Question 2

Support

Representation ID: 1828

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Wollaston Properties Ltd

Agent: First City Limited

Reviewed the IDP and have no objections to infrastructure requirements that are set out in the document in connection to Bilbrook.

Understanding there is the requirement of a First School to serve Codsall/ Bilbrook; the delivery of a through road from Pendeford Mill Lane to Lane Green Road, Bilbrook;
Junction improvements at Wobaston Road/Overstrand Road traffic signals are the most significant which impact on Bilbrook.

Support

Representation ID: 1868

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

(a)
Whilst we agree that the appropriate types of infrastructure have been identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan [IDP] 2021, Taylor Wimpey considers that clarity needs to be provided on future requirements for health infrastructure. It is not clear whether existing schools in these areas have sufficient capacity to meet need or whether expansion will be necessary, as no
information on capacity or proposals for expansion have been identified. Taylor Wimpey would welcome clarity on this matter.

Support

Representation ID: 1891

Received: 25/03/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support the infrastructure-led strategy’s focus of development on larger settlements with smaller sites in smaller settlements to deliver infrastructure benefits. Land off Wrottesley Park Road, Perton could contribute to improvements to sports and leisure facilities, green infrastructure enhancements and health contributions. Longstanding community concerns about the need for junction improvements are highly unlikely to be delivered by just the safeguarded land and allocation of Land off Wrottesley Park Road would provide significantly greater funding for such improvements.

Object

Representation ID: 1901

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Miss Zarina Ali

Until the highways modelling is complete it is not possible to comment on whether the highways infrastructure can support the allocation. The Vision Document for Land South of Pendeford Hall Lane, Bilbrook sets out the infrastructure that would be delivered by the site.

Object

Representation ID: 1963

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

IDP fails to recognise the existing and future needs of Penkridge.
Highways - reclaim the village centre from the influence of A449. A western spine road requires further consideration and consultation.
Open space strategy should provide access to the green infrastructure of the River Penk and its floodplain and include the Penkridge River Park.

Support

Representation ID: 1993

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: UKPI (Featherstone) Ltd

Agent: First City Limited

Reviewed the IDP with no objections to infrastructure requirements that are set out in the document in connection to Featherstone.

Support

Representation ID: 2002

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: UKPI (Featherstone) Ltd

Agent: First City Limited

No objections to the infrastructure requirements that are set out in the IDP document in connection to Featherstone. Welcome introduction of the M54 to M6 link road being delivered by Highways England which will bring significant improvements to Featherstone and the overall traffic improvements along A460 Cannock Road.

Support

Representation ID: 2086

Received: 12/04/2022

Respondent: St Mary Parish and The Archdiocese of Birmingham

Agent: First City Limited

No objections to infrastructure requirements
that are set out in the document in connection to Brewood.

Object

Representation ID: 2325

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Dr R Painter

- IDP comments on what's currently available and not how this infrastructure will preform with increased housing.
- Scant infrastructure south of Codsall, this area already suffers form congestion, poor public transport, poor cycleways health services and police struggle to cope with demand as they are based in the north of South Staffs.
-IDP is an audit.
- Strategy not infrastructure driven as development is proposed in areas with deprived of infrastructure.
- Housing allocation not evidence based (especially in locality 5).
- Supports s106 as opposed to CIL, which can be used to meet larger infrastructure requirements.
- Funding for improvements to existing highways, schools, medical facilities has not been identified.
- Misleading notes on superfast broadband speeds for 96% of homes and businesses.

Object

Representation ID: 2362

Received: 28/11/2021

Respondent: Mr G Bowen

Local schools, nurseries and doctor's surgeries are already operating at full capacity and are currently not able to accommodate existing local demand. Any further increase in residents attempting to avail themselves above infrastructure from a proposed development would be impossible.

Object

Representation ID: 2510

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Ms Shellee Phipps

a)
Local doctors (Wombourne) can not expand and cater for increased demand.
Road system (in Wombourne) are not appropriate for increased traffic.

b)
comments made on roads.

Object

Representation ID: 2528

Received: 28/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen O'Hara

The correct infrastructure has not been planned in conjunction with proposed site 582 (Langley Road).

