Policy SA5: Housing Allocations

Comment

Representation ID: 4450

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Site 426a - Welcome reference to the mitigation measure in the Plan on page 221 but this needs to be more detailed to protect the setting and existing character of the Canal Conservation Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 4451

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Site 036c - Additional mitigation measures are required in order to protect the existing historic landscape area/non designated parkland landscape/impacts on the setting of the Canal Conservation Area and potential for archaeological finds. The HESA indicates that only part of the site should be allocated but it is unclear whether this advice has been taken or not.

Comment

Representation ID: 4452

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Site 582 - Would encourage the Council to further consider how the setting of the Second World War finds can be conserved and enhanced. Additionally, the HESA 2022 report sets out the possibility for high potential for other archaeological finds and so it would be relevant to include a mitigation measure requiring archaeological investigation and mitigation.

Object

Representation ID: 4487

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Seddon Homes

Agent: WSP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Plan is unsound as it has not been positively prepared and is not effective on the basis that it does not account or acknowledge cross-boundary sites. Site 34 Land adjacent to M6 off Ashflats Lane is a small part of a wider site that is proposed for allocation as part of Stafford BC's emerging plan.

In response to Stafford Preferred Options consultation it was raised that the extent of the draft allocation should extend right up to the borough boundary and include the flood zone area. The representations acknowledged that whilst it is appreciated that it is unlikely residential development would occur in this location, this area does provide an opportunity for landscaping and ecological enhancements, therefore, should be included in the site boundary of the allocation. This should the entire Ashflats site area including the land in South Staffordshire. The Ashflats site forms a logical extension to Stafford Town with defensible boundaries (M6 Motorway, the Stafford to Birmingham Railway and the A449 main road).

To make the Plan sound there needs to be an acknowledgement of cross-boundary sites, including the remainder of the Ashflats site (SHELAA site 034) as a housing allocation. It would also mean the plan has been positively prepared as it will assist Stafford in being able to meet its housing needs by being able to maximise delivery of housing on the northern and central areas of the Ashflats site and utilising the southern part (within South Staffordshire) to provide opportunities for ecological and landscape enhancements. Therefore, a main modification is required to Policy SA5 and Inset Map 11 to include ’Land adjacent to M6 off Ashflats Lane’ (site reference 034) as a cross-boundary housing allocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 4496

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

This representation relates to Land East of Wolverhampton Road which is a proposed allocation for a minimum of 49 dwellings. This is supported as ‘sound’ by Cameron Homes who have a current interest in this land.
Cameron Homes considers that the identified yield of 49 dwellings underestimates the likely capacity of the site, having regard to the proposed policies in respect of housing density and mix. It is however recognised that the yield is expressed as a minimum requirement. The Sketch Layout attached at Appendix 1 demonstrates a scheme of approximately 56 dwellings can be
delivered on land having regard to emerging mix and open space policies.

Support

Representation ID: 4526

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

This representation relates to Land adjoining Saredon Road which is a proposed allocation for a minimum of 60 dwellings. This is supported as ‘sound’ by Cameron Homes who have an interest in this land outside the current
sawmill site.
Cameron Homes considers that the identified yield of 60 dwellings
underestimates the likely capacity of the site, having regard to the proposed
policies in respect of housing density and mix. It is however recognised that the yield is expressed as a minimum requirement. The Sketch Layout attached at Appendix 1 demonstrates a scheme of approximately 59 dwellings can be delivered on land that includes the remnant of the existing Local Plan allocation to the south of Site 119a; excluding the sawmill site that relates to the
remainder of the proposed allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 4552

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

This representation relates to Land at Landywood Lane which is a proposed allocation for 155 dwellings. This is supported as ‘sound’ by Cameron Homes.
However, it appears unnecessary to include the existing SAD allocation for Landywood Lane within the proposed allocation on the basis it has the benefit of full planning permission for 50 dwellings. This seems inconsistent with the approach taken on other sites within the Publication Local Plan.
Cameron Homes considers that the identified yield of 155 dwellings underestimates the likely capacity of the site, having regard to the proposed policies in respect of housing density and mix. It is however recognised that the yield is expressed as a minimum requirement. The Sketch Layout attached at Appendix 1 demonstrates a scheme of approximately 177 dwellings can be
delivered including the 50 dwellings with the benefit of planning permission.
Further comments in respect of the proposed housing allocations contained within Policy SA5 are set out in other representations submitted on behalf of Cameron Homes.

