Question 5

Support

Representation ID: 291

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

No comment.

Object

Representation ID: 315

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Jacquie Leach

The Centre of Penkridge is not suitable for many more businesses as the roads are very narrow and there is a one way system in place. The centre needs to be pedestrianised. The provision for very small businesses outside of the Centre would be more appropriate. A facility for Craft shops rather than large industrial businesses would be ideal especially in areas such as Gailey and Pillaton. The canal running through Penkridge could also be developed to encourage tourists. Penkridge needs to keep its Rural character.

Object

Representation ID: 339

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Butler

Local housing need should be the only criteria, pressure from greater Birmingham is their issue. Existing developed areas should be the priority for expansion, not effectively new developments such as the land south of Stafford. It creates pressure on Stafford Borough and is therefore an easy get out for South Staffs. The environmental damage is inexcusable.

Object

Representation ID: 345

Received: 02/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Eugene Antoszewski

Object to building on land on the A34 corridor between Wildwood estate and Acton Hill, due to access on the busy main road and destruction of the natural views towards Cannock Chase. Ref 036c

Object

Representation ID: 352

Received: 02/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Turner

Policy DS3 takes into consideration differing sizes of the settlements within the district but not the individuality of each settlement or the uniqueness of each area.

Object

Representation ID: 361

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: Nicola Dixon

This does not sufficient explain why further has it has to be created in this particular area. There is already a cradle to grave separation of people of socio-economic groups, and this simply lined the pockets of people that already have.

There is lack of social mobility and it does not explain how many of these houses will be made available to people of low-income or for social housing or for shared ownership. Therefore this shows that the housing are simply there for profit motives.

Object

Representation ID: 371

Received: 05/12/2021

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association (IWA)

The Locality 1 map shows the Shropshire Union Canal but not the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal which passes through Penkridge and is more relevant.

The Locality 2 map shows the Shropshire Union Canal but not the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal which is affected by the Cross Green housing allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 378

Received: 05/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Sutton

The proposal to build 168 houses in Locality 1 South of Stafford 036C should be removed from the Local Plan.

It is contrary to Policy DS2 Open Countryside, uses productive agricultural land, will generate higher traffic flows on the unsuitable and dangerous Acton Hill Road, generate further traffic flows through Acton Trussell to the detriment of local residents and set a precedent for further similar development to the west of this site on the southern fringes of Stafford compounding the issues already set out.

Support

Representation ID: 380

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Penk Valley Academy Trust

No further comment

Object

Representation ID: 388

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Middleton

I cannot support a Spatial Strategy which fails to set out clearly requirements for affordable and social housing. This should be stated as part of the overall strategy as well as on a site-by-site basis. It is not sufficient to meet the market demand for housing in Kinver. In order to maintain a balanced community it is essential that the wider housing needs in terms of affordability and tenure are addressed as well.

Support

Representation ID: 395

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mr T Cowern

Agent: Mr Hugh Lufton

Generally, yes.

The Tiered settlement approach and proportionate provision of housing development between the tiers does not appear to fit well with the employment land strategy and in particular the major warehousing and distribution proposals. There appears to be a disconnect between proposals as if the Strategy has been considered in silo land uses. This is particularly manifest in the production of Locality Plans that only show housing proposals and magnifies the concern that the consideration of housing allocations in the context of the Tiered settlements has been done in isolation.

Object

Representation ID: 407

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs SUSAN WAKEFIELD

The extremely large, planned allocation of housing north of Linthouse Lane assumes that the two joining authorities will work well across boundaries to provide a suitable infrastructure to support the size of this new community. However, in my opinion, this may lead to numerous difficulties alongside potentially few positive outcomes. How will these differences be addressed, who will be responsible for what and how can those of us who already live here be sure that this will work?

Support

Representation ID: 416

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Lichfield & Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust

No further comments to offer.

Object

Representation ID: 423

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Ms Amelia Watt

Regarding Kinver, the policy states that it balances 'the extent of Green Belt land in this area and the relative level of services and facilities'. However the amount of land safeguarded for development is already excessive in terms of scale and impact on valuable natural environments and infrastructure. Kinver's status as a Tier 2 settlement seems inaccurate in comparison to semi-urban sites such as Wombourne which have greater transport, services, and employment provision.

Support

Representation ID: 426

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Croft Development Consultancy UK Ltd

Generally support policy approach, but believe the opportunity has been missed under the Duty to Co-operate to utilise the location adjacent to Cannock TC as sustainable location for development. Cannock's most recent draft local plan identifies a strategic housing allocation on land to be removed from the green belt, Car Auction Site. part of this site sits within South Staffs Administrative Boundary, this should also being under a single ownership be released from the Green Belt. Adjacent land currently used as a car boot sale should also be released. This could accommodate circa 250 units see SHELAA 474.

