Question 6

Support

Representation ID: 1945

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Staffordshire County Council (Property Team)

County land holdings could deliver a sustainable infrastructure informed expansion of Penkridge. The proposed area of search would provide limited options, if any, for a standalone new settlement, so Policy DS4 should be amended to provide for consideration of an expanded settlement following the same design principles. Suggest that proposed allocations should ensure future connectivity options to the A449 from the west are not steralised through layout/location of buildings.

Support

Representation ID: 1958

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Completelink Ltd

Agent: Zesta Planning Ltd

The new settlement is likely to come forward 17 years into the future but there is a pressing need for specialist accommodation today. No mention of specialist accommodation within the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1967

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

New settlement unsustainable. Growth to west of Penkridge more sustainable - has potential to provide a western spine road enabling reclamation of village centre from the A449 and access to green infrastructure along River Penk.

Support

Representation ID: 2006

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: UKPI (Featherstone) Ltd

Agent: First City Limited

Proposed new settlement which will be focused around the transport corridor formed by the A449 and West Coast Mainline between Wolverhampton and Stafford. The creation of a new settlement which will need to be planned for beyond the Local Plan Review period.

Concerns into the time frames it will take to deliver a new settlements and therefore there should be the allocation of safeguarded land to cater for future development needs beyond the plan period which can be delivered at a quicker rate and offer and alternative strategy.

Support

Representation ID: 2012

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Beddall

With the amount of housing needed why not take the bull by the horns and build a completely new village/ town with all the services it needs preferably by an existing decent transport route (rail/ public and road) and not on green belt.

Support

Representation ID: 2051

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Four Ashes Limited

Agent: Mr Mark McFadden

FAL supports the principle of a new settlement along the A5/A449 corridor, recognising the need to align new job opportunities at WMI with new housing growth in the District.

However, given the delivery of the new SRFI, associated rail infrastructure and new A5/A449 Link Road and
associated A449 and A5 roundabouts as part of the WMI development, FAL requests that policy wording makes explicit reference to the need for any new settlement to be supported by adequate infrastructure and safeguard against any alterations to the West Coast Mainline Loop railway or impact on the availability of other strategic infrastructure vital to the effective operation of the future SRFI. FAL propose amended wording.

Support

Representation ID: 2124

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Ms Alison Bennett

Should you remain in the belief that further housing is required then would urge you to consider a brand new development, one which can be constructed with existing transport links in mind ensuring that already stretched services across the county are protected with the introduction of new schools, GP practices, Leisure facilities and general infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 2139

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Bennett

Considering the Duty to Co-operate under the short fall of housing of the Black Country. The Council are urged to consider brand new development , which can be constructed with existing transport links in mind. I understand that the proposed Midlands Hub off the A449 near Gailey would be suitable for this given the amount of land that has been set aside for this. This location would have transport links vie motorways and potentially an additional train station to allow for development of the region.

Object

Representation ID: 2294

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Rees

New Town e.g. Perton should be created to address housing need including new infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 2329

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Dr R Painter

Supports new developments being situated by suitable existing infrastructure with suitable transport opportunities.

The lack of public transport, rail, road and employment opportunities should eliminate areas from new settlements.

Support

Representation ID: 2515

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Ms Shellee Phipps

Search area should include the North West Open Countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 2788

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr James Burrows

Brand new development with new schools, GP and leisure facilities would be favourable - Midland Hub off A449 Gailey would be suitable.

Support

Representation ID: 2900

Received: 02/11/2021

Respondent: Chris and Doreen Dawe

Number of people: 2

In agreement more housing is needed within the Wombourne area, particularly affordable and social housing. Priorities for any housing development to be supported by simultaneous upgrading of local infrastructure such as transport links, services such as medical clinics and doctors’ surgeries, shops,
employment opportunities and schools.

Imperative, climate change issues are addressed with housing development such as solar panels to be installed on roofed and high levels of insulation of buildings and added communal green spaces for off setting carbon.

Support

Representation ID: 2988

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Susan Carr

If so many new houses are required it seems to me the answer would be to find an area where a new village can be built with the schools, surgeries and infrastructure necessary.
Perton and Pendeford are good examples of this.

Object

Representation ID: 2999

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr C Stonehouse

No DP or NP for the growth of Penkridge.
Growth around the services in the central village would be more sustainable.
Searching for new settlement options (Dunston, Gailey) is unsustainable.
Growth of Penkridge to the west would be sustainable providing a western spine road, and would provide access to green infrastructure.
Flood plain may be able to remain in agricultural use with agreed public access.

Object

Representation ID: 3017

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Jordan Rees

Support new settlement principles (such as Perton) to avoid development in villages where appropriate adequate facilities can be provided.

Object

Representation ID: 3072

Received: 23/06/2022

Respondent: Resident

Policy DS4 - Longer Term Growth Aspirations for a New Settlement
This policy is extremely odd as given the policy principle of avoiding the green belt the only area of search is between the extended Penkridge and the Dunston.
The policy is un-achievable.
To deliver any sizeable infrastructure it will need to be several thousand new dwellings and should also have some employment. This suggests a location at Dunston. No doubt an additional station has been suggested, but given the capital costs and the shortness of the journey times together with line capacity it’s deliverability has to be questionable. Far better to extend Stafford south into South Staffordshire as it has a core of facilities and bus services rather than create a “village” which relies on other locations for the bulk of its services.

Support

Representation ID: 3555

Received: 12/07/2022

Respondent: Suan Lawson

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

Object

Representation ID: 3648

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr V Kelly

No DP or NP for the growth of Penkridge.
Search for new development at Gailey or Dunston is unsustainable.
Growth around services in a tier 1 village would be more sustainable.
Growth to the west would be more sustainable - provides a western spine road and links to green infrastructure.
Possibility for the flood plain to remain arable with a public access agreed.

Object

Representation ID: 3877

Received: 14/12/2021

Respondent: Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group

Lack of consideration for creative or innovative Employment or Economic Development.
Lack of promotion of micro-enterprise and venture capital.
There should be a focus on attracting business that around the environment, climate change and biodiversity as these are South Staffordshire unique selling points.

Support

Representation ID: 3889

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr - Yeomans & Messrs Law

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.

Support

Representation ID: 3900

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Messrs - Jenks & Letts

Agent: PlanIt

Given the lead in times and complex nature of new settlement proposals it is sensible for such schemes to be identified as a concept in the plan making process.

Object

Representation ID: 3901

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Messrs - Jenks & Letts

Agent: PlanIt

It is more sustainable to extend existing settlements in the first instance. Existing settlements already have key services in place such as shops, schools and employment opportunities.

Object

Representation ID: 3979

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Save the Lower Penn Green Belt (Action Group)

The need for a new settlement is far from proven and given that we do not consider the current inclusion of 4,000 homes for the Black Country is justified it is hard to conclude that an additional settlement is likely to be required or would be consistent with long term Climate
Change goals.