Question 6

Object

Representation ID: 7

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

what we mostly need to save particularly in line with the government policies to save green belts and reducing carbon emissions this is vital to save the green areas and fields left inside the cities and instead divert these development outside the cities and creating housing complexes near the towns and cities so this will also help people to locate in the nearest location they probably work or have families or relatives so this will save travel for every one and will end up having less busy roads , cleaner air and comfort for the nation.

Support

Representation ID: 30

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Barnsley

We should most definitely be looking to where a new settlement could be created close to the WMI/ i54 where people could find work. Bolting on estates to existing settlements with no increase to infrastructure, services or council spending is a knee jerk reaction to government targets.

Object

Representation ID: 38

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Whale

I without doubt condemn you plan to the rubbish tip
You are not building here, END OF
We will fight for the place we live and work,
I am disgusted with south staffs councils,

Object

Representation ID: 54

Received: 05/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Edwards

Build in a area that can sustain it.
You are happy to build on the corridor between linthouse lane ans south staffs and take the revenue from it.
The poor families who live, work and commute will pay the price.
Houses around linthouse lane had low water pressure in the summer and water wash off in the winter, having more concrete/tarmac structure will worsen this.
Build properties that you will benfit away from where citizens will suffer = mental health.
COMMON SENSE APPRAOCH, leave out openspace alone - have some morals.

Object

Representation ID: 75

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr James Aust

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

Object

Representation ID: 98

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Imms

The only way that all those points would be achieved is by not building anymore houses. It is not complicated. Keep the village size as it is will realise all those points

Object

Representation ID: 111

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Griss

Pasted:
wide range of housing to meet the needs of the community.

Sounds like you've already decided. The needs of the Wombourne community = bring no more people in. Our access to GP's is limited because of new houses already. PLEASE DONT ADD ANYMORE PEOPLE HERE TO BURDEN OUR GP's further.
"Future proofed" - unless they are all 100% green & off grid.....it is not future proofing.
If you build by Wombourne Island there will be too many floods. The land can't cope with it. DO NOT BUILD IN WOMBOURNE.

Object

Representation ID: 119

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Boucher

We do not need more houses on top of houses causing even more congestion and pollution. The area I chose to live was for a reason perfect location to get to other villages and towns yet still being able to enjoy beautiful countryside. Instead of building another concrete jungle the fields could be turned into a woodland thus helping climate change. Soon we will be no better than London gridlocked and no greenery banishing all wildlife to a life of hell. Just another opportunity for the Councillors and government to get their fat backhanders. Please leave our greenbelt alone.

Object

Representation ID: 128

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Taylor

Building infratstructure needs to take priority rather than be an aspiration. Funding needs to identified and ringfenced for infrastructure, which would include drains, pipes and flood resistance ,, its not an aspsiration to have a decent infrasture, its essential for wombourne village which will become a local town....

Object

Representation ID: 153

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Harper

Future-proofed - we currently suffer from poor drainage. The extra houses and traffic are going to make it worse.

If we are going to be infra led - what about faster broadband. Extra houses will already destroy the terrible bandwidth.

Object

Representation ID: 167

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Carpenter

Why this location? why not around Pillaton, between cannock and penkridge. There have got to be better sites in south Staffs than wedged between a motorway and a train line. there is no room for expansion in the location highlighted.

Object

Representation ID: 173

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Graystone

Building on any green belt land is not acceptable. Build on brown field sites only.

Object

Representation ID: 199

Received: 20/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Marshall

The establishment of a new area village, would be preferential to extending our villages such as Codsall, Bilbrook and Essington into small towns, they do not have the infra structure to support such development. They do have a wider range of services but are already at capacity. The number of new houses being planned would cause major issues for these areas.

A new village development could be created with the infra structure to support it. Perton was a similar creation .Long term provision needs to be provided in terms of education and health.

Object

Representation ID: 205

Received: 20/11/2021

Respondent: Mr David Jackson

DS4 is fine.
The proposal south of Wildwood Stafford ignores DS4.

Complete car dependency designed in with no infrastructure, just a lot of houses on what was a field to maximise the return for the developer whilst providing nothing else. This proposal has quite rightly been rejected by South Staffs before.

Object

Representation ID: 214

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: A G Morris

Expanding ribbon development along the A449 corridor will only add to congestion, carbon footprint and diminish the environment and should not be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 226

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Sutton

You have already confirmed an aging population yet you talk of 'walking anc cycling' opportunities - be realistic. Old people cannot manage to move from A to B via these methods in most cases.

Support

Representation ID: 246

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex Fenlon

Only if Brinsford Park and Ride is built and bus services are given subsidy.

Support

Representation ID: 260

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Jones

Providing a suitable site can be obtained from a Brownfield situation, I would support this

Support

Representation ID: 273

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Hughes

Creation of a new settlement would be more appealing to putting additional burden on existing communities. Initiatives to develop an eco-friendly community could be a leading example in the national housing programme. If such a development could be proposed and be self-sustainable then this would have the support of a much larger proportion of the population than adversely impacting all the residents affected by all other small local proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 293

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

The search area boundary should be restricted to East of the A449, leaving land to the West of the A449 free of any further employment or residential development. The search area should include land on either side of the A5 from Gailey roundabout to the eastern District Council boundary.

Support

Representation ID: 307

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Edwards

main road alreadt present, no disturbance or extra pollution/congestion for existing neighbourhoods

Support

Representation ID: 309

Received: 26/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Kirsty Shaw

Good road work in place.
No extra congesttion for existing established neighbourhoods.
Telford has worked - so use this here and common sence, use established road networks that can cope with extra pressure

Object

Representation ID: 316

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Jacquie Leach

A Development plan for Penkridge does not exist. I disagree with a search for a new settlement. The establishments already in existence are a rural asset close to the Chase. I have had experience of "affordable housing". High maintenance fees and issues with leasehold are putting people off.
Penkridge has huge potential for food production especially with Rodbaston College in the area. Some farm land needs to be preserved for this and not developed. This will provide local employment. With rail and good road links, transport of goods would be easy.

Object

Representation ID: 340

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Butler

New developments on this scale are inexcusable when brownfield sites in the West Midlands area are plentiful. More opportunities for housing will arise as a result of home working, i.e city centre living in former office accommodation. This should be the strategy. The thinking behind your proposals is now out date in the post covid world.

Object

Representation ID: 362

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: Nicola Dixon

I simply do not believe that’s not a native problem green spaces and impact of all the wildlife that can be found. We often have green woodpeckers in our garden and this will not continue with this development

Object

Representation ID: 372

Received: 05/12/2021

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association (IWA)

IWA does not support the long term growth aspirations for a new settlement.
The area of search shown in Appendix F is misguided and too close to the existing settlements of Stafford, Penkridge or the northern edge of the connurbation (to be extended further north at Cross Green) to form a viable stand-alone new settlement.
Any new settlement should as a matter of principle be beyond the West Midlands Green Belt. However, the scope for this in South Staffordshire is very limited.

Support

Representation ID: 381

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Penk Valley Academy Trust

No further comment

Support

Representation ID: 383

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Fergus

We support Policy SA4 Land North of Penkridge and in particular Site 420 for Discount Food Store

Support

Representation ID: 386

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Fergus

We support Policy SA4 Land North of Penkridge for a Discount Food Store on Site 420

Support

Representation ID: 415

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Lichfield & Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust

No further comments to offer.