Question 3

Object

Representation ID: 1

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Dermott Kelly

The residents of Histons Hill and adjacent roads have a petition in excess of 100 residents who feel that there has been no evidence of propoer traffic mangement despite increased development in the area. Increased volume of traffic and speeding motorists are putting residents at risk and immediate action is needed to avoid anyone suffering. Action such as speed cameras and chicqanes on roads like Histons Hill would help control speeds but allow emergency vehicles access.

Object

Representation ID: 4

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

The best policy is to start building complex houses outside the towns and cities and congested area and make a balance in delivering all the policies rather than sacrificing one for another .

Object

Representation ID: 16

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Ms M Collins

States considers green belt and climate change however most of the SADs are in open green spaces which is against this.
Talks a lot about north south Staffordshire but very little of south south Staffordshire and how much that can support additional housing or has adequate transport links, yet is included in a lot of SAD allocations

Object

Representation ID: 27

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Barnsley

I understand that with 80% of the area greenbelt we cannot meet government targets but in the same way by removing from greenbelt for development shouldnt be an option. We should instead be pushing back on government that we cannot meet National housing quotas whilst delivering housing at the numbers requested. They should reduce the numbers. We cant have mixed messages from Westminster on such a serious topic.

Object

Representation ID: 36

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Whale

I do not agree with you destroying green belt,wildlife, bringing more pollution into the area,
You are not fit for pupose

Object

Representation ID: 61

Received: 08/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Kelsey

No

Object

Representation ID: 71

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr James Aust

I fully disagree with the proposed plans to build more houses in Wombourne

Object

Representation ID: 90

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Price

I do not agree with building on green belt land in Wombourne. You are stripping away what makes this a beautiful village and killing habitats for the sake of housing which can be built on many brown sites.

Object

Representation ID: 94

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Imms

No and no. In no uncertain terms should any further housing be built on green belt land. Wombourne’s identity is a village not a town, by building more properties will change its identity. The planners must look elsewhere and build on brownfield site not on any green belt or open countryside. I do not agree with any housing proposal in Wombourne and I feel the government have no right to increase house building in England especially not with any prior consultation with the electorate

Object

Representation ID: 107

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Griss

No & No.
Unless you are going to build green houses, with solar panels etc, that can be run off grid & at an AFFORDABLE price then you should not build any houses. DO NOT BUILD on the green belt & green spaces either. The pandemic =green space needed for MH sanity. Public transport in Wombourne is poor. Roads are poor. Too many pot holes. You cannot afford to build more. Accommodating gypsies is not fair to the residents. Crime will go up. Don't do this. It makes no sense.

Object

Representation ID: 108

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Griss

No & No. I just typed my answer.

Object

Representation ID: 125

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Taylor

Protection of habitiats, creation of habits and ecofriendly building need more attention;
It is not locality based, but a generic statement covering the region.
Building 1000+ houses in wombourne area is in direct conflict with this plan e.g does not address new build on virgin land releases corabon from land and losing land abilty to capture new carbon in and around wombourne.
Loss of green belt/green spaces impacts negatively on everyone, residents, people living in these new homes and the hundreds of visitors from surrounding areas/towns who need access to green spaces for mental health well being.

Object

Representation ID: 132

Received: 14/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Bunce

As a resident of Wombourne, I feel that any further house building will put extreme pressure on the existing infrastructure and take away the character of the area. The roads into and around Wombourne are already so congested during rush hour and school times.
Anyone thinking of moving to any new builds will have to take into consideration the commute times which can only become longer and more frustrating resulting in properties not being sold and existing residents moving out of the area. The use of any Green belt land will result in the area becoming over crowded and overpopulated

Object

Representation ID: 134

Received: 14/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Longman

Green belt site development on all suggested Wombourne sites fundamentally wrong, going against previous policies and public (‘voters’) opinion. No recognition of importance of Wombourne’s ‘natural assets’ (as opposed Cannock Chase, SO 11), brook, fields, agricultural land. Land could be used for local allotments, eco friendly, sustainable community use. (SO 9) would require significant investment as these are not currently adequate (particularly health services/schools. (SO13) Wombourne tourism relies upon historic village centre, canal and is struggling due to lack of current facilities and green land being developed. (SO5) Play and Youth development areas are being destroyed not created (Brickbridge).

