Question 7

Object

Representation ID: 574

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carla Lloyd

It will have a major impact on the local community in terms of pollution, traffic congestion & the over burden on struggling services. We cant get appointments in doctors & my husband can’t get a place in a local dentist. There are not enough school places locally or funds to facilitate the extra children not to mention if children have additional/special needs & how much this will cost Wolverhampton council as it will be our schools they choose yet south staffs get the council tax?! Years of building disruption, affect to local wildlife & the area is known for flooding!

Object

Representation ID: 576

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Lloyd

This will have a big impact on the local community, it’s services & amenities. There is not enough doctors, dentists or schools as it is & the proposed housing will make this situation worse.
There are enough empty houses in local areas (at least 10k in a recent report) that could be made available without the need for building on greenbelt.
The land is a flood risk & there is wildlife that should be conserved & protected. There will be additional pollution & traffic congestion which I’m also opposed to.

Object

Representation ID: 579

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Katie Lamedica

I do not agree with any of this the schools, doctors surgeries and many other places are already over populated by adding houses my children risk losing out on our first choice in school and getting a doctors appointment is already a joke without adding more strain.

Object

Representation ID: 581

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma Sherwood

I am against this bukld for many reasons some of which include , pollution, traffic congestion, overburden on schools, doctors, dentists . We already struggle with lots of these things so this will only make it worse

Object

Representation ID: 583

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr J Knight

The proposals for Bilbrook would increase the population of the village by more than 50% totally destroying its character.

The existing road network in Bilbrook would be insufficient to cope with the increased volume of traffic, it is
already under severe stress as the result of previous and on-going development.

Any new Development in the Bilbrook area would overwhelm Community Health Services e.g. GPs, District Nurses, Health Visitors, Midwives, Dentists etc. It would similarly adversely affect Schools and Education Services.

Object

Representation ID: 591

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Jordan

Object to building on any green belt land.

Support

Representation ID: 610

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Keon Homes notes the identification of four strategic housing allocations however a housing trajectory should be published as part of the review process to ensure the reliance on these strategic sites does not undermine the timely delivery of housing against a non-stepped trajectory.

Support

Representation ID: 624

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Lovell Homes notes the identification of four strategic housing allocations however a housing trajectory should be published as part of the review process to ensure the reliance on the strategic sites does not undermine the timely delivery of housing through a non-stepped trajectory.

Object

Representation ID: 626

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S & H Dubberley

We object to these, and any other, proposed housing allocations on green belt land in South Staffs. The impact on the wildlife and eco systems will be immense as well as the negative effects on the visual impact of these areas.

Object

Representation ID: 637

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: A Hogarth

The housing numbers in south staffordshire and the uplift of 4,000 to meet needs of the greater Birmingham housing market is not justified or tested. I question the figures and with regard to SA3 I question the need to release this land for development of housing.
The west midlands features in the top 10 regions with the most empty houses approx 22,120 properties. These should be brought online along with empty retail properties. All brownfield sites must be used first.
SA3 is valuable arable land we will need in the future.
High congestion on bordering B roads.

Object

Representation ID: 638

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs P Paterson

1. Currently used farm land
2. Flood plain to the east
3. Doctors practice could be overwhelmed
4 Traffic increase not fully assessed.
5 . Out of character houses

Object

Representation ID: 669

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Dixon-Haynes

On behalf of my family and all of my neighbours at [address given] we all completely OPPOSE the proposal to build land on green belt land, in particular the land at Cross Green.

Object

Representation ID: 673

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: N Austin

rush hour conjestion lights woodend rd and blackhalve lane. 20 min wait to travel from kitchen lane to turn right and cross lights. rush hour conjestion at linthouse lane and kitchen lane junction. kitchen lane has a high accident rate. I dont believe all brownfield sites and possible unused retail sites are considered. west midlands is in the top 10% of empty properties. these must all be considered. promises of replacing natural habitat with landscaped areas IS NOT the same. this proposal will leave wednesfield concrete locked with no adjoining green space. loss of arable land gone forever. on SA3

Object

Representation ID: 674

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Wright

The overall size of the site at SA3 (Linthouse Lane) I feel to be inappropriate due to concerns regarding local infrastructure, undue pressure placed on upon the neighbouring council areas and a loss of green space in a location in which it is already very much at a premium, bordering as it does onto the Black Country.

Support

Representation ID: 677

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Singh

In summary, we support the plans for Policy SA4 but the council will need to ensure any retail centre is of a size (units up to 100 sqm.) and provides services which do not conflict with existing retailers in Penkridge’s village heart – Crown Bridge and Market Street. By working towards these goals, the new residents will integrate with the existing village and Penkridge’s retailers (who are under-utilised due to the large Boscomoor Shopping Centre) will thrive. All this will ensure Penkridge’s village centre, with its historic interest and character, is enhanced and preserved for future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 683

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

- Plan should be de-risked to allow flexibility in delivery trajectory for Cross Green.
- Additional sites should be allocated or safeguarded to provide this flexibility, including Site 369.

Support

Representation ID: 709

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Penk Valley Academy Trust

Penk Valley Academy Trust is supportive the proposed housing allocations and would be willing and able to be the education provider of choice for any school provision required.

Object

Representation ID: 720

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Please refer to detailed comments.

Support

Representation ID: 733

Received: 13/12/2021

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

BHL very much welcomes SSC’s recognition of the suitability of 'north of Penkridge' to accommodate large-scale growