considering this, the site is appropriate for development as it would result in the sustainable growth of Coven, close to its Village centre.
The information contained within this representation, read in conjunction with the appended Vision Document and the Council’s published evidence base demonstrates that Land at Grange farm is a suitable and deliverable site for
residential development, subject to its release from the Green Belt. There are no existing uses that would require relocation and no issues of contamination that would require remediation. Many of the potential impacts of
the development of the site can be mitigated through design and in many cases a positive outcome can be achieved. It is submitted that Land at Grange Farm represents a sound strategic housing allocation and should be considered if, through the Examination in Public process, omission sites are required to make the Local Plan sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 4380

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Bloor Homes is promoting Land at Royal’s Farm, Cannock for residential development. This site is suitable, available and achievable and should be considered if it is determined through the Examination in Public that omission sites are necessary to make the Local Plan sound.
This land represents a logical site for development adjacent to the sustainable town of Cannock, providing an opportunity for delivering approximately 550 new
homes with associated supporting infrastructure.
There are no existing uses that would require relocation and no issues of contamination that would require remediation. Many of the potential impacts of
the development of the site can be mitigated through design and in many cases a positive outcome can be achieved.
It is submitted that Land at Royal’s Farm represents a sound strategic housing allocation and should be considered if, through the Examination in Public process, omission sites are required to make the Local Plan sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 4390

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Bloor Homes is promoting Land at The Straits (Site Ref: 560 and 566) for residential development. These two sites, that comprise Land at The Straits, are suitable, available and achievable and should be considered if it is determined through the Examination in Public that omission sites are necessary to make the Local Plan sound.

The information contained within this representation, read in conjunction with the appended illustrative concept plan and the Council’s published evidence base demonstrates that Land at The Straits is a suitable and deliverable site for residential development, subject to its release from the Green Belt.
There are no existing uses that would require relocation and no issues of contamination that would require remediation. Many of the potential impacts of the development of the site can be mitigated through design and in many casesa positive outcome can be achieved.

It is submitted that Land at The Straits represents a sound strategic housing allocation and should be considered if, through the Examination in Public
process, omission sites are required to make the Local Plan sound.

Object

Representation ID: 4412

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Do not consider it sound to exclude historic environment for the 'catch all' clause in the site proformas in Appendix C. Recommend a more consistent approach to the HESA recommendations regarding tree and hedgerow retention, which requires the retention of existing trees and hedgerows, supports additional planting and landscaping as an enhancement measure and sets out why the retention is required to ensure that it is fully understood by prospective developers (i.e. along the lines of comments for Site 379 on page 220 of the Plan). We support the removal of sites from the plan that scored a 'red' in the assessment.