Object

Representation ID: 4601

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Ms Josephine Baldwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

036c, Land south of Stafford.
The site is no a sustainable location.
The site is prime agricultural land: assisting with climate change and food security.
Local infrastructure including; schools and GPs are at capacity.
Distance to schools are restrictive (1 mile to primary school, 2 miles to secondary school). Increases traffic congestion.
No/lack of pedestrian (footways) and cycle facilities to local services.
Rural location.
No street lighting.
A34 Cannock Road to Acton Trussell is a very narrow winding lane with no footways. Vehicles have restricted vision and have difficulty in passing, and is a popular rat-run to the M6 Motorway at Junction 13.
Access points onto the A34 would be provided onto a very busy congested road causing backlog from Weeping Cross towards Cannock.
Wildlife (inc. deer, bats) will be disturbed.
Limited bus service provision.
A disaster for the area and Stafford.

Object

Representation ID: 4602

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Martin Beddall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The plan is not Member led as all Wombourne District Cllrs object. One Member did not know the issues of sites 463/284 (land off Billy Buns Lane and Gilbert Lane) until 6 weeks prior to the 8th November 2022 Council meeting.
Appears that no notice of people's objections and suggestions to other locations have not been taken into account.
No detailed traffic flow information has been provided. Questions who and how is going to fund infrastructure improvements: roads, health care services, and education. No evidence that these can cope.
Police and Council services in the village have been lost.
Poor communication methods have been used. Not all residents are digitally engaged.

Wombourne is a tier 2 village and taking on more housing than tier 1 villages. New dwellings should be distributed equally among the other tier 2 villages.
Bus service is every 15 minutes on a weekday yet on a Sunday only one an hour. The old railway could be safeguarded for reopening as a metro link to Wolverhampton / Dudley to cope with demand.
Dudley withdrawn from the Black Country Plan and removed their Green Belt allocations, yet South Staffs continuing to destroy Green Belt. Development in Perton is on the west "away" from the conurbation to prevent
coalescence but Wombourne development is on the east side "towards" the conurbation.
Large scale development should bring improvements for the new homes and the local area. Build a new "Pool House Estate" opposite the existing one rather than on site 463/284. This would help facilitate; a bus service, a health care centre (which Wombourne is lacking), a new Primary School, and quality roads with footpaths and cycle routes. Recent development in Wombourne has resulted in squeezed housing, congestion, and destruction of quality of environment and life.

The plan is comprised of short term solutions. It is an easy option to destroy site 284/463 acting as the gateway to the village rather than sites which require more work (e.g. Copart).
There is no evidence of cooperating with other authorities. Questions what the outcome is / consequences are for South Staffs of Dudley withdrawing from the Black Country Plan.

The plan is contrary to national government policy to use Green Belt as a means of preventing urban sprawl.

Support

Representation ID: 4609

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Four Ashes Road LTD

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

This representation relates to Land at Four Ashes Road which is a proposed allocation for a minimum of 63 dwellings. This is supported as ‘sound’.
Four Ashes Road Ltd would question whether site the yield of 63 dwellings
underestimates the capacity of the site. The illustrative masterplan included at
Appendix 1 demonstrates that a yield of around 80 dwellings is more accurate. It is however noted that the yield of 63 dwellings is expressed as a minimum
requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 4631

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We object to the housing allocations in policy SA5, because it is not justified, We consider that this policy should be amended to include land at Lawnswood Road (site 654). Do not agree with findings of the Green Belt Review 2019. Land at Lawnswood Road performs as well as the site off the Langley Road when assessed against the 5 purposes of the Green Belt. Meanwhile the harm assessment in the Green Belt Study was not undertaken at the site specific level. An assessment provided for the site promoter identifies the parcels as 'moderate' and 'low moderate' rather than 'very high' for land, and for landscape sensitivity 'moderate' and 'low moderate' rather than 'high'. Furthermore, the Council appear to have not considered the opportunities afforded by the existing facilities and services available in neighboring authorities.

