Question 5

Object

Representation ID: 548

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr PHILIP GRIFFIN

REF SITES IN KINVER 274/272/576. Kinver classed as a Tier 2 settlement will continue to support windfall housing but the figures are not taken into consideration when looking at services. Kinver dose not have adequate employment opportunities so additional commuting will take place White Hill is reduced to one lane at the Potters Cross end. The Hyde Lane route in and out of the village which is not much more than a country lane which floods regularly. The other route in and out of the village via Dunsley is one way at the Vine Pub over the canal.

Object

Representation ID: 549

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Pennick

Whilst I support the proposal in principle, I have recently been made aware of some potential house building in a field adjacent to my home in Bishops Wood which appears to contradict the suggested proposals outlined in this report and which I object to strongly on this basis.
Site Ref: 096
Address: Land off Offoxey Road & Ivetsey Bank Road
Size: 4.14ha
Proposed Use: Residential

Object

Representation ID: 557

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr David West

There is a lack of employment opportunities in Kinver so anyone who comes to live in these new houses would still have to travel into the Black Country / Birmingham conurbations for work opportunities. This leads to additional car journeys and pollution and public transport is not an option as it is inadequate. Development should be targeted at areas with better transport links and employment opportunities.

Support

Representation ID: 566

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: R Simner

The reasoning behind the plan is clear.

Object

Representation ID: 582

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr J Knight

The proposals for major development in Bilbrook, Coven, Essington, Penn Common and Castlecroft are all immediately adjacent to existing dwellings on the border of Wolverhampton and would exacerbate urban sprawl and eliminate recreational space.

The proposed developments are not distributed equitably throughout South Staffordshire rather being concentrated in 5 areas. This just makes things easier and more profitable for Developers.

The proposals for Bilbrook would increase the village's population by more than 50% totally destroying its character. Bilbrook's existing road network would not cope with the increased traffic volume; it is
already under severe stress from previous and on-going development.

Object

Representation ID: 592

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Jordan

No if it means latching on to the already stretched infrastructure and recourses of DMB.

Object

Representation ID: 595

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Brown

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

See attached file

Object

Representation ID: 608

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Keon Homes supports the Council’s proposed spatial development strategy, which represents a refinement of Option G identified through the Strategic Housing Strategy. Keon Homes considers that this option not only assists in providing improved infrastructure but also has due regard to where housing needs exist, including within the top tier sustainable villages.
Further evidence should be provided in respect of the housing requirement to consider whether there is a need for additional housing to support likely jobs growth.

Object

Representation ID: 616

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Joanne Hancher

Proposed housing in Fentonhouse Lane, Wheaton Aston does not recognise:
1. The very close proximity to the National Nature Reserve/SSSI of Mottey Meadows - protected alluvial flood meadows whose fragile habitat would be vulnerable to developmental impact including the natural spring and water table features that side of the village. Prior application for a wind turbine development by Bradford Estates was successfully opposed along the same lines.
2. Its location for nesting birds of prey.
3. Current lack of services in the village and infrastructure.
4. Poor accessibility from the A5.
5. Increased danger of traffic outside the village school.

Support

Representation ID: 622

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Lovell Homes generally supports the policy approach set out in Policy DS3 – The Spatial Strategy to 2038 however further evidence should be provided in respect of the housing requirement to consider whether there is a need for additional housing to support likely jobs growth. In addition, Lovell Homes considers this Local Plan should be identifying further safeguarded land to ensure the Green Belt boundary endures well beyond the end of the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 631

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Antonio Pupino

I strongly oppose the plan to build 1200 homes in Cross Green. The plan fails to take a/c of the impact this will have on the immediate area and in particular the impact this will have on the nearby village of Coven. An entirely new village is effectively to be built on Coven's doorstep. This will result in a significant increase in the volume of traffic and pollution in the area which is already facing a devastating increase in traffic and pollution as a result of the other developments in the area in particular the West Midlands Interchange.

Object

Representation ID: 644

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

The strategy sounds plausible but is being applied in ways which defeat its intention.
Villages are described as having services, when these may be very limited.
In the case of Kinver, the lack of services, (no public transport usable to commute to work; inadequate health services; no leisure centre; no large supermarket etc) means car ownership is essential, defeating the aim of 'placing housing close to services and infrastructure'. There could be alternative locations closer to amenities and centres of work (e.g. at the edge of South Staffs) but are missed by the policy's inflexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 654

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr P Wilkinson

Developments to date have not demonstrated inclusion of green infrastructure, biodiversity net gain, adaption to climate change or inclusion to existing residents. Boundaries with other counties and districts are often the last remaining green infrastructure services, refuges for biodiversity and recreation. Birmingham & Back Country residents already have reduced access to open spaces, or robust nature conservation, and travel to important neighboring nature conservation sites. increasing populations without out increasing green infrastructure, country parks and access to open spaces will only drive biodiversity in a downwards direction. Grey and green infrastructure have to be integrally delivered, not retrospectively.

Support

Representation ID: 661

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janice Rowley

I support the approach in theory, however, my fear is that it is not realised.

Object

Representation ID: 681

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

- Broadly support spatial strategy
- Featherstone's facilities demonstrate it should be a Tier 2 settlement
- Concerns regarding funding for Cross Green infrastructure and impact this could have on delivery trajectory.
- Land to the west of Featherstone should be safeguarded to provide 'fail safe' should Cross Green be delayed.
- Plan period may need extending to 2039 to ensure there are a minimum 15 years post adoption.