The infrastructure and amenities in neighbouring Wolverhampton districts will be depended on.

Object

Representation ID: 2531

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Jacob O'Hara

The correct infrastructure has not been planned in conjunction with proposed site 582 (Langley Road).

The infrastructure and amenities in neighbouring Wolverhampton districts will be depended on.

Object

Representation ID: 2773

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Brazenell

No road surveys to show traffic flow through the district.
Roads not identified nor suitability discussed.
No evidence whether schools and doctors can support increase in population.

Object

Representation ID: 2910

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr C Stonehouse

a)No
The IDP is short term and generic.
Doesn't recognise the existing/potential needs of Penkridge.

b)Yes
A449 corridor has dominated Penkridge and the village centre needs to be re-claimed.
Major road system make over required (parking, footpath, cycleways, crossings).
Western Spine Road to take through traffic away from the village centre.
Open Space strategy should be re-examined to provide access for green infrastructure of the River Penk. The River Penk Park (approved 2001, never activated) should be included in future proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 3157

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Pollyanna Drury

No suggestion of new healthcare or education to support proposals
Goes against core strategy of providing key services to meet the needs of the local community

Object

Representation ID: 3176

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Dunphy

Not enough emphasis on public transport in IDP
Arterial roads in the area already congested
More support needs to be given to workers on their journeys to work in Wolverhampton and Stourbridge
Reopen Oxley Junction/Kingswinford junction to trams.- Would make it easier for journeys from many areas in the district.

Object

Representation ID: 3300

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs P Farrier

IDP will result in a poorer quality of life as congestion and competition for a small number of resources in Kinver will increase.
Nothing in the local plan can convince that more people and less green space will benefit the village
no mention of canals in and around Kinver and no provision for car parking laid out

Object

Representation ID: 3491

Received: 12/07/2022

Respondent: Suan Lawson

a) no
No room for doctors to expand.
Road system around Wombourne was main for suburban traffic and built when the population was at 40% of what it is today.
Insufficient parking in Wombourne village.
b) no

Object

Representation ID: 3569

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Heyford Developments

Agent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

The infrastructure requirements included within the IDP are based upon the Preferred Options Plan’s housing and employment development targets. As detailed in these Representations it is our view that the emerging Plan makes insufficient provision for housing development. That being the case, the IDP plans for an insufficient level of development. The IDP will need
updating in due course should the housing and employment requirements be increased.

Object

Representation ID: 3644

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr V Kelly

a) IDP is short term and generic - does not recognise the existing needs of Penkridge.

b) Highway infrastructure: village centre needs to be reclaimed form the A449.
A Western Spine Road needs to be introduces to take traffic away from the centre.
Open space strategy - need to look into access to green infrastructure of the River Penk and its flood plain.

Object

Representation ID: 3667

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Piper Homes PLC

Agent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

The infrastructure requirements included within the IDP are based upon the Preferred Options Plan’s housing and employment development targets. Viewed that the emerging Plan makes insufficient provision for housing development. That being the case, the IDP plans for an insufficient level of development. The IDP will need
updating in due course should the housing and employment requirements be increased

Object

Representation ID: 3893

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Messrs - Jenks & Letts

Agent: PlanIt

The infrastructure requirements included within the IDP are based upon the Preferred Options Plan’s housing and employment development targets. As detailed in these representations it is our view that the emerging Plan makes insufficient provision for housing development. That being the case, the IDP plans for an insufficient level of development. The IDP will need updating in due course if, as we suggest, the housing and employment requirements are increased.

Object

Representation ID: 3974

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Save the Lower Penn Green Belt (Action Group)

There are a number of potential infrastructure issues associated with Site 582 which are implicit in our concerns, particularly about flooding and the lack of available educational provision, as well as access to public transport. It is noted that SSDC score Site 582 as high with regards to the provision of schools however the schools are full and you’ve indicated that children of
secondary school age will be schooled in Wombourne, which is a considerable distance away.

We believe that the assessment for Site 582 with regards to its infrastructure provision for schooling is significantly overstated. It is also noticeable that some of those needs would require significant infrastructure provision within Wolverhampton.