Question 1

Object

Representation ID: 269

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Hughes

It is not clear what the actual evidence is, or which elements have been completed or are yet to be performed. Reference to actual instances is important to note - impact on local wildlife, increasing occurrence of flooding on an increasing number of access routes into Wombourne, local employment opportunities occupied by local population, increasing local crime rates, numbers of schools, numbers of GP surgeries, waiting times at GPs, emergency service response times, utilisation of public transport, volume of affordable housing, local aged demographics, availability of local services to suit demographic needs, volume of traffic, parking and accidents.

Support

Representation ID: 285

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

We could only judge the evidence base used from the titles of the 27 published and 4 unpublished documents.

Object

Representation ID: 329

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Brazenell

There is a lack of evidence within the sustainability appraisal on flooding, ecology and heritage.
The IDP has no cross boundary surveys for urban fringe developments

Object

Representation ID: 335

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Butler

The impact on neighbouring districts of some of your proposals has not been taken into account.

Object

Representation ID: 347

Received: 02/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Turner

Information in the studies is outdated and not up to date so is not appropriate to inform the new local plan some studies being three years old already.

Object

Representation ID: 357

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: Nicola Dixon

No impact on the quality of life of existing residents is evident to me in this.

Support

Representation ID: 379

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Penk Valley Academy Trust

No further comment

Object

Representation ID: 391

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mr T Cowern

Agent: Mr Hugh Lufton

N/A.

Object

Representation ID: 403

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs SUSAN WAKEFIELD

Firstly: Some studies have been completed but some are still to be completed. Secondly: Are you, as planners, taking full consideration of all conclusions drawn?

Support

Representation ID: 420

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Lichfield & Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust

The list of documents in Appendix A is not exhaustive of all relevant evidence base documents mentioned within the document. Within paragraph 6.35 the Hatherton Canal Restoration Feasibility Report and Supplementary Feasibility Report are mentioned, which we welcome. More recently submitted by LHCRT is a Water Supply Study report produced by Stantech which is also relevant in demonstrating that the Hatherton Canal can be operated sustainably when the restoration work is completed. This more recent report should also be referenced. A copy will be provided on request.

Support

Representation ID: 433

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: South West CCG

I agree that the evidence base is set out

Object

Representation ID: 442

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Eaves

I don't agree with the Local Plan. I live in Wombourne and worked in the village for over 30 years. Your proposals to expand housing is to the detriment to the area:
1) We're losing the Rural aspect the Village - it's already disappearing.
2) The infrastructure is already failing. We have no Police station and the population is increasing, crime is rising and no Police presence in/around the village. Doctors, dentists, schools are all under pressure now!
3) Use brownfield sites first before considering ANY green Belt!
4) Traffic/pollution is already increasing we don't need more!

Object

Representation ID: 446

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Manton

Looking a the panic around the table at last nights Parish Council Meeting, it appears that our mismanaged and inept Parish Council has missed the boat in providing a "Neighbourhood Plan" for Penkridge meaning that decisions are being made by non-local people.

This whole review has not been communicated well enough to allow a fair response from the whole of the Parish. The deadline must be extended to ensure that we are not being [redacted] like we have already been with WMI

Object

Representation ID: 457

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Boydon

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Appendix A does not list many of the documents that appear as the evidence base on SSDC web site. For example, Green Belt Review 2019 and SHELAA 2021 are central to the reasoning behind why choices have been made in selecting sites and they should be listed in Appendix A as evidence base studies. The Housing Site Selection Topic Paper 2021 provides a summary of parts of these assessments, but the full assessments should be included.

Also, studies are included that postdate the Preferred Option plan and are not available to know whether they should be included.

Support

Representation ID: 459

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Sport England

Sport England acknowledges and welcomes that the Council have undertaken a Playing Pitch Strategy and Indoor Sports Strategy (both informed by a needs assessment) in line with the relevant Sport England guidance's. Sport England would encourage an annual review of the Playing Pitch Strategy in accordance with Sport England Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance.

Support

Representation ID: 461

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: NHS

I agree that the evidence base set out in Appendix A is appropriate to inform the new local plan, as the development close to the neighbouring Black Country considers the impact of development on the Health Care Infrastructure and health and wellbeing of local residents.

