Question 5

Object

Representation ID: 6

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

again as mentioned previously these development should be considered to take place outside the towns and cities as a complex with its own internal facilities such as school, shops, local hospital ,,,,,, our towns and cities are already congested , bringing more crowd to these locations won't be helpful and will damage every body and effecting every body particularly the neighbourhood . also gypsy and travellers will be placed somewhere outside the cities for the purpose of safety of local neighbourhood and also the road congestions .

Object

Representation ID: 18

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Ms M Collins

Does not consider brownfield sites in the area. Also does not justify where 4,000 additional houses allocation has been derived? Why agreed on 4,000? Also states Black Country will be short in late 2030’a so does this mean that south Staffordshire will be required to offer up more land for housing in later years.

Support

Representation ID: 23

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: N/a

i support the proposed developments in and around wombourne. these developments appear to be located on land that isnt being reasonably used for anything and will not have an adverse impact on the village itself. there does need to be an emphasis on the diversification of property, properties of all types to ensure flow of people through the property ladder. a mix of properties suitable for first time buyers, affordable homes, 3/4 and 5 bed properties for families increasing in size, suitable properties for older people to downsize into that arent just care homes or supported living/retirement communities.

Object

Representation ID: 29

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Barnsley

I do not believe that Pattingham should be treated as a tier 3 area. It has little better services and facilities than tier 4 areas and has already had development which stretched the already limited resources. In addition to this there has now been a significant reduction in public transport since the last development.

Object

Representation ID: 53

Received: 05/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Edwards

KEEP BOUNDARY OF WOLVERHAMPTON AND SOUTH STAFFS SEPERATE WITH NATRUAL GREEN BELT BOUNDARY TO AVOID URBAN SPRAWL. LINTOHOUSE ROAD CAN NOT SUSTAIN THE CURRENT TRAFFIC, AND WE DONT NEED SOUTH STAFFS BURDEN OF EXTRA POLLUTION OR CONGESTION.
KEEP OUR OWN IDENDITY.
BUILD ON YOUR OWN BROWN AREAS OR WHERE YOUR ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS WILL NOT IMPEDE CURRENT HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE WORKED ARD TO GET WHAT WE HAVE.
WEDNESDIELD DOES NOT HAVE MUCH GREENBELT OR OPEN SPACE, DO NOT TAKE OUT LAST AREA AWAY!

Object

Representation ID: 62

Received: 08/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Kelsey

No

Object

Representation ID: 74

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr James Aust

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

Object

Representation ID: 97

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Imms

How on earth by building more houses you feel that this will be sustainable to the Wombourne area ? It absolutely will not be, as mentioned earlier we have not enough doctors or dentists currently. It is also ridiculous to say that houses need to be built due to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area shortfall. we are in South Staffordshire, if Greater Birmingham have an issue look at areas such as Perry Barr, Sparkhill, Sparkbrook which are part of Birmingham!!

Object

Representation ID: 110

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Griss

Key words "appropriate allocations. " That means you've already decided where you're putting houses regardless of views of Wombourne people. We have no room in schools or GP surgeries for anyone else. DO NOT BUILD IN WOMBOURNE. IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Object

Representation ID: 118

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Boucher

There is too much building on greenbelt already when there is so much industrial and waste land. Linthouse Lane and Blackhalve Lane are already busy roads and creating a new estate is only going to cause congestion, noise and pollution even more. I strongly object to beautiful countryside being turned into concrete jungles disrupting the homes of what beautiful creatures we have left. Before long there will be no greenery left in England, we are supposed to be thinking of climate change how can creating a new estate be a good thing and getting rid of trees and open space.

Object

Representation ID: 121

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Carter

The policy DS3 violates areas of natural beauty, land that is used for essential farming and home to plentiful species of animals, plants and insects. To turn these areas into housing estates would destroy vital green belt habitats & open spaces that local people rely on and utilise for a multitude of physical and mental health related benefits. Increased pollution, traffic and crime would prove too much for local services to manage. As a family of four we could not be more against these proposals and feel that housing projects would ruin our local area.

Object

Representation ID: 127

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Taylor

these policies are based on gov targets in response to one report which is certainly biased and needs to be challenged before we lose all our green spaces which we aill never get back.
Housing targets are not fit for purpose in this climate crisis.
There needs to be more emphasis on making existing housing energy efficient and and sustainable and affordable for normal people to buy,, lots of houses standing vacant but peole cant afford them..

Object

Representation ID: 142

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Longman

The green belt will be destroyed, breaking policies, subsequently significantly harming nature and wildlife. The well-being of Wombourne’s habitants will suffer as the green belt is valued by its current community. There is a lack of respect towards current population in developing Wombourne further when space is not available. Wombourne does not have enough facilities or services for it to be a town but it’s population and housing development is already that of a small town. Furthermore, as a resident I do not think that the council supports Wombourne well already. It lacks infrastructure, healthcare services and maintenance already.

Object

Representation ID: 152

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Harper

Why are we not targeting existing brown field sites - there are plenty sites in the dudley,sandwell and wolverhampton?.

Also with CV19, many properties (offices - company headway1265q) are becoming empty and sold off - why are the councils not looking at these properties.

If housing is required for the new economic area (i54) - why is it not being built closer?