Object

Representation ID: 696

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Baggott

No. Please see attached document for full response.

Object

Representation ID: 718

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Please refer to detailed comments.

Object

Representation ID: 727

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hankin

The use of existing open farm land identified in Policy DS3 – The Spatial Strategy to 2038 is not a sustainable approach. Although not identified as Green Belt the open countryside at Weeping Cross, west of the A34 does act as a clear demarcation / buffer between existing built up areas and Green Belt and should be maintained as farm land and not included in this proposed plan

Support

Representation ID: 730

Received: 13/12/2021

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

The broad scope of the spatial strategy is welcomed by BHL, in particular SSC’s approach to focusing significant growth at north of Penkridge, which reflects the settlement's suitability for development. However, given the economic context in the District in the upcoming plan period, SSC should incorporate an uplift above its standard method-derived LHN, which should be reflected in SSC's housing requirement. Moreover, a 20% buffer above that requirement should be incorporated in SSC's supply to provide flexibility in its housing supply and ensure that sufficient land comes forward to meet SSC's housing needs.

Object

Representation ID: 747

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs R Groom

The Land to the North of Linthouse Lane is supposed to be in the Tier 3 category, receiving a lesser level of growth .. why then has to got more properties due to be built that Tier 1 and Tier 2 categories, which hold a wider range of services and facilities ? Additional infastructure is promised, but what is it ? .. it needs to be .. new schools (primary and secondary), new shops, new roads, new doctors surgeries, dentists - Without sufficient infastructure this development would be a massive failure - please indicate what it will be ?

Object

Representation ID: 756

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Katie Green

I do not agree that South Staffordshire should contribute 4000 homes for the GBHMA as several councillors from the GBHMA area have publicly stated that there are enough brownfield sites within their own conurbation including councillors Phil Bateman, Rita Potter and Mary Bateman who all wish to see the brownfield sites in their own conurbations developed before any greenfield sites are sacrificed in the South Staffordshire conurbation. Also the spatial strategy does not take into consideration the individuality of each proposed site therefore does not take into consideration the needs of each area within the proposed plans.

Support

Representation ID: 757

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd

Agent: Wood PLC

Bellway support the overall approach to meeting South Staffordshire’s housing needs through the provision of a minimum 4,881 dwellings plus a contribution of 4,000 dwellings towards meeting the Great Birmingham Housing Market Area shortfall through to 2038. However, it is considered the settlement hierarchy needs to be amended. Given Wombourne’s unique sustainability credentials it should remain a Tier 1 settlement and Policy DS3 amended.

The attached provides further supporting justification to support this response to Question 5. This includes a proposed amendment to Policy DS3.

Object

Representation ID: 767

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Greg Nellist

Agent: SP Faizey

The policy appears to be too restrictive in terms of development of sites outside Tier Settlements 1-4. In respect of Tier 5 Settlements reference is made to “very limited redevelopment of previously developed land for housing” but it is not clear what provision is made to enable sites not identified in the SHSID consultation carried out in 2019 to come forward to meet needs identified in the Local Plan, in particular Strategic Objective 3 on page 24.

Object

Representation ID: 768

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Gregory Yerbury

I believe consideration should be given to building a garden village with a new railway station either at Dunston or to the south of Penkridge. Putting all the emphasis on train's in Penkridge will cause long term parking issues and congestion in Penkridge this will cause air pollution in Penkridge.

Object

Representation ID: 784

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: 793

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Greg Ball

I am agreement with the general distribution of growth but am concerned
• about the projections used to calculate housing need, and
• at the level of provision to meet ‘unmet need’ from the metropolitan area.

My concern is that the projections are out-dated and do not include improved methods made in more recent editions. They are insecure foundations for making extensive land allocations which, unlike the projections, are very hard to change. In addition, the long-term effects of COVID on population and the housing market are as yet unclear. A more modest housing requirement is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 800

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

More housing is required specifically at Himley to meet some of the unmet needs of the GBBCHMA and deliver a high quality development to serve managers of new and expanding businesses.

Object

Representation ID: 802

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

The housing requirement for both South Staffs and the conurbation has been miss calculated. The development strategy is based on an unsound housing target. The development strategy does not direct housing to the most sustainable locations.

Support

Representation ID: 812

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Land Fund Limited

Agent: Turley

Land Fund support South Staffordshire’s spatial strategy to 2038 insofar as it seeks to deliver a minimum of 4,881 dwellings for the district’s own needs, plus a contribution of 4,000 dwellings towards meeting the GBBCHMA shortfall. This is appropriate and reasonable given that South Staffordshire has a clear and strong relationship with the GBHMA, with significant proportion of South Staffordshire’s residents commuting to elsewhere within the GBBCHMA (61% in total).

Object

Representation ID: 824

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

The current policy approach is infrastructure lead, focussing new development in settlements with more ‘hard’ infrastructure and facilities. This does not consider environmental limits, such as landscape boundaries, flooding, water scarcity, best and most versatile agricultural soils, ecological sensitivity or other factors relevant to the capacity of the environment to cope with increased development.

Thought should be given to the sustainability of smaller settlements in terms of the ‘critical mass’ of residents required to sustain shops and services, and the potential opportunities for carefully designed development to improve facilities in rural areas, rather than overloading already large villages and towns.