Object to the consideration of access to education in the SA and the site having a double negative rating. This assessment should be re-run considering that a site of such a size would reach the critical mass of residents that would ensure the viability of delivery of a primary school on site.it should also be considered that of the 4 primary schools within 1.5 miles of the centre of the site, 2 are under capacity.

Evidence by site promoter suggests heritage led design principles means that heritage impacts can be successfully mitigated to a large degree. Evidence by site promoter suggests that due to the low-quality habitats currently present at the site development at the site has the potential to provide and enhance overall biodiversity within the green infrastructure. Flood risk evidence prepared for the site promoter indicates development of the site can be delivered sustainably without increasing flood risk or having a detrimental effect on water quality.

Desktop research undertaken by Savills indicates that 8 shops / newsagents are within 1.5 miles of the centre of the site.The development could see significant public benefit including creating significant areas of new public open space, including the potential to create a new woodland link. We consider that there is suitable evidence to justify the reassessment of site 654 at Lawnswood.

The site should be reassessed taking into account this evidence, which we assert shows the site in an improved position in terms of sustainability and provides adequate evidence for it to be considered as a draft allocation for residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 4655

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Ms Kate Tobin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council's Planning Policy Team have failed to work with the neighbouring authority to maintain and enhance ecological networks across local authority boundaries. There is a high diversity of important nationally protected bird and bat species and protected habitats in the immediate area of the site. The Council's Planning Policy Team have not fully considered bat protection issues and bat conservation measures.

The impact of Site 582 on the adjoining Local Nature Reserve should have been considered. The new development would inhibit habitat connectivity at the bottleneck on the northern point of this wedge at Bhylls Lane/Castlecroft Road. The importance of this area for transboundary connectivity is recognised in the Black Country Plan 2021, which highlighted the Natinoal Habitat Network Connection in this area in their Local Nature Recovery Opportunity map.

Details are provided of bat survey data within the Smestow Valley LNR/Railway walk corridor, which has not been considered by the Local Plan. Bird species sightings within 0.5km of the site, including from the Staffordshire Ecological Record and National Biodiversity Network atlas, which has not been considered by the Local Plan. Priority habitats and species have not been taken into consideration, including the Staffordshire BAP.

Comment

Representation ID: 4657

Received: 12/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Mark Stephens

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Site 119 (Land off Saredon Road (Part A))
Due to access constraints, it is unlikely that the sawmill/wood yard could be delivered independently; the owner is seeking to establish and consolidate the commercial use rather than residential development. This questions the availability and deliverability of this site. This particular site should be included within the Development Boundary so to facilitate windfall development as and when appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 4658

Received: 12/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Mark Stephens

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site 119b (Land off Saredon Road (Part B)) - Omission Site.
The site is bounded by employment uses to the north east, existing and proposed residential development to the south east, and highways depot to the north. Consequently the site is within the visual and physical confines of the settlement and distinct from the Green Belt.

The site could deliver c.40-50 dwellings in a comprehensive development with sites 119 and 119a. This would include a green/open space buffer with the north west and north east boundaries that could remain as Green Belt.

The site is assessed as having low/moderate Green Belt harm and 'weak/no contribution to Green Belt purposes. Further, it is assessed as low landscape sensitivity. Both are confirmed in the SA. The Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Study should also be given more weight then they have.

The site is in FZ1, has no known heritage or significant biodiversity value, and would not compromise the clay pit workings to the east. It is a highly sustainable location close to schools and employment.

The approach of limiting growth in Cheslyn Hay and Great Wyrley is unsound. Site 119b scores well against alternative sites and locations and should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated in conjunction with adjacent sites.

Disagree that the site has been discounted due to initial, informal opinion of County Highways in terms of impact upon the highway network; not a detailed technical assessment. A Transport Assessment has been provided which concludes that the local highway network does have capacity to accommodate the site, and no highway concerns exist which can't be overcome, addressed, or mitigated.

