3.10

Object

Representation ID: 4171

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Mr John Marsh

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

See attachment

Object

Representation ID: 4213

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Lower Penn Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objective 1: the SA is wrong to record GHG emissions as uncertain, both in respect of the number of dwellings on the site and because of the lack of differentiation for undeveloped/greenfield sites. The SA fails to meet the SEA directive requiring integration of environmental considerations with a view to promoting sustainable development. Objective 2: SA fails to explain how post-mitigation scenario has changed from major negative to positive. Objective 3: Assessments of impact on LNR and habitats fail to have regard to evidence submitted by ecologists in 2021 consultation and Staffordshire Wildlife Trust. Objective 12: Appraisal notes that residents at the proposed site would have ‘unreasonable’ sustainable access to employment. This is contrary to local plan aim to locate development in more sustainable locations making the plan unsound. Inaccuracies are also present in the Appendix H site selection reasons and this section is at odds with the objectives of the Sustainability Appraisal

Object

Representation ID: 4345

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: St Modwen

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

SA is based on a significant underestimation of employment need in South Staffordshire and the wider FEMA. SA does not reach conclusion on whether employment Option A-C are the best way forward. It is considered that Employment Growth Option C is the appropriate way forward. It is noted that all options have a neutral score (SA Vol 2 Table 5.6) in relation to ‘Transport and Accessibility’. The assessment does not take into account the potential for locating freestanding
employment sites where they would have direct access to the strategic highway network. Furthermore, it is unclear why only option B received negative scores in terms of biodiversity and landscape

Additional allocations will be required to address both the FEMA’s employment needs and also SSDC’s needs. The SA should be revised to address the findings of an updated EDNA. The SA assessment carried out for E30 ‘Land south of Junction 13 (M6)’ should be re- assessed in light of the reduced site area which is now being promoted (17.6ha).

Comment

Representation ID: 4469

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment - note the comments in Table N.11 on page N37 in the SEA 2022 Volume I Report and consider that ensuring the appropriate mitigation measures have been identified throughout the HESA Reports, are stated within the Plan under relevant site policies to minimise the harm to heritage both individually and cumulatively.

Given the comments in the HESA 2022 and in the SA/SEA Report we consider it likely that there are residual negative effects for the historic environment, which makes the appropriate mitigation measures necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 4656

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Ms Kate Tobin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

SA Objective 3 indicates that the close proximity of a development to an 'ecological receptor' such as a LNR will have negative effects (3.3.2). However this was then disregarded in the case of Site 582 at para B.17.3.3 of the Sustainability Appraisal. No evidence was given for this assumption. Additionally the close proximity to the Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve was not considered.

Object

Representation ID: 4903

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes Ltd

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The key determinant for Site 283 causing major negative landscape impacts is due to Green belt harm, based upon the findings relating only to the moderate-high harm area identified to the east of the site (which is disputed). It is not appropriate for the Green Belt Study to be used in the Sustainability Appraisal rather than the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment only, which would conclude differently. The Landscape Position Paper accompanying these representations considers this element of the SA to be flawed.

Object

Representation ID: 4976

Received: 13/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: RPS Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RPS does not consider the findings against a number of SA objectives to be soundly-based.

Under SA Objective 4, RPS would question the relevance of including consideration of Green Belt under this objective, given the fact that Green Belt is a strategic designation based on five purposes, none of which relate to landscape factors. RPS does not consider the Council’s conclusion that development on this site would cause ‘moderate harm’ to the Green Belt purposes soundly-based. In relation to landscape sensitivity, a previous Planning Inspector for application 06/00638/OUT would not have a material effect on the landscape character of the area.

Under SA Objective 5, the effects are over stated when taking into account the potential for mitigation. Air and noise effects from the M54 were considered in the earlier planning application where both the Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State concluded that this would not represent a barrier to development. The assessment has also not taken account of the decision made the Government in April 2022 to allow the construction of a new M54/M6/M6 Toll/ A460 link road that will reduce traffic flows. For water, RPS highlights that the illustrative masterplan shows that any bult development would set back from existing watercourses in the vicinity and within the site and, notably, a sustainable urban drainage system will be designed and installed as part of development on the site.

Under SA Objective 6,RPS disputes the score given for the site. Firstly, the site has been used for cultivation more many years and so, for the vast majority of the site, it is disputed whether the soils are, in fact, of ‘ecologically valuable’ given its current use. No evidence is presented by the Council which shows the site to be of Grade 3a value, and thus classed as ‘BMV’ land. In light of the above, RPS contends that the site should not be scored ‘minor negative’ under this objective without sufficient evidence to support the Council’s claim.