Object

Representation ID: 138

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Flavell

The Strategic Vision is acceptable, but the objectives are vague. 'Seek to', 'support' and 'enhance' are not words that the council can be held to have not achieved at any point; I assume that's why they have been chosen. Much more clarity and definition is required. Almost any development can be said to have met the objectives listed.

Object

Representation ID: 150

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Harper

No, How can you state you protecting the green belt when you are building on it? There a brook next to a proposed location. We have fish and kingfishers starting to reappear.
Economic - No, I was think of moving my business to wombourne but this will change my mind.

Dont agree with any of above.

Object

Representation ID: 164

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Carpenter

Before adding more burden to already stretched infrastructure, where is the 'vision' to fix what is already broken. Where are the 'strategic objectives' to improve the lives of existing residents before adding more.

Object

Representation ID: 170

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Graystone

Local people not consulted. Loss of green belt is not acceptable. Too congested round here already without more houses

Object

Representation ID: 183

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr K Lloyd

Too much green belt east of Bilbrook will be built on. A green buffer between site 159 and Barnhurst lane needs to be protected as the road and then Canal are a significant barriers for wildlife to move between North and South of the village.
There is no mention of sewage treatment capacity at Bilbrook. Already there are significant discharges of raw sewage into Moat Brook due to legacy issues which are set to increase. The sewage plant needs upgrading in order to process sewage during periods of high intensity rainfall.

Object

Representation ID: 196

Received: 19/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs C Starkey

Infrastructure is not coping now - very poor public transport system - distance to any major towns means options of alternative modes of transport are impossible. Local roads are in continual disrepair

Object

Representation ID: 202

Received: 20/11/2021

Respondent: Mr David Jackson

a) yes
b) no
The south of Wildwood Stafford proposal seems to completely ignore the objectives.
3) An aging population requires amenities and medical support, this is ignored.
5) No access to any of the facilities until driving age is reached. This development is on a major road unsuitable for children walking never mind cycling.
11) The development will cut off the wildlife of the adjacent woods from Cannock Chase killing off the majority.
12) Carbon emissions from this car based village will be terrible.

Object

Representation ID: 229

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Sutton

Again, this is nothing really but 'wishes for' - you cannot sustain both a 'district's natural environment' and 'key natural assets' whilst building everywhere and constructing houses with 2 and 3 bathrooms - obviously having a catastrophic effect on the water table and the climate.

Object

Representation ID: 244

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex Fenlon

I do not agree with the above. It should be brownfield first, not 'urban extensions'. This is a major cop out.

Object

Representation ID: 255

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Jones

Protecting SSDC Green Belt should be a priority for SSDC planners.
Unmet housing needs from neighbouring LA's awash with Brownfield sites should not be

Object

Representation ID: 271

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Hughes

No - the proposals seem to contradict the policies. By building on open fields reduces the availability of green space, restricts/removes wildlife and seriously impacts on local drainage and infrastructure. Recent large housing developments in Wombourne have resulted in a lack of diverse housing at affordable prices. Local infrastructure and employment opportunities do not support the existing local population. There is no supporting advice of what additional infrastructure and employment opportunities would be provided. Reducing the local green space reduces the rural location of a village linking it ever closer to neighbouring towns and villages.

Support

Representation ID: 288

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

Yes, correct vision & strategic objectives have been identified.

Support

Representation ID: 289

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

Something wrong with online system, no chance to answer Q3 b.
Answer to Q3 a
Yes
No Comment

Answer to Q3 b
Yes
No comment

Object

Representation ID: 303

Received: 19/11/2021

Respondent: Tracey Abbiss

Settlement already too large and doesn't need to contribute to development.

Object

Representation ID: 312

Received: 26/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Jacquie Leach

Not all houses from Lyne Hill or Bloor Homes have been included in the figures in Penkridge. 1,120 more houses are planned without the provision of adequate Road Infrastructure. Also large vehicles travelling to the "Hub" in Gailey will move along the A449 through Penkridge. A by pass is needed to mitigate against this.
Shared ownership properties are also inadequate and have caused many issues for new owners. The Government are looking at these issues. I am in a shared ownership property which I believed would be an affordable home. Extra management fees have caused issues for me.

Object

Representation ID: 331

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Brazenell

The general approach of Policy DS1 is supported. However, the removal of sites from the Green Belt in line with SA1-SA7 is not supported. I do not con- sider ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been proven for these sites, based on clear evidence ,not just numerical assumptions of Black Country over-spill. The sites (and, in particular, Site 582) should remain in the Green Belt.