Question 6

Support

Representation ID: 1428

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support policy DS4 and recognise the importance and suitability of this growth corridor as recognised in the Strategic Growth Study. Land North of the A5 falls within this area and is next to a proposal by Rodbaston College, offering an opportunity for a comprehensively planned site. The site is immediately adjacent to WMI giving an opportunity to create a sustainable new settlement maximising the use of new infrastructure and reducing the need of WMI employees to travel to work.

Support

Representation ID: 1444

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support policy DS4 and recognise the importance and suitability of this growth corridor as recognised in the Strategic Growth Study. Land North of the A5 falls within this area and is next to a proposal by Rodbaston College, offering an opportunity for a comprehensively planned site.

Object

Representation ID: 1477

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bradford Estates

Agent: Savills

The principle of giving consideration to the need for a new settlement is supported, but the process by which that consideration is undertaken should be wider than just to South Staffordshire’s administrative area only
and should also have regard to wider cross boundary strategic objectives and needs. A strategic green belt review as proposed would enable the relative merits of sites in different LPA to be assessed on a consistent basis. Joint working with Shropshire and Black Country to consider the merits of a new settlement in the
M54 corridor at J3 which has the potential to meet existing and future needs arising from all three
Local Plan review areas.

Object

Representation ID: 1506

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: D Morgan PLC

Agent: Peacock and Smith

No. D Morgan PLC considers that the Council’s attempt to identify a new settlement is contrary to national policy which seeks to ensure that the planning system contributes towards sustainable development.
The Council’s plan period runs from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2038; there is therefore no requirement
for the Council to consider planning beyond this date. The commitment to longer-term growth aspirations for a new settlement pre-empts any future changes to national policy, demographic projections, and any findings arising from future evidence base studies.

Support

Representation ID: 1507

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Amadis Holdings Ltd

Agent: PlanIt

It is sensible for such schemes to be identified through the plan making process given the lead in times and complex nature of such projects. It is our view that it is more sustainable to extend existing settlements in the first instance where services and facilities exist, including the allocation of urban extensions.

Object

Representation ID: 1510

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Rigby Estates LLP

Number of people: 2

Agent: Frank Whittle Partnership Limited

In references to site E30 is considered to be a suitable location for a new settlement for the following:

Highway issues
A Transport Strategy has been prepared in support
of the allocation of this site to deliver a Garden Village, which confirms that Dunston Garden Village can be delivered from a highway’s perspective. The scheme provides the opportunity to serve the development via improving the existing School Lane junction with the A449.The Transport Strategy concludes that Dunston Garden Village can be accommodated in highways terms and therefore highways should not be reason to disregard this site as a location for future growth.

Access to Services
Dunston is currently a Tier 4 settlement with limited access to services, the development for site can deliver a range of new services and facilities, creating a self sufficient community.

Railway Access
Feasibility investigation of adding station at Dunston to the existing network, concludes a new station the site provides the opportunity to deliver a new railway station in relation to nearby stations at Stafford and Penkridge.

Scale
non of the potential site options are of sufficient size to deliver the scale of growth envisaged by the GBHMA Strategic Growth Study. Land within ownership of Rigby Estates and potential suitable land around the site when combined can increase densities to deliver many more homes.

Support

Representation ID: 1567

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Babb

Support but the area of search should include the NW Open Countryside. The area of search was limited by the GL Hearn report.

Object

Representation ID: 1601

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Rigby Estates LLP

Number of people: 2

Agent: Frank Whittle Partnership Limited

New settlement proposed for DS4 will not contribute to housing growth during the current plan period, but will address the housing growth required post plan period, with the transport corridor formed by A449 and West Coast Mainline.

Agreement with the rationale for the chosen area of search for the most sustainable location for a strategic site of scale which recoginises the long term growth. However, there needs to be clarity of commitment to allocate a specific site to deliver this policy.

Land at Dunston is credible to be able to identify the needs for policy DS4, as the new settlement site is located outside the Green Belt, masterplan and technical work has been progressed already including time scales for development. (See promotional documents in attachments)

Support

Representation ID: 1609

Received: 06/01/2022

Respondent: Four Ashes Road LTD

Agent: Miss Rebecca Allen

FAR Ltd supports the policy approach in Policy DS4 (Longer Term Growth Aspirations for a New Settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 1613

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Paul Myatt

New site suggestion at Land at junction of Gorse Lane (above SHELAA 326 adjacent to Feiashill Road)

New site suggestion due to brownfield site within the green belt boundary and development of site suggests the Green power route, local employment which would add to the infrastructure of the area.