Comment

Representation ID: 4665

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Site 426a is sound, It should however be noted
that the site currently has the benefit of detailed planning consent for 21 dwellings and is currently under construction.
Site 426b is suitable, available and achievable and should be considered if omission sites are necessary to make the Local Plan sound.
Concern is raised that Site 426b appears to have been ruled out through the site selection process due to the site being in excess of 1ha. This should not be a determining factor in the site selection process for Tier 3 settlements such as Wheaton Aston. In addition, Site 426b is considered by Keon Homes to perform well and this is explored further in Chapter 12 to these representations.

Support

Representation ID: 4687

Received: 12/12/2022

Respondent: Mr Mark Stephens

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Support Site 119a (Land adjoining Saredon Road) as a residential allocation. The residual element of SAD allocation 119 is available for development; delivery has been delayed to await the allocation of the adjacent safeguarded land for a comprehensive scheme (c.60 dwellings). Suggest that residual element of Site 119 should be identified as a housing allocation along with Site 119a.

Object

Representation ID: 4697

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

Site 222 (land at Sandy Lane) - Omission Site.
Hallam Land Management were not contacted about the desire by the council to provide a new first school on site. Due to the site size and proximity to existing schools, there is no justification to deliver one. Nevertheless, the site could be delivered with the provision of a first school with c.115 dwellings.

The site was identified as part of a suitable strategic site within the Strategic Growth Study, and has less impact upon the Green Belt than SA1 with a 'moderate' impact upon Green Belt purposes a, and b. Unlike site SA1, there is no risk of coalescence with the Black Country or other settlement.

The findings of the LUC Green Belt Study have not been properly reflected in the sites chosen. Site 224 (land adjacent to Station Road, Codsall) is arguably contrary to NPPF Green Belt criteria.

The site has access to Codsall's local services and facilities including a first school, the council offices, shops, and railway station. It is also served by a bus route.

The site is now bounded on three sides by development. The adjacent Watery Lane development overcomes concerns around sensitivity. The Housing Site Selection Topic Paper is misleading in this regard.

The land parcels used in both the Landscape Sensitivity Study 2015 and Green Belt Review 2019 are too large so Sandy Lane is absorbed into a large land parcel which includes the conservation area and thus distorts the true character.

Support

Representation ID: 4705

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

This representation relates to Land at Pool House Road which is a proposed allocation for 223 dwellings. This is supported as ‘sound’ by Lovell Homes.
should be noted that highway and pedestrian connectivity between sites 459 and 285 may be difficult to achieve due to third party land ownership between these parcels and topographical constraints. Such connectivity can be provided to secure connection to existing routes to the south of Pool House Road which would facilitate connectivity between parcels and provide access to
services and facilities within the village.
In addition, Lovell Homes would question whether site 459 would be capable of delivering a minimum of 97 dwellings, as set out in the site proforma at Appendix C due to the presence of electricity pylons and associated
easements. A more realistic assumption would be in the region of 75 to 80 dwellings.

Comment

Representation ID: 4729

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: National Highways

Details on these smaller sites will be required in terms of boundary treatments to the SRN and National Highways should be consulted at an early stage in the planning application process to ensure appropriate assessments in accordance with DFT 02/2013 and the DMRB to identify the need for and form of any SRN mitigation. Details of boundary treatments to SRN will be required.

Comment

Representation ID: 4742

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

We welcome the addition of a Level 2 SFRA. The Level 2 SFRA shows that the critical 1 in 100 year plus climate change flood extent encroaches (albeit largely into public open space) on sites 119a, 284, 139, Land North of Penkridge, SA1 and SA4. The SFRA confirms that for the majority of these sites the encroachment is only minor.

All these sites will therefore require a site specific FRA which shows development laid out as to avoid the floodplain and finished floor levels 600mm above the 1 in 100 plus climate change flood level. This should be detailed within the allocation requirements. In addition, the quantum of development should be reviewed to ensure that it can fit onto the area outside the 1 in 100 plus climate change flood event, with particular note of 119a which shows about a third of the site affected by flooding.

