Question 4

Object

Representation ID: 2931

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Save Kinver Greenbelt

Release brownfield sites first.
Release green belt slowly to reduce green belt loss an planning blight in case demand does not materialise.
Small site policy does not constitute for the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 2954

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr C Stonehouse

Open countryside is no less valuable than Green belt.
Both polices are effected by LPR.
Both Green belt and open countryside may be selected for growth beyond 2038.

Object

Representation ID: 3071

Received: 23/06/2022

Respondent: Resident

Policy DS2 - Open Countryside
Section C of the policy lacks clarity and could cover a wide range of activities. It should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 3125

Received: 14/12/2021

Respondent: Mr D.J Bryant

Number of people: 2

Disagree with all proposed housing considering other reasons.
Development would destroy habitat of local wildlife
Should develop later with existing transport in mind

Object

Representation ID: 3135

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sharan Dhaliwal

Against proposal

Support

Representation ID: 3173

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Dunphy

Supports Policy approach of protecting green belt
It is vital to do this

Object

Representation ID: 3205

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Edwards

mentioned protecting open countryside, but the only bit within SA3 is the natural corridor between s staffs and Wolverhampton
does not want this taking away

Object

Representation ID: 3302

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs P Farrier

If the rest of the west midlands and the black country has not exhausted their brownfield land, why should Kinver be forced to give up its greenbelt land for development
Houses built will not meet local need for affordable housing
Open countryside supposed to be a "buffer" between villages and towns no mention of this at all in plans

Object

Representation ID: 3307

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs R &A Faulkner

Number of people: 2

Brownfield sites and empty properties should be filled before greenbelt in this area is built on
11,193 unused sites throughout he black country which can be used before sacrificing greenbelt

Object

Representation ID: 3328

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mr A.K and C Fryer

The site is designated for Open countryside and not for development.
Has this changed since the SSCCSP in 2012

Object

Representation ID: 3331

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Holly Fuller

There is vacant brownfield land in Wolverhampton and the black country that should be developed before greenbelt

Object

Representation ID: 3339

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr David Giddings

Green belt strategy- Policy DS1 is not being implemented , namely to protect against urban sprawl

Object

Representation ID: 3458

Received: 14/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs M J Graceson

Greenbelt and open countryside should be protected as far as possible as stated in the objectives
This development proposal goes against this

Object

Representation ID: 3553

Received: 12/07/2022

Respondent: Suan Lawson

Protections are favouring Open Countryside opposed to Green belt.
Conditions of development in DS2 can be applied for BOTH open countryside and green belt.
Green belt should be used as a last resort.
The area of search was copied from the GL Hearn Survey, which was only related to the needs of the conurbation.
Policy has an in-built bias in favour of green belt opposed to open countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 3646

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr V Kelly

Both policies are effected by LPR.
Open countryside has been selected for growth until 2028 but beyond this both options may be necessary for growth in Penkridge.

Object

Representation ID: 3813

Received: 15/12/2021

Respondent: Mr D A Hudson

Agrees with points raised by Save Kinver Greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 3859

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jillian Ward

Non green belt sites should be considered first.

Object

Representation ID: 3876

Received: 14/12/2021

Respondent: Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group

Green belt should be used for overspill housing – erodes the integrity of the green belt.
Whereas building on some of South Staffordshire’s 80% green belt may have minimal effect on character the erosion of South Staffordshire boundaries due to these developments will have an effect.
Green belt is a public good and once lost cannot be replaced.
If developers or builders were to start but not complete work om all the green belt sites, then the worst of all worlds would have arrived: lost green belt but not completed sites with fewer houses but no amenities.
There should be a triple lock on green belt land.
Seven Cornfields land is grade 5 green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 3884

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs J Sadler

Does not support policy approach
Suitable brownfield sites need to be utilised before greenbelt in areas like Kinver

Object

Representation ID: 3887

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Maxine and Steve Banner

Brownfield sites in the black country should be developed first before greenbelt

Support

Representation ID: 3896

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Messrs - Jenks & Letts

Agent: PlanIt

In general, we support the approach of Policy DS1 - Green Belt. This is, however, on the basis that the Plan will be amended to remove additional land from the Green Belt to accommodate South Staffordshire’s housing and employment needs in accordance with our response to question 5.

Object

Representation ID: 3897

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Messrs - Jenks & Letts

Agent: PlanIt

Policy DS1 – penultimate paragraph is inappropriate and more restrictive than NPPF. No policy justification for limited infilling and control of building heights. Other forms of inappropriate development as per para 150 of NPPF have been omitted. Penultimate paragraph of policy should be removed and policy should refer back to NPPF.
Policy DS2 - Open Countryside, identifies forms of development that will be supported
in the open countryside. No reference is made to the provision of rural exception sites.
Limited affordable housing for local community needs can be an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt (Framework paragraph 149F). Rural exception sites should, therefore, also be recognised as an appropriate form of development within
the open countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 3976

Received: 12/12/2021

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

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. As stated in this document we do not consider ‘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.