Under SA Objective 10, RPS disputes the assertion that the site would have a minor negative impact with respect to access to bus stops. 800 meter threshold is used in Manual for Streets and there are a number of bus services within this distance. Furthermore, the use of a 400m threshold differs from those used by the Council as part of its rural services audit. Specifically, the Rural Services and Facilities Audit (RSFA), which applies a proximity ‘range’ of between 800 to 2,000m (see paragraph 3.17 of that report). RPS contends the SA methodology for this objective is not fit for purpose as a reasonable measure of significant effects. Consequently, when applying the national standards and those used elsewhere in the Council’s evidence base, as a measure of access to local services, site 170 would clearly score ‘minor positive’. RPS also disputes the Council’s suggestion that site 170 is located beyond 2km of a convenience store, and thus would score ‘minor negative’.RPS contends that site 170 would, in overall terms, have a ‘minor positive’ impact on access to transport and accessibility.

Under SA Objective 11 RPS disputes the basis for the criteria identified in the SA methodology for distance to education. The 1.5km threshold applied under this objective equates to a distance of less than one mile (0.9 miles). However, both national and local guidance applies a wider distance threshold (3 miles) in measuring appropriate distances between home and school locations. RPS considers the distance thresholds applied under this SA objective to be arbitrary in nature and are not based on any local assessment of what would constitute an appropriate distance. Consequently, the score for Site 170 under this objective should be adjusted to ‘minor positive’.

Under SA Objective 12, it is wrong to suggest the site has unreasonable access to local employment opportunities when the RSFA using the same Hansen scores identified site 170 as having ‘medium access to employment’. RPS contends that the SA has wrongly applied the findings of the RSFA in light of Featherstone’s accessibility to local employment. Accordingly, the Council should identify the correct effect consistent with the SA methodology. The correct score in RPS’ view, as defined in the methodology, is ‘minor positive’.

It is unclear how the SA has informed the site selection process given that the reasons for why sites have been rejected have been inserted into the SA from elsewhere in the evidence base. This approach is therefore contrary to the approach required in national policy.

The SA should therefore be updated in response to the issues raised and Site 170 (Land east of Brookhouse Lane) allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 5035

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Goldfinch TPS

Agent: Goldfinch TPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) being used to support South Staffordshire District Council’s Publication Stage Report (Regulation 19) (November 2022) emerging Local Plan Review has failed to consider all reasonable alternatives to the spatial strategy – There is a lack of certainty about the delivery of employment uses at a time when the South Staffordshire District, the wider West Midlands Region, and wider UK is facing a 300-year-economic-recession-event as a result of the global coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), and as a result of Russia’s Spring 2022 ongoing invasion of Ukraine. There is also a lack of certainty concerning the delivery of major levels of new housing development across the district during the severe economic recession described above and during a period of severe volatility in the residential mortgages market.
Contend that the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process is clearly unsound and is not legally compliant, and therefore fails various tests of ‘Soundness’ for Local Plan preparation as reinforced within paragraph 35 (indents b – it is not based on proportionate evidence), (indent c – failing the deliverability test), and (indent d – it is failing to promote the most sustainable patterns of development) of the Revised NPPF (2021). The approach taken within the SA is also in direct conflict with paragraphs 31 (it is not based on sufficiently robust and up-to-date evidence) and 82 (indent d – the SA is failing to shape into its preparation the huge and rapid shift in adverse economic circumstances now affecting the district) of the Revised NPPF (2021).

Object

Representation ID: 5055

Received: 20/03/2023

Respondent: Boningale Homes ltd.

Agent: Enzygo

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Sustainability Appraisal

Green Belt criteria has not been applied consistently across the site assessments in the SA. SA methodology fails to distinguish between potential level of Green Belt impacts, particularly around settlements with sites of moderate-high impacts expected to perform comparatively better than sites of high or very high impact.

Education criteria has not been applied consistently across the site assessments in the SA. Education criteria assessment unclear. The only criteria for a major or minor impact is whether the housing is a ‘new’ development. SA for site 515 refers to minor negative impact so it is not clear how a subsequent ‘major’ impact (pre mitigation) has been derived.

Overall, neither the Greenbelt or education criteria appear to have been applied consistently.

Object

Representation ID: 5056

Received: 20/03/2023

Respondent: Boningale Homes ltd.

Agent: Enzygo

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Sustainability Appraisal

Suggest that Option F should be given more thorough consideration as a viable alternative option which would increase the level of housing supply to address the concerns identified in separate representation 5031 on the inadequacy of the present approach.

Support

Representation ID: 5193

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support the findings of the SA in relation to site 006 Boscomoor Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 5203

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Sustainability Appraisal - Fenton House Lane, WA
Dispute Major Negative Effect assessment in relation to landscape and townscape. Site was found to have only moderate high landscape sensitivity and minor negative in terms of impacts on the Chase, landscape character and views from PROW. Score should be changed to Minor Negative.

Object

Representation ID: 5211

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Langley Road
Sustainability Appraisal
Dispute the finding that the site would result in a Major Negative impact upon landscape and townscape. This appears to be based on the finding that the site could result in an unsustainable pattern of development. This view is opposed as this site is considered to perform better than other site options.

Object

Representation ID: 5215

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

North of New Road, Featherstone
SA
Dispute the finding that the site would result in a Major Negative impact upon landscape and townscape in the context that the Green Belt harm is not considered to be the maximum degree of harm and the site was considered to be moderate landscape sensitivity this should be translated into a minor negative score in the SA for landscape/townscape impacts.
Object to ‘Major Negative Impacts’ for education. Featherstone has a nursery and primary school both within a walkable distance from the site. Amend score to Minor Negative.