Support

Representation ID: 1618

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jones

SHEELA site 164/165 - Land rear of Sneyd Lane

Current landowners wish to jointly promote their land to the rear of Sneyd Lane, Essington for residential development. The primary planning justification of this application is made under the "Duty of Co-operation" with the adjacent Black Country Local Authorities. Recommendation for focused on affordable first homes and downsizing for older people as identified in the spatial housing strategy and infrastructure delivery.

The site has no identified environmental constraints that would prevent it from coming forward for development. This proposal should be included for development in this review period. It complements the Linthouse Lane development and provides land closer to Bloxwich and Walsall MBC.

Combined land contribution of 386 units with respect to provisions of infrastructure, to join all the land holdings together, potential for new transport link running from existing junction in Burnsnip Road to Vernon Way.

Support

Representation ID: 1630

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Jaguar Land Rover UK

Agent: WSP

Yes.
Draft Policy DS4 outlines the preferred growth strategy to locate new settlements along the A449. The focus area of the A449 includes Featherstone, which is in relatively close proximity (circa 2km) to the i54 site. Jaguar Land Rover support the continued growth of the district but reiterates the need for balance between employment and housing growth - with reference to the agent of change principle within the draft Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 1640

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support policy DS4 and recognise the importance and suitability of this growth corridor as recognised in the Strategic Growth Study. Land North of the A5 falls within this area and is next to a proposal by Rodbaston College, offering an opportunity for a comprehensively planned site.

Support

Representation ID: 1651

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support policy DS4 and recognise the importance and suitability of this growth corridor as recognised in the Strategic Growth Study. Land North of the A5 falls within this area.

Object

Representation ID: 1679

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr J Barnes

Do not know why this is being pushed as an option and other options elsewhere in the district do not appear to have been properly examined.

Object

Representation ID: 1688

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicky Barnes

Do not know why this is being pushed as an option and other options elsewhere in the district do not appear to have been properly examined.

Support

Representation ID: 1701

Received: 14/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Taylor Wimpey has no comment to make in respect of Policy DS4, other than to agree that such an option would not contribute to housing growth during the proposed plan period to 2038.

Support

Representation ID: 1712

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support policy DS4 and recognise the importance and suitability of this growth corridor as recognised in the Strategic Growth Study. Land North of the A5 falls within this area and is next to a proposal by Rodbaston College, offering an opportunity for a comprehensively planned site.

Support

Representation ID: 1724

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support policy DS4 and recognise the importance and suitability of this growth corridor as recognised in the Strategic Growth Study. Land North of the A5 could be brought forward alongside land being promoted at South Staffordshire college.

Object

Representation ID: 1733

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips Land Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Quotes the Hart Local Plan examination where the inspector raised concerns over a new settlement promoted within that Plan. The Inspector concluded that Plan established the ‘principle’ of the new settlement as the most appropriate growth strategy for meeting the Council’s long-term needs within a relatively confined area of search. However, he highlighted that the Plan had not tested other reasonable alternatives to a new settlement. As a result, he concluded that the policy, and therefore the new settlement, should be removed from the plan.
Taking the above together, St Philips consider that identifying a new settlement within this plan period is unnecessary, as it would not serve to meet the District’s, or GBBCHMA’s, housing needs in this plan period. Fundamentally, St Philips considers that the Council have provided insufficient justification for why such an approach is necessary, and invariably such an approach
is likely to be found unsound at EiP. To this end, St Philips considers that the Council should omit this policy from the draft Local Plan review as it is not necessary to make the plan sound.

Support

Representation ID: 1743

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support policy DS4 and recognise the importance and suitability of this growth corridor as recognised in the Strategic Growth Study. Land North of the A5 falls within this area and is next to a proposal by South Staffordshire College, offering an opportunity for a comprehensively planned site.

Object

Representation ID: 1761

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips Land Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Quotes the Hart Local Plan examination where the inspector raised concerns over a new settlement promoted within that Plan. The Inspector concluded that Plan established the ‘principle’ of the new settlement as the most appropriate growth strategy for meeting the Council’s long-term needs within a relatively confined area of search. However, he highlighted that the Plan had not tested other reasonable alternatives to a new settlement. As a result, he concluded that the policy, and therefore the new settlement, should be removed from the plan.
Taking the above together, St Philips consider that identifying a new settlement within this plan period is unnecessary, as it would not serve to meet the District’s, or GBBCHMA’s, housing needs in this plan period. Fundamentally, St Philips considers that the Council have provided insufficient justification for why such an approach is necessary, and invariably such an approach
is likely to be found unsound at EiP. To this end, St Philips considers that the Council should omit this policy from the draft Local Plan review as it is not necessary to make the plan sound.