Support

Representation ID: 469

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited (Hyde Lane site)

Agent: Turley

- SA landscape and townscape score for site 576 not justified. Landscape Study assesses much larger area. Updated assessment of specific site required.
- SA landscape and townscape should be 'neutral' based on promoter's evidence base.
- Site 576 scores 'minor negative' for GP surgery. New surgery could be provided on site.

Support

Representation ID: 479

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited (Dunsley Drive site)

Agent: Turley

- SA landscape and townscape score for site 272 not justified. Landscape Study assesses much larger area. Updated assessment of specific site required.
- SA landscape and townscape score for site 272 should be 'neutral' based on promoter's evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 493

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Miss EMP Shaw Hellier Settlement

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Appendix A does not list many of the documents that appear as the evidence base on SSDC web site. For example, Green Belt Review 2019 and SHELAA 2021 are central to the reasoning behind why choices have been made in selecting sites and they should be listed in Appendix A as evidence base studies. The Housing Site Selection Topic Paper 2021 provides a summary of parts of these assessments, but the full assessments should be included. Also, studies are included that postdate the Preferred Option plan and are not available to know whether they should be included.

Object

Representation ID: 512

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: DOCTOR Prabhjoyt Kler

Appendix A noted that evidence have been taken from infrastructure, green belt and nature recovery. I fail to see evidence of major development to improve the local infrastructure including increased provisions for traffic control, cycle paths/areas, traffic control and accident prevention. I also fail to see the council and the various groups provide sustainable provisions for protected wildlife in the green belt area and protect the diverse species, including sparrow hawks. For this reason I object to the evidence provided as being inadequate.

Object

Representation ID: 530

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr R Gidlow

the evidence for the requirement of using green belt in South Staffs for housing needs of local Black Country councils has not been explained or proven. Brown field sites should be the first areas to be developed and this requirement has been established by the UK government. Local infrastructure cannot cope with existing population and housing. Developers are only interested in profit not providing required infrastructure to cope with their developments and from past experience South Staffs planning seem incapable of enforcing planning rules they apply to planning applications

Support

Representation ID: 562

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: R Simner

Comprehensive list of things to consider but I don't beleive the issue of transport has been properly addressed. For the proposed developments around the langley road, Penn there is simply not sufficient provision to enable anything other than personal vehicles - as we have seen with the nursery development (initially refused of course) the roads simply are not capable of supporting increased traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 584

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Jordan

The 'plan' reads well if it applies to all 100% of South Staffs area, but it doesn't because it's all about 'latching' on to the 1% of South Staffs that's right next to the already stretched recourses and over populated areas of Dudley Metropolitan Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 603

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study, SHELAA and Self & Custom Build Register should form part of the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 618

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The GBHMA Strategic Growth Study, SHELAA and Self & Custom Build Register should form part of the evidence base.

Support

Representation ID: 642

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr P Wilkinson

Climate change and enhancement of the natural environment are included. This has not been demonstrated to date with developments in Wombourne. A green infrastructure policy , to meet with Environment Act 2021 requirement for biodiversity net gain before planned developments progress to a point where biodiversity net gain, recovery options and connectivity are no longer possible.

Support

Representation ID: 651

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janice Rowley

there is sufficient information to inform a local plan. However, all evidence needs to be cross referenced if it is to effectively reach the option that is right for the area with as little impact on the environment, the residents and the future of the community it serves

Object

Representation ID: 670

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Knott

No

Object

Representation ID: 675

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

- The scope of the evidence base prepared to inform the emerging plan is generally robust and proportionate.
- But there are a number of site specific inconsistencies regarding the evidence base and the conclusions that have been drawn from it.
- the Council’s evidence base has underplayed the role of Featherstone as a settlement, and over played the constraints associated with Site 369.

Object

Representation ID: 687

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Katie Green

The evidence base is not appropriate as some of the documents are outdated (three years old) some of the evidence based documents haven't even been published yet, how can these be used for evidence in the local plan 2021 when they are not available for the public to consult on until at least 2022. The strategic flood risk assessment 2019 only takes into consideration a flood risk assessment of any new buildings proposed it does not consider the existing flooding that takes place particularly with regards to Ref: 255 Land at Moore lane where existing properties suffer flooding regularly.