Object

Representation ID: 166

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Carpenter

Whilst i appreciate the need for local expansion to cater for the needs of South Staffordshire, building 4000 houses for Birmingham seems ridiculous as open countryside will be used. This should be as a last resort, only used when all brownfield/derelict land in the COUNTRY has been used should open countryside be built on. Fields are required to grow food!

Object

Representation ID: 172

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Graystone

Scrap the policy. Building on green belt is not acceptable. Build on brown field sites only

Object

Representation ID: 182

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr K Lloyd

Tier 1 Settlements. I disagree that Bilbrook and Codsall are put together for the purpose of this document. The villages have separate needs, amenities (including stations) and infrastructure. You have described them as one village and they aren’t. The housing allocation is biased towards Bilbrook and it is getting the lions share of the allocation. They should be split and divided equally. Bilbrook is creeping closer to the Black country and important wildlife corridors are being squeezed into smaller areas. Attached image shows very important wildlife corridor (in red) which will disappear if all of site 519 is built on.

Object

Representation ID: 204

Received: 20/11/2021

Respondent: Mr David Jackson

There is requirement for the additional 4000 houses in rural South Staffordshire as demonstrated throughout this policy. The nearly 200 dwellings to the south of Stafford have no school or local employment prospects.

Remove this proposal, it has quite rightly been rejected more than once. The proposal will then only exceed the requirement by 3800 and that will be fine.

Object

Representation ID: 209

Received: 20/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Norman Smith

Do not agree with the proposed site to the south of Stafford. Previous planning application was refused due to very strong public feelings that the facilities and roads in this area cannot support any further new homes. Schools and Doctors are already full to overflowing. Hospital has no 24hr A&E. New housing on the old Police Headquarter site has already created serious road congestion in this area of Stafford. Houses built on this proposed site would pay taxes to South Staffs but their inhabitants would use Stafford Borough Council facilities. Seems very wrong to me and others.

Object

Representation ID: 213

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: A G Morris

There is no evidence that you have presented that you investigated all of the brownfield sites in South Staffordshire.

The Black Country has enough brownfield sites that obviate the need for building on green belt in South Staffordshire.

Can you provide evidence that Planning officers haven’t got a vested interest in this proposed scheme? We need to see all correspondence between planning Officers and developers to have confidence that bribery and corruption has not taken place.

Object

Representation ID: 228

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Sutton

I see that Wombourne has to bear the brunt of even more houses on the north, west and south sides - considering how many have already been built to date (2021). No more jobs have been created so all these people have to travel even further, adding to climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 245

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex Fenlon

You are thinking of putting 1200 homes at the moment near Essington. There is no real parking in the village and the road between Wolverhampton and Essington is a single carriage road often with farm vehicles and cyclists - and is a 50mph road with no lighting.

Bus service is one bus an hour to Wolverhampton - Linthouse Lane buses stop running at 1800. Are these houses for working families? If so there will be a reliance on the car. They will also be next to overhead pylons - what about quality of life increased risk of cancer?

Object

Representation ID: 252

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Birds

Objection to development by South Staffs of land so close to Stafford town and that South staffs has no feel for the locality or the strength of feelings against this development.

Object

Representation ID: 256

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Cain

House building on OpenCountryside

Object

Representation ID: 258

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Jones

I do not agree with meeting unmet needs of GBHMA when they are awash with Brownfield sites. It should not be the case that residents of SSDC suffer loss of amenity because the cost of developing brownfield sites is higher, and therefore impacting profit for developers. I do not agree that the availability of sites in GBHMA has fallen. I believe the availability of profitable sites may have fallen, but I do not believe it is in the interests of SSDC residents to provide the profits for developers

Object

Representation ID: 259

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Jones

SSDC have failed to deliver employment growth in Wombourne by removing the industrial centre at Wombourne Enterprise Park by selling to developers for a supermarket, with no plans to change a dangerous road layout. I do not agree with this plan because you have shown no commitment to enterprise and supporting small business. This is just words, that are not ever actually realised, which leaves little conviction in the rest of it.

Object

Representation ID: 272

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Hughes

Wombourne is classed as a Tier 2 settlement. Whilst it may have a wider range of services than other local settlements, this does not mean that they meet the needs of the local community. Services and employment opportunities continue to reduce within the community. New population volumes introduced to the community puts additional strain on the existing services and reduces the quality to the existing population. Environmental impact would be considerable - reduced green space, increased flooding, poorer air quality, increased noise and light pollution which all contribute to increased health problems and loss of wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 280

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr C Dean

Site (096) must NOT be considered for such a development, as referred to in your own guidelines ‘Local Plan – Preferred Options’ document dated November 2021.

Object

Representation ID: 281

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Brown

Site Ref: 096
Address: Land off Offoxey Road & Ivesty Bank Road
Size: 4.14ha
Proposed Use: Residential

Site (096) must NOT be considered for such a development, as referred to in your own guidelines ‘Local Plan – Preferred Options’ document dated November 2021. Please see attached supporting file.

Object

Representation ID: 282

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs N Turner

its mentioned about tier 1 areas having sufficient infrastructure, facilities and services to support larger proportions on new properties however in other parts of this proposal it mentions that those facilities and services also serve surrounding tier 2,3 areas. In the case of Codsall and Bilbrook and the larger proposed site, I feel the area does not have sufficient infrastructure so support that many properties in one place. Traffic is already a big problem in this area.