Question 4

Object

Representation ID: 633

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Russell

Under NPPF one of its greenbelt policies is that the green belt protects against urban sprawl so that different settlements are defined and people can enjoy the green spaces between. This seems to have been overlooked in relation to building on urban fringe and disregards the law and safeguard the countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 634

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Antonio Pupino

No evidence that the West Midlands conurbation has insufficient brown field and other suitable sites for their housing needs. The extension of the conurbation into rural and greenbelt areas should be restricted. In particular the continuous extension of the West Midlands beyond the natural boundary of the M54. Coven has suffered major industrialisation on its green belt sites. Now there are proposals for major housing developments on the green belt that remains. There is little regard to the environmental impact which will result in the destruction of trees and the loss of habitats for a number of species of wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 641

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

The policy on Green Belt release is too lax, and does not prove 'exceptional circumstances' as required by the NPPF.
If the ‘need to cooperate’ were removed/reduced and South Staffs 'housing need' calculations were reviewed to remove upward bias, the need to take green field and green belt could be drastically reduced. Second, the use of existing brown field or previously developed land (in South Staffs and GBHMA) is underestimated. In South Staffs, smaller sites where one house is replaced by 2 or more provide a large amount of housing which is ignored.
See document by Gerald Kells, attached.

Object

Representation ID: 650

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr P Wilkinson

developments have to include avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement to ensure biodiversity net gain. Green belt may consist of disturbed and cultivated ground, but also includes grassland, hedges, trees and other priority habitats that have remained unchanged, and support associated biodiversity. The destruction and loss of historic grassland (with native fungi, diverse grass and wildflower seed bank and replacement of single non native grass turf is against policy. Developments should include, incorporate and enhance the existing communities and biodiverse landscape features, this has not been demonstrated to date. Historic hedges and trees need more robust protection, not replacement.

Object

Representation ID: 660

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janice Rowley

It should be supported by an impact assessment and amended accordingly. Many of these villages cannot support further development, there are little or no amenities for a larger community that could lead to social problems and impact on current limited livelihoods.

Object

Representation ID: 663

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Burke

Green belt protects against urban sprawls so that different settlements are defined and people can enjoy green spaces. This seems to have been totally overlooked in relation to building on urban fringe and so totally disregards the fundamental law to protect the green belt.

Support

Representation ID: 679

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

We have no comment on these policies, which deal with non-strategic residential development on land remaining in the Green Belt and open countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 690

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Jill Humphries

Agent: DBA Estates

The approach is at odds with Green Belt policy as set out in the NPPF in that it fails to make allowance for future development needs. To paraphrase the NPPF, areas of safeguarded land should be identified between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. We consider that the southern parcel of our client's land in Pattingham is well suited to this purpose.

Support

Representation ID: 695

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Baggott

Yes, but there appears to be some contradiction with the proposed Settlement Hierarchy and the restrictions placed on development within defined settlement boundaries, particularly those falling with Tier 5 as indicated within the RSFA (see previous comments made under Question 1).

Object

Representation ID: 697

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Rachel Edwards

Agent: DBA Estates

The approach is at odds with policy as set out in the NPPF in that it fails to make allowance for future development needs. To paraphrase the NPPF, areas of safeguarded land should be identified in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. We consider that our client's land in Wheaton Aston (site ref. 614) is well suited to this purpose.

Support

Representation ID: 706

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Penk Valley Academy Trust

No further comment

Object

Representation ID: 717

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Please refer to detailed comments.

Support

Representation ID: 728

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Define Planning and Design Ltd (on behalf of Bloor Homes Ltd)

BHL recognises the intention of Policy DS1 and welcomes the proposed allocation of suitable non-Green Belt sites such as the strategic allocation at ‘North of Penkridge’ ahead of the release of Green Belt land; which is in accordance with the NPPF. With that said, SSC should identify additional 'safeguarded' Green Belt sites to ensure the permanence of the revised Green belt boundary.