Although referenced within the Sustainability Appraisal it is unclear where the evidence sits to clearly demonstrate how the proposed site allocations have had the Sequential Test applied as is required by Paragraphs 161 and 162 of the NPPF. We recommend however given the proximity of the fluvial floodplain, residual risk should be mitigated for by it being required that finished floor levels are set at or in excess of 600mm above the 1in 100 year plus climate change for that specific location.
• Site Ref 617
• Site Ref 646a.
• Site Ref 646b

Comment

Representation ID: 4748

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

Site 016 - this site is proposed close to SB Waste Management (Huntington) The site is a relatively small scale transfer station. Amenity issues are likely to be raised by any developments adjacent to the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 4759

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Harding

The HBF have no comments on the proposed housing allocations in Policy SA5 and these representations are submitted without prejudice to any comments made by other parties. This sufficiency of housing land supply (HLS) should meet the housing requirement, ensure the maintenance of a 5 Year Housing Land Supply (YHLS), and achieve Housing Delivery Test (HDT) performance measurements. The HBF also strongly recommends that the plan allocates more sites than required to meet the housing requirement as a buffer.

The Council’s overall HLS should include a short and long-term supply of sites by the identification of both strategic and non-strategic allocations for residential development. The widest possible range of sites by both size and market location are required so that small, medium and large housebuilding companies have access to suitable land to offer the widest possible range of products. The Council should identify at least 10% of its housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.

Object

Representation ID: 4771

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Sport England objects to policy SA5 Pear Tree Farm site ref 016 due to the site pro forma making no reference to the retention of access to the playing field site, which is identified for protection with the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy. As such development of the site could prejudice the use of the adjacent playing field site.

Object

Representation ID: 4772

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Sport England objects to allocation of site Land between A449 Stafford Rd & School Lane reference 082, due to the site proforma stating that access to the site will be secured through playing fields off School. The playing field site which is identified for protection within the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy, as such provision should therefore e made for replacement playing field land within the policy to ensure there is no loss of playing field land and pitches.

Object

Representation ID: 4779

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Terra Strategic

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Additional sites should be identified within the Plan to ensure a robust supply.The Plan currently fails to recognise the benefits that new development can bring to rural areas.Additional allocations should be identified within rural areas to encourage sustainable growth and to restore vitality into settlements such as Acton Trussell. Land at Penkridge Lane is available, deliverable and achievable for delivery of residential development within the Plan period. The site should be included within Policy SA5 for an allocation within the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4785

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Tardis Environmental

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The site at Brownshore Lane, Essington provides a deliverable and developable location for a smaller site (around 200 homes) that could be brought forward to plug the gap in the short term whilst larger sites are progressing. The site (Reference 151/662) lies adjacent to the south eastern edge of Essington and is well placed to serve both Essington itself and also the adjacent conurbation, with local facilities in Willenhall being located approximately 1km from the centre of the site.

The part of the site proposed for development is low landscape sensitivity and would see the more important elements of the wider parcel retained and unaffected. The landonwer welcomes the opportunity to discuss potential Green Belt compensatory improvements to comply with NPPF para 142.

Policy SA5 should be updated to include the Brownshore Lane site (151/662) as an allocation for around 200 homes on the edge of a Tier 2 settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 4794

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Mr J Noakes

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to site 393 Land at Essington Road not being included in the plan. The site is located within the edge of the Wolverhampton Urban Area, adjacent to existing residential areas and in close proximity to local shops and services including a supermarket, two primary schools areas of public open space and play facilities; whilst accessible to town centres including Bloxwich, Wolverhampton and Walsall by local bus services. The site is in FZ1 and is not at risk of surface water flooding, is not constrained by heritage assets or neighbouring uses. Vehicular access can be achieved from Essington Road, whilst development could additionally link into existing pedestrian routes to the south of the site.

Delivery of housing at this location would benefit from the new services and facilities that will be delivered as part of the Linthouse Lane sustainable urban extension, as well as enabling sustainable growth of the existing urban area
and delivery of new family housing.

Discounting the site due to it not being at SUE scale is considered to be a flawed judgement, and fails to recognise the requirements of national policy in regard to site selection, particularly where the release of sites from the Green Belt is considered. The Framework promotes that when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account.

The site could play an important role in contributing to meeting Wolverhampton’s significant unmet housing needs, and represent a further medium sized site that would assist in diversifying the Plan’s strategy and ensuring that the Plan includes allocations that can be delivered in the short-medium term, ahead of the larger strategic allocations.

Support

Representation ID: 4798

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Support the proposed allocation of the safeguarded land to the south of White Hill, Kinver (site 274) alongside the existing allocation for a minimum of 120 dwellings. The allocation of safeguarded land is necessary for compliance with paragraph 141 of the NPPF.

Housing delivery in Kinver is a sound approach as it has been previously assessed/examined as a sustainable location. It is a logical infill to the settlement boundary and existing allocation.

The Site Selection Topic Paper illustrates that the council have followed a logical, robust, and justified process based upon proportionate evidence. Site 274 has no major negative scores in the SA as a non-Green Belt site, and scores better than alternative sites in Kinver. The paper does note that the existing allocation is yet to secure outline planning permission due to an outstanding S106 agreement, however this was issued in September 2021.

Site 274, land south of White Hill, Kinver, is a available for housing development immediately. Although it contains a number of TPOs, it is well serviced by Potters Cross Neighbourhood Centre and slightly further afield by the village centre. Safe pedestrian walking routes are available to nearby schools, which Staffordshire County Council have confirmed can accommodate extra pupils. Regular bus services are available to Stourbridge.

The site is located within Flood Zone 1, with a masterplan designed to accommodate appropriate SUDs. It is considered unlikely that the site will impact upon ecological sites including Kinver Edge SSI. High quality trees and hedgerows will be retained on site where feasible. Opportunities for biodiversity net gains on-site and off-site will be provided where necessary.

Site access will be achieved through the approved priority junction on White Hill with standards to accommodate the proposed allocation. Willing to explore issues and solutions to concerns regarding the Potters Cross junction where they meet the planning tests.

There are no significant heritage/archaeological impacts, and and any effects upon the historic environment can be mitigated. To comply with existing policy SAD2, a view corridor could be achieved between the site access towards Kinver Edge and Holy Austin Rock.

Object

Representation ID: 4799

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Draft Policy SA5 omits Land off Bridgnorth Road, Wightwick as an allocation. There are no technical or environmental reasons why Land off Bridgnorth Road cannot be allocated, with the only concerns raised in the assessment of the site in the Housing Site Selection Paper either considered to be unfounded or able to be dealt with through detailed design and masterplanning.
Having reconsidered Green Belt purposes of Land off Bridgnorth Road against the site itself, the contribution of the site to Green belt purposes is far more limited than the wider parcel S59C. Similarly the individual assessment of landscape sensitivity of the site is lower than the Landscape Study suggests for the wider parcel. The site could be developed via an existing access for the dwelling named Cherringham with minimal impact on the tree belt.

Land off Bridgnorth Road is developable and easily deliverable within the early part of the SSLPR Plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 4840

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site 396 to the west of Featherstone Lane, Featherstone site scores ‘major negative’ for landscape and townscape in the most recent Sustainability Appraisal, despite the Landscape Study (2019) scoring the site’s landscape sensitivity as ‘Low Moderate’.Site 396 should score ‘minor negative’ for landscape and townscape.

The site scores ‘major negative’ for education, however no justification is provided for this. Indeed,
there is no justification for this as the site is within an acceptable walking distance of the Featherstone
Academy Primary School. Site 396 should therefore score ‘minor negative’ for education.

The Council’s evidence base, including the IDP, demonstrates there is currently a lack of highway capacity at Featherstone (particularly in regard to the A460). This capacity issue will be resolved through the delivery of the M54 / M6 / M6 Toll link road, the Development Consent Order.

Site 396’s constraints have been overplayed in the Council’s evidence and given the timing of the
significant infrastructure improvements in the area growth should be directed to Featherstone given
its sustainability. As such, land west of Featherstone should be a proposed allocation in the plan to
accommodate this or, as a minimum, safeguarded. It is accepted that policy proposing to allocate or safeguard land to the west of Featherstone might be subject to a clause that it should not come forward until the link road has been delivered.