Object

Representation ID: 5219

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land adj Station Road, Codsall
SA
Dispute the finding that the site would result in a Major Negative impact upon landscape and townscape. This appears to arise as a result of land release from the Green Belt, though this land is rated as 'moderate-high' in terms of Green Belt impact. This would appear to be based on finding that site could result in unsustainable pattern of development. This view is opposed given that the site is considered to perform better than other site options.

Object

Representation ID: 5224

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land off Strawmoor Lane, Codsall
SA
Dispute the finding that the site would result in a Major Negative impact upon landscape and townscape. Neither the Green Belt harm or landscape impacts are not the maximum level it is not understood how this translates into a ‘Major Negative’ in the SA. Suggest amend impact score to a ‘Minor Negative’.

Dispute Major Negative post mitigation Education score. Site is within close proximity to education facilities both first and high school. SA score should be amended to Minor Negative for both sites.

Dispute Negligible Climate Change Adaption post mitigation score attributed to parcel 630b. It is suggested that site development offers the opportunity to design and provide a suitable surface water drainage scheme which would improve on the existing greenfield situation and should therefore be rated a Minor Positive.

Object

Representation ID: 5228

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

West of Codsall Road
SA
Dispute the finding that the site would result in a Major Negative impact upon landscape and townscape. This appears to be solely related to finding of ‘high’ Green Belt impact. This is considered to be inaccurate and also gives too much weight to Green Belt when assessing landscape and townscape impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 5231

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Wrottesley Park Rd
SA
SA2022 concluded impact on biodiversity/geodiversity would result in negligible impact, SA2021 concluded impact would be uncertain. Unclear why this has been altered. The illustrative masterplan is landscape led, therefore amend score to minor positive.

Dispute the finding that the site would result in a Major Negative impact upon landscape and townscape. This appears to be related to finding of ‘high’ Green Belt harm. Does not appear that opportunity to provide a country park has been considered. It is considered that this should therefore be amended to minor negative.

Site has scored major negative against education. The illustrative proposal has been amended to include land for a new primary school. Access to schools should accordingly score a minor positive.

Object

Representation ID: 5328

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

North of Blackhalve Lane
Sustainabiity Appraisal
Dispute the finding that the site would result in a Major Negative impact upon landscape and townscape. Site is identified as low-moderate for landscape sensitivity but ‘high’ Green Belt harm. Dispute the Green Belt impact and the greater weight that is given to Green Belt impact on the overall assessment. Score should be revised minor negative (see comments on Green Belt study).
Education – Negative impact on education fails to recognise Long Knowle Primary School within city of Wolverhampton is within 550m of the site also allocation of North of Linthouse Lane will provide a new primary school.
Housing – site will be greater than 99 dwellings and should score Major Positive against housing objective.

Object

Representation ID: 5333

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land North of Linthouse Lane
Sustainability Appraisal
Dispute the finding that the site would result in a Major Negative impact upon landscape and townscape. Site is identified as low-moderate for landscape sensitivity but ‘high’ Green Belt harm. Dispute the Green Belt impact and the greater weight that is given to Green Belt impact on the overall assessment. Score should be revised minor negative (see comments on Green Belt study).
Education – Negative impact on education fails to recognise the proposal includes land for a two-form entry primary school. Mitigation is sufficient to make the overall result Negligible.
Housing – site will be greater than 99 dwellings and should score Major Positive against housing objective.

Comment

Representation ID: 5366

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Evidence base: Sustainability Appraisal
The site is assessed within the SA (Volume 2) under site reference 082. The SA produced to support this Regulation 19 Plan provides a summary of the post-mitigation site assessments for allocated sites (see Table 6.5). Cameron Homes broadly supports the scoring within the SA. It is noted that the scoring is particularly favourable when compared against other sites within the SA, thereby justifying the allocation of the site.
It is also noted that the scoring is broadly consistent with the SA published as part of the
Preferred Options (Regulation 18) consultation. The only change is to upgrade the biodiversity and geodiversity from ‘uncertain’ to ‘negligible’. This is supported as the
Indicative Masterplan shows a significant amount of Public Open Space (POS) can be accommodated on-site. This could also present opportunities for biodiversity
enhancement.

Object

Representation ID: 5407

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Rigby Estates LLP

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Dunston
SA
Transport and Accessibility: ‘minor negative’ rating is incorrect. Site is extremely accessible with good links to a range of modes of transport. The development proposes extensive active travel links and a new railway station.
Education: ‘minor negative’ rating is incorrect. Existing primary school within Dunston village and new settlement proposal includes a new one form entry primary school. Proximity to nearest High School is within guideline distances.
Economy and employment: ‘minor negative’ rating is incorrect. Site has access to three small employment sites east, south and north and will also deliver an additional 7.8 ha. of employment land. In addition land to the north of the site could be released for employment uses and has been assessed in the SHELAA (2021).