Object

Representation ID: 1773

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

This is not supported as it risks pre-determining the next local plan review and would not be found sound. This reflects findings of the Hart Local Plan which identified a new settlement in addition to other sites for beyond the plan period, which was found unsound. This approach does not reflect the need to test reasonable alternatives through the SA process.

Object

Representation ID: 1785

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

Premature to include a policy seeking to set out criteria for a settlement when the justification for it has not been established/explored.
Alternative options for accommodating housing and employment growth of future plan periods include direction growth to lower tier settlements.
Policy DS4 should be omitted from the plan to ensure it does not prejudice future consideration of alternative options.

Object

Representation ID: 1818

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes Ltd

Agent: Marrons Planning

Concerns into a disconnect between the Plan's identification of a local housing need of 4,881 dwellings over the Plan period of 2018-2038 and the Council's SHMA during May 2021, which notes LHN of 5,068 additional dwellings over the plan period.

No exercise undertaken to be able to consider what unmet need could accommodate the lands or whether there are any other reasons to go above the standard method to meet it's own housing needs.

Object

Representation ID: 1832

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Wollaston Properties Ltd

Agent: First City Limited

Consider there should be increased emphasis on the safeguarding of sites on the edge of the built-up areas to cater for future development needs.

The proposed new settlement will require a significant level of investment, infrastructure and collaboration between a high number of key players/ stakeholders
including land owners. The creation of a new settlement is a momentous task and despite the new settlement being planned for beyond the Local Plan Review period
(beyond 2038), it is important to be realistic in the timeframes in which it will take to deliver a new settlement and therefore there should be the allocation of safeguarded land to cater for future development needs beyond the plan period that can be delivered at a quicker rate and offer an alternative strategy.

Site 211: the land north of Manor House Park, should at the very least be allocated as Safeguarded Land.

Object

Representation ID: 1850

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Quotes the Hart Local Plan examination where the inspector raised concerns over a new settlement promoted within that Plan. The Inspector concluded that Plan established the ‘principle’ of the new settlement as the most appropriate growth strategy for meeting the Council’s long-term needs within a relatively confined area of search. However, he highlighted that the Plan had not tested other reasonable alternatives to a new settlement. As a result, he concluded that the policy, and therefore the new settlement, should be removed from the plan.
Taking the above together, St Philips consider that identifying a new settlement within this plan period is unnecessary, as it would not serve to meet the District’s, or GBBCHMA’s, housing needs in this plan period. Fundamentally, St Philips considers that the Council have provided insufficient justification for why such an approach is necessary, and invariably such an approach
is likely to be found unsound at EiP. To this end, St Philips considers that the Council should omit this policy from the draft Local Plan review as it is not necessary to make the plan sound.

Object

Representation ID: 1884

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Quotes the Hart Local Plan examination where the inspector raised concerns over a new settlement promoted within that Plan. The Inspector concluded that Plan established the ‘principle’ of the new settlement as the most appropriate growth strategy for meeting the Council’s long-term needs within a relatively confined area of search. However, he highlighted that the Plan had not tested other reasonable alternatives to a new settlement. As a result, he concluded that the policy, and therefore the new settlement, should be removed from the plan.
Taking the above together, it is considered that identifying a new settlement within this plan period is unnecessary, as it would not serve to meet the District’s, or GBBCHMA’s, housing needs in this plan period. Fundamentally considers that the Council have provided insufficient justification for why such an approach is necessary, and invariably such an approach
is likely to be found unsound at EiP. To this end, the Council should omit this policy from the draft Local Plan review as it is not necessary to make the plan sound.

Support

Representation ID: 1895

Received: 25/03/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Support policy DS4 and recognise the importance and suitability of this growth corridor as recognised in the Strategic Growth Study. Land North of the A5 falls within this area and is next to a proposal by Rodbaston College, offering an opportunity for a comprehensively planned site.

Object

Representation ID: 1921

Received: 28/03/2022

Respondent: The British Horse Society

Opportunity should be taken to promote shared routes for horse riding, cyclists and walkers. Designing equestrian requirements into development plans will enhance equestrian access and activity creating benefits for safety, health and well being.