Support

Representation ID: 434

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: South West CCG

Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent CCG have reviewed all sites against current GP capacity including estates and workforce and provided details on each locality. The CCG asks that the policy HC14 is to be supported.

Object

Representation ID: 440

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Russell

272,274,576. The Black Country plan has not yet been tested. Consequently, the 4,000 Duty to Cooperate allocation is not needed and should be deferred
Developing Kinver without local employment opportunities or infrastructure does not represent sustainable development. There is no reference in the plan to additional service provision in Kinver, yet the existing level of service provision and infrastructure is clearly inadequate.
Areas for growth should be selected in settlements with a wider range of facilities and which have good public transport connections including rail links.

Object

Representation ID: 449

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Manton

We already have more than enough sites within the area. Penkridge is already over capacity. Additional DR Surgery needed to cope with current population. No room here - move along.

Object

Representation ID: 455

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Boydon

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Please see attached document.

Support

Representation ID: 464

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: NHS

We support the policy approach in Policy DS3, as the development close to the neighbouring Black Country considers the impact of development on the Health Care Infrastructure and health and wellbeing of local residents. The Black Country & West Birmingham CCG have submitted separately a closed assessment of new housing development close the boundary of the Black Country and the affect that impact has on the Health Care Infrastructure of the Black Country and West Birmingham CCG.

Support

Representation ID: 473

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited (Hyde Lane site)

Agent: Turley

- Support overall spatial strategy and need
- Should plan period be to 2039 so 15 years post adoption (based on current LDS)
- Infrastructure delivery risks to Cross Green delivery trajectory - to de-risk safeguarded land at Hyde Lane should be identified
- Some flexibility in approach to small and medium sites and proposed allocations being 1ha (relevant to land at Hyde Lane (west) proposed allocation

Support

Representation ID: 483

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited (Dunsley Drive site)

Agent: Turley

- Support overall spatial strategy and need
- Should plan period be to 2039 so 15 years post adoption (based on current LDS)

Support

Representation ID: 490

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Miss EMP Shaw Hellier Settlement

Agent: Stansgate Planning

N/A

Support

Representation ID: 494

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Sport England

Sport England welcomes the fact the Council will work cross boundary with infrastructure bodies and statutory partners to ensure sites adjacent to neighbouring authorities are supported by any necessary infrastructure. This dialogue should also extend to ensuring that the additional playing pitch and indoor sports provision demand generated from the developments are met within the appropriate location (on-site provision or off site contribution) whether this would be within South Staffordshire or the neighbouring authority. To inform this regard should be had to the neighbouring authorities Playing Pitch Strategy and Indoor Sports Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 509

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr David Ravenscroft

(Locality 3) The increase of the proposed level of growth in this area of Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley is not a viable option. The level of Green Belt land needed to be given up will have a diverse affect on the infrastructure, transportation, carbon impact and the constraints of all access routes.

Object

Representation ID: 516

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: DOCTOR Prabhjoyt Kler

Locality 4. I object to housing on Histons Hill. It does not fit with the local area, it has already been rejected due to concerns. Alongside this Histons Hill is already subject to increased traffic and incidences alongside the local staffordshire Hub. The number of housing and therefore number of cars will increase traffic risk especially with the brough of the hill and traffic entering the road from both sides of the road. Housing near codsall station I object to due to the areas biodiversity and the relevance to local people for access to walks, mental health improvement and biodiversity

Object

Representation ID: 528

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Burgess

South Staffordshire’s needs should be separated from the Black Country with regard to housing allocations. Under the Duty to Cooperate, South Staffordshire will have difficulty in meeting the housing numbers required without loss of Green Belt and greenfield land. The Black Country has a much higher availability of brownfield sites than South Staffordshire, which (unless they are ecologically valuable) should be developed before Green Belt and greenfield sites. Denser development in cities would be better than car-dependent urban sprawl. Please also review the housing targets and calculations used to justify Green Belt release (see attached CPRE West Midlands documents).

Object

Representation ID: 534

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr R Gidlow

The requirement for this high number of dwellings has not been proven. Brown field sites must be identified correctly and utilised first

Object

Representation ID: 542

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Pennick

We would like to register our objection to any development that is being considered for plot 096 in Bishops Wood for the reasons given in the attached document.

Object

Representation ID: 544

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr David Harrison

As previously stated in my submission regarding question 4.