Question 7

Object

Representation ID: 283

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs N Turner

Policy SA1 – Strategic development location: Land East of Bilbrook.

I am concerned about the proposed link road including Lane Green road. This road often has cars parked along one side and is not wide enough for cars to pass one another easily, the junctions at both ends of this road (especially the penderford mill lane end of this road) are very busy already and in some case unsafe, especially during rush hour.

Support

Representation ID: 295

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

System problem, no opertunity to answer Q7 b)
Q7 a)
Yes
No Comment

Q7 b)
Yes
No comment

Object

Representation ID: 306

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Edwards

Youve mentioned protecting the Open Countryside, however the only open countryside SA3 has is the natural corridor splitting Wolverhampton from south staffs.home to herons, buzzards, bats, newts besides being the great outdoors people of HAVE A HEART AND DO NOT TAKE THIS AWAY FROM US. THE LAND AT LINTHOUSE LANE IS NEEDED TO BE KEPT
The roads struggle with current level of traffic, you take away our greenbelt then give us triple whammy: pollution, congestion and water run off from your concrete jungle. This is our countryside, for mental health, ramblers all ages, dog walkers, runners, general fitness

Object

Representation ID: 308

Received: 26/11/2021

Respondent: sommer penny

This is the only area in the surrounding areas where there is farming land. It will ruin the scenery on Kitchen Lane and Linthouse Lane, disrupt wildlife and also devalue houses near to it.

Object

Representation ID: 310

Received: 26/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Kirsty Shaw

SA3 has no open space, you are taking away what little there is and adding more tarmac /homes, problems with water run off, congestion, pollution.Building a huge development in one area terrible repuercussions on wildlife and mental health.

Build smaller developments on smaller existing areas where there will not be such a issue with flooding , over population and air pollution.

Build along the A449 where exisiting residents not compromised

Object

Representation ID: 314

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Jacquie Leach

There is no mention of expanding or creating a doctor's surgery or dentist. Both are full. The road infrastructure, by pass needs to be in place first. No mention has been made about the construction of the hub at Gailey working at the same time as housing development. Promises of travel plans, cycle ways, foot paths have been made already by developers, because of poor planning enforcement residents have been let down. Safe guards are needed by SSC. Plans to build houses by bio digester also inappropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 322

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Beaman

After attending 1to1 session, I confirm following points:
Over emphasis of sites to North of area
Concentration adjacent/near A449. - Infrastructure inadequate. Development/future maintenance will grind flow to halt. Meeting needs in South of Area?
Larger developments inappropriate/out of keeping with SSDC area, without full local assessment
Resources for Schools/Hospitals/GPs woefully inadequate
Local Needs Developments, need to meet SSDC specific Needs Type: Elderly/Affordable Housing
Redraw of Boundaries, will plans lead to Redraw, absorbing into West Midlands?
Have West Mids been challenged sufficiently on self provision? Query changing Housing/Retail/Employment Patterns - Brownfield Sites availability?
What are other Adjacent LA areas offering/providing?

Object

Representation ID: 325

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Webb

This will ruin a green space which is used daily by people for walking. It is also used by metal detectors as a place of interest. It will put added pressure on already stretched schools and doctors and more vehicles on to very busy roads. According to records 11,000 houses are standing empty in these areas why are the not being used before ruining the countryside that is needed for peoples mental health to enable them to walk.

Object

Representation ID: 326

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Wardle

The proposed site north of Linthouse lane would be an awful blight on our area and to lose our small amount of greenbelt a tragedy especially when south staffs boasts of it being 80% greenbelt, Wolverhampton is not !
The current infrastructure cannot cope with demand.
Traffic will be a nightmare .
Land directly south of Linthouse lane already has problems with flooding, building over the farmland can only exacerbate this issue.
Today's press states there are 11000 homes currently unoccupied in Staffordshire and Wolverhampton !
Put locals peoples well being and wishes above those of greedy and lazy developers.

Support

Representation ID: 341

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Butler

Preferable to other proposals in that it expands on existing developed areas with infrastructure in place with less environmental impact.

Object

Representation ID: 363

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: Nicola Dixon

I don’t understand why you are trying to support more people coming into Wolverhampton for work, and then going back home to the leafy suburbs.

It does not make sense to me when the average salary of people who live in Wolverhampton is so much lower than the average salary of people that work in Wolverhampton.

