Question 4

Support

Representation ID: 981

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Lichfield District Council

Concur that exceptional circumstances exist to merit the release of Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 1005

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy should make clear that the forms of
development in NPPF para 150 are also an exception which can be permitted without the need for very special circumstances. Green Belt/Open Countryside SPD must align with national and local policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1017

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

DS1 need not refer to the fact that the Green Belt boundary ‘will be altered though the Plan’. The supporting text should provide a clear statement on whether the Council consider a Green Belt review as being necessary. The policy should acknowledge that ‘reserve’ or ‘white land’ is no longer the subject of Green Belt policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1024

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Acres Land & Planning

Sites like Site 274 (land south of White Hill, Kinver) represents a major incursion into GB and near to Kinver Edge SSI. Site 419 (land at Keepers Lane, Codsall) is prominent with no clear, definable urban edge. Site 519 (land east of Bilbrook) is contrary to GB policy due to coalescence with Wolverhampton - something specifically highlighted as integral for protection in GL Hearn GBBCHMA Study.
(Former) Sites 443 and 209 of the 2018 SAD already seriously breached GB policy and further extension to this is unacceptable. Proposed dwellings in this 'extension' should be redistributed around multiple sites within Codsall including Site 222 (Sandy Lane, Codsall) and Policy DS1 should be amended to reflect this position.

Support

Representation ID: 1048

Received: 08/02/2022

Respondent: Staffordshire County Council

- P50: Policy could also consider well-designed tree and woodland planting in the Green Belt & open countryside where it fits local landscape character guidelines. Some areas close to the conurbation could make a significant contribution to settlement character. The Spatial Strategy could include an innovative Green Infrastructure policy to be considered hand-in-hand with site selection options on a strategic level, reflecting overarching issue of climate change, habitat loss and replacement. Precedents include multifunctional approach taken to Forest of Mercia and National Forest. Large scale woodland creation could be delivered on historic designed parklands throughout South Staffordshire.

Support

Representation ID: 1057

Received: 08/02/2022

Respondent: Cannock Chase AONB

Reference to the AONB Views and Setting Guide would support preparation of a Green Belt SPD or other policy relating to development in the setting of the AONB. Would welcome additional wording in Policy DS2 to recognise the sensitivities of Cannock Chase AONB and its setting.

Object

Representation ID: 1066

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

Not supported. Text implies Green Belt contributes to rural character when its a policy designation. fails to mention that the development strategy is dependent upon demonstrating exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release.

Object

Representation ID: 1089

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Lilactame Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy DS1 ought to be amended to make explicit the benefits that can accrue from the redevelopment of previously developed sites located in the Green
Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 1117

Received: 11/02/2022

Respondent: Lower Penn Parish Council

Policy DS1 is supported but the removal of sites from the Green Belt in SA1-7 is not supported.

Support

Representation ID: 1140

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Support the acknowledgement that Green Belt boundaries require amendment to accommodate growth and deliver a sustainable spatial strategy. Agree that exceptional circumstances exist for Green Belt release. Safeguarded land should be considered to ensure Green Belt endures well beyond the plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 1149

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Support the acknowledgement that Green Belt boundaries require amendment to accommodate growth and deliver a sustainable spatial strategy. Agree that exceptional circumstances exist for Green Belt release. Safeguarded land should be considered to ensure Green Belt endures well beyond the plan period and should be identified within the Tier 1 and 2 settlements, including Wombourne.

Support

Representation ID: 1166

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Support the acknowledgement that development outside of settlement boundaries in non-Green Belt settlements will require alteration to accommodate growth and deliver a sustainable spatial strategy. Proportionate growth would assist in supporting existing and proposed services and facilities and deliver new/improved infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 1204

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs B & S Ashmead

Purpose of Green Belt is to protect against urban sprawl - needs to consider brownfield sites and underutilised land as prioirity.

Object

Representation ID: 1211

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Policy DS2 - Recommend amending 'historic assets' to 'heritage assets' to reflect NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 1222

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Policy DS1 repeats the Framework and could be – in part – removed. On-site green infrastructure can be delivered but compensatory improvements create uncertainties for landowners and developers and are unlikely to be deliverable. It is unclear how development in the Green Belt could maintain its character and openness. Encourage the Council to set out the exceptional circumstances required to remove sites from the Green Belt.

Policy DS2 – It is unclear what forms of development would or would not be acceptable in open countryside. DS2(A) should refer to ‘building(s)’. The policy wording as a whole should be revisited.

Support

Representation ID: 1234

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Support the acknowledgement that Green Belt boundaries require amendment to accommodate growth and deliver a sustainable spatial strategy. Agree that exceptional circumstances exist for Green Belt release. Safeguarded land should be considered to ensure Green Belt endures well beyond the plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 1260

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Support the acknowledgement that Green Belt boundaries require amendment to accommodate growth and deliver a sustainable spatial strategy. Agree that exceptional circumstances exist for Green Belt release. Safeguarded land should be considered to ensure Green Belt endures well beyond the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 1277

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: CCB Investments

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Policy DS1 repeats the Framework and could be – in part – removed. On-site green infrastructure can be delivered but compensatory improvements create uncertainties for landowners and developers and are unlikely to be deliverable. It is unclear how development in the Green Belt could maintain its character and openness. Encourage the Council to set out the exceptional circumstances required to remove sites from the Green Belt.