In relation to Policy DS2, BHL notes that the NPPF does not seek to apply a blanket protection of the countryside for its own sake. Policy DS2 should, therefore, be redrafted to reflect the imperatives of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 739

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Katie Green

Policy DS1 states development within the Green Belt must retain its character and openness you have not provided evidence that this is the case. Although the policy states to use damaged or derelict land no damaged or derelict land seems to have been identified even though councillors from neighbouring conurbations have openly stated in the press that there are these types of land available.
Policy DS2 states that you will protect the land that has agricultural value this is not the case of site ref: 255 as this is solely used for agricultural purposes.

Support

Representation ID: 743

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs R Groom

I agree with the policy .. but do not feel it is being met .. I deem this housing development on greenbelt to be 'Inappropriate Development' and your words state :

"Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and will not be supported, except in very special circumstances".

There are no " Very special circumstances" whilst brownfield sites remain unused and under utilised.

Support

Representation ID: 763

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Ellis

The plan is for very little green belt land to be taken and I am in support of this at the <1% level. It is curcial however to maintain the green belt between Wolverhampton and South Staffs. There is also pressure to infill in towns and villages which can have a deleterious effect on the surroundings. Developers should get more assistance to work with brown field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 764

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Greg Nellist

Agent: SP Faizey

POLICY DS1-GREEN BELT
The Green Belt policy needs to be flexible to allow consideration to be given for opportunities to develop land for affordable housing to meet needs identified in the Local Plan and not just for limited development as Rural Exceptions sites or sites classed as previously developed.

Support

Representation ID: 766

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Gregory Yerbury

No comment

Object

Representation ID: 783

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

Please refer to our Representations to the Preferred Options Consultation, on behalf of L&Q Estates, in relation to land at Yieldfields, Bloxwich. The Representations include the below reports:
• Site Boundary Plan (Drawing RG-M-30)
• Extract from Draft Policy WSA4 of the Draft Black Country Plan 2039
• Illustrative Concept Masterplan (Drawing BM-M-14C)
• Illustrative Concept Masterplan with Phasing (Drawing BM-M-15A)
• Review of Sustainability Appraisal (December 2021)
• Green Belt Advice Note (November 2019)
• Landscape, Visual and Green Belt Appraisal (December 2019)
• Transport Technical Note (October 2021)
• Preliminary Ecological Review: Constraints and Opportunities (July 2019)

Object

Representation ID: 801

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

Insufficient land is removed form the Green Belt. The Policy fails to recognise the concept of safeguarded land. The Green Belt boundaries proposed will not endure. The policy includes more stringent guidance that the Framework in part.

Support

Representation ID: 809

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Land Fund Limited

Agent: Turley

Land Fund do not have any comments on these policies, which deal with non-strategic residential development on land remaining in the Green Belt and open countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 821

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

Any decision to release a site from the green belt needs to be informed by environmental constraints and opportunities in that area, including any deficit or barriers existing currently with regards to access to nature.
The plan should consider selecting key nature recovery areas, ‘Wildbelts’, as part of a Local Nature Recovery Strategy, and should consider how acccess to nature can be facilitated.

Object

Representation ID: 829

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Williams

We should not use Green Belt land

Support

Representation ID: 850

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Daker

The GreenGelt should be protected so why are you building over 500 homes on it?

Object

Representation ID: 860

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr J Ball

Policy should be amended to lessen housing developments in the village, not increase it.

Support

Representation ID: 915

Received: 22/12/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Support recognition of opportunities to enhance beneficial use of Green Belt. Take opportunities to link into Green Infrastructure & ecological networks.

Object

Representation ID: 937

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Essington Parish Council

Support the general approach to DS1 but removal of sites SA1-SA7 from the Green Belt is not supported. The sites, and in particular site 486c, should remain in the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 950

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Gavin Williamson CBE MP

Partially support. support the general approach of Policies DS1 and DS2 to preserve Green Belt and Open Countryside land.

Object

Representation ID: 951

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Gavin Williamson CBE MP

Do not support any immediate alteration of the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the development allocations set out in Policies SA1, SA2, SA3, SA5, and SA7, as I believe these development allocations should be reconsidered alongside housing target numbers and the future employment site allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 976

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Lack of justification and exceptional circumstances for building on the Green Belt.