Object

Representation ID: 367

Received: 04/12/2021

Respondent: Victoria Barns Residents

taking site 646b's most northern land allocation and including this in the safeguarded green belt would have minimal impact to meeting the proposed development objectives but allow a clear division of green belt between site 646a and 646b. This benefits other objectives related to green belt and supports the small community bordering brinsford lane to maintain a rural setting. If site 646b was developed exclusively south of brinsford lane the plan objectives could be met and more green belt preserved and the new developments better seperated which would support local access infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 373

Received: 05/12/2021

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association (IWA)

IWA objects to the northern part (646a) of Policy SA2 housing site allocation at Cross Green. Unlike the southern part which has a preferred new road option link, the northern part is accessed only by inadequate minor roads and lanes. Part of it is shown as extending to the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal which is a Conservation Area and at the very least this part should be removed from the allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 382

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Penk Valley Academy Trust

No further comment

Support

Representation ID: 384

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Fergus

We support policy SA4 and Site 420 for a Discount Food Store

Object

Representation ID: 396

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mr T Cowern

Agent: Mr Hugh Lufton

It is very difficult to understand the virtues of the strategic site north of Penkridge other than the fact it lies outside the WM Metropolitan Green Belt. It does not appear appropriate in terms of the scale and facilities of the existing settlement and natural constraints imply the whole settlement will look like a wide ribbon of development sandwiched between the M6 and the WCML.

Object

Representation ID: 401

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mr J Turner

Loss of "Traditional English" Countryside/Greenbelt
Access & egress via already heavily congested roads. Adding an additional 2000+ vehicles will cause gridlock
Increase in children attending schools. Two schools senior schools already closed for houses in Wednesfield
Increase in Local health centres requirement. Two local GP surgeries merged and moved 2 miles away.
Medical emergencies will be sent to New Cross - already under significant pressure. Nearest Staffordshire A & E in Stoke
11000+ empty properties in Staffordshire; please confirm these are to be used first to meet requrements
What assurances have Taylor Wimpy already received?
BROWNFIELD FIRST!!

Object

Representation ID: 408

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs SUSAN WAKEFIELD

a) SA3 - The policy covers areas that could cause concern but there appears to be no consideration of the site being developed as a smaller scale housing area. It appears that anything other than the planned 1200 homes is not negotiable. Surely the idea of consultation is to look at all options - would local residents and potential new home owners like to consider a smaller development such as the one already going ahead in Essington?

b) Yes, each should have its own detailed plan and design code

Support

Representation ID: 414

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Lichfield & Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust

No further comments to offer.

Object

Representation ID: 438

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Fish

1. This land is vital greenbelt, criss-crossed by well-used footpaths, and the only countryside accessible on foot for the settlements that surround it on the East, South and West. Provision of greenbelt to the North East of the site will not replace it for most people who currently use it.
2. This land currently protects the air quality of settlements downwind of it. The health impacts of reducing air quality have not been addressed.
3. Much required infrastructure will be in Wolverhampton, so the land should only be allocated with the support of Wolverhampton City Council.

Object

Representation ID: 444

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Crofts

Disproportionate new housing in Bilbrook site 519 2x larger,
Merging with Wolverhampton conurbation.
Poor Access and Road structure to support site 519
Lack of local infrastructure,

Support

Representation ID: 466

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: NHS

The Black Country & West Birmingham CCG have submitted information and 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, relating to Policy SA1 – Strategic development location: Land East of Bilbrook, Policy SA2 – Strategic development location: Land at Cross Green, Policy SA3 – Strategic development location: Land North of Linthouse Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 475

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited (Hyde Lane site)

Agent: Turley

In order to de-risk the plan, there is merit in considering either increasing the quantum of development identified on existing allocations where there is additional capacity, or identifying safeguarded land, which could provide new housing in the area in the event that Cross Green is delayed. As demonstrated by the Vision Framework (Appendix 1) there is the potential to safeguard additional land to the north of land west of Hyde Lane for circa 65 homes.

Support

Representation ID: 502

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Parsons

I have no objections

Support

Representation ID: 518

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: DOCTOR Prabhjoyt Kler

SA1-SA4 are in appropriate locations and allows for an increase in local infrastructure which will benefit local communities the most

Object

Representation ID: 536

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr R Gidlow

as previous comments

Object

Representation ID: 550

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr P Terry

Proposed building of houses on farm land bordering Linthouse Lane/Woodend Road and Essington.
Objections are the gross lack of infrastructure for the surrounding areas and more importantly, the impact on our local services.
The detrimental effect upon the mental and physical well being on local residents, due to the loss of this valuable, green, clean air area(something that the government has been promoting but the council are ignoring)

I believe the council have taken the easy option in choosing this area, as it is not as affluent as others proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 551

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr B Firmston

green belt land should be just that not built on

Object

Representation ID: 561

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Liam O'Callaghan

I do not support the housing allocation for SA3 on Linthouse Lane for the following reasons:
Increased traffic, road access will be affected, additional strain on local services (GP surgeries), loss of wildlife, loss of privacy to houses on Linthouse Lane, the loss of farm land. South staffs will get the money form council tax and not Wolverhampton. As a resident of Wolverhampton this will not be of benefit.

Support

Representation ID: 568

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: R Simner

agree that keeping seperate allows for more detailed scrutiny