Policy DS2 – It is unclear what forms of development would or would not be acceptable in open countryside. The policy wording as a whole should be revisited.

Object

Representation ID: 1287

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Goldfinch TPS

Agent: Goldfinch TPS

Goldfinch TPS view the proposed planning policies covering the Green Belt (Policy DS1) and Open Countryside (Policy DS2) are developed through out of date data and insufficient technical evidence.

Goldfinch TPS view the Policy DS1 is too prescriptive and needs to maximise development potential of sustainably-located infill sites and make effective use of urban brownfield land sites. Policy DS1 is considered restrictive and lacks flexibility with the policy depending on individual site circumstances, assessing sites on their own planning merits. Goldfinch concerns into the lack of Urban Capacity Study for the Black Country.

Goldfinch express considerable concerns that Policy DS2
promoting unsustainable patterns of development will deliver ‘landscape-scale’ ecological habitat damage to the local area.

The proposed policy wording and paragraphs does not conform with NPPF/PPG.

Object

Representation ID: 1299

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: JVH Town Planning Consultants

Agent: JVH Town Planning Consultants

Site shown in attached at Upper Sneyd Road remains to be shown in greenbelt according to SHELAA site 160. The proposed development boundary excludes this site. Express there is no need to retain the subjected site in the green belt to preserve the purpose of the greenbelt. There are no proposed housing allocations at Essington Village itself which is an established settlement with facilities and the expansion of Essington is a suitable development option.

Object

Representation ID: 1311

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: J Holt & Sons

Agent: Spawforths

Policy DS2 - Open Countryside is unduly restrictive and is not consistent with the 2021 Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Limited

Policy DS1 repeats the Framework and could be – in part – removed. It is unclear how development in the Green Belt could maintain its character and openness.

Policy DS2 – It is unclear what forms of development would or would not be acceptable in open countryside. The policy should be revisited.

Object

Representation ID: 1322

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr - Lacon

Agent: Mr William Dale

Additional land should be released from the Green Belt at Perton to ensure a sustainable and future growth
strategy is accommodated early in the Plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 1327

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Policy DS1 repeats the Framework and could be – in part – removed. On-site green infrastructure can be delivered but compensatory improvements create uncertainties for landowners and developers and are unlikely to be deliverable. It is unclear how development in the Green Belt could maintain its character and openness. Encourage the Council to set out the exceptional circumstances required to remove sites from the Green Belt.

Policy DS2 – It is unclear what forms of development would or would not be acceptable in open countryside. The policy wording as a whole should be revisited.

Object

Representation ID: 1336

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Reed Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Policy DS1 repeats the Framework and could be – in part – removed. On-site green infrastructure can be delivered but compensatory improvements create uncertainties for landowners and developers and are unlikely to be deliverable. It is unclear how development in the Green Belt could maintain its character and openness. Encourage the Council to set out the exceptional circumstances required to remove sites from the Green Belt.

Policy DS2 – It is unclear what forms of development would or would not be acceptable in open countryside. The policy wording as a whole should be revisited.

Object

Representation ID: 1344

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Policy DS1 repeats the Framework and could be – in part – removed. On-site green infrastructure can be delivered but compensatory improvements create uncertainties for landowners and developers and are unlikely to be deliverable. It is unclear how development in the Green Belt could maintain its character and openness. Encourage the Council to set out the exceptional circumstances required to remove sites from the Green Belt.

Policy DS2 – It is unclear what forms of development would or would not be acceptable in open countryside. The policy wording as a whole should be revisited.

Object

Representation ID: 1357

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Jay Farm Homes and Lawnswood Homes

Agent: SLR Consulting Ltd

NO – Policy DS1 (Green Belt); the alterations to the Green Belt boundary should be amended to both
accommodate the proposed site allocations as well as safeguarding further sites to meet potential development
needs now and beyond the current plan period. This approach would accord with National Planning Policy as
outlined below.
Our client raises no comment with regard to proposed Policy DS2 (Open Countryside).

Support

Representation ID: 1367

Received: 20/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy DS1 is supported but should include recognition of exceptional circumstances existing to justify Green Belt release for sustainable development. No comment on Policy DS2.

Object

Representation ID: 1383

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Aust

Brown sites and empty properties should be used before sacrificing green land.

Support

Representation ID: 1386

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy DS1 is broadly in line with national policy. The recognition within the supporting text that exceptional circumstances exist for Green Belt release within the District to allow for sustainable development within the plan period is also supported. However, this recognition should also be included within Policy DS1, with cross reference made to the relevant sites where Green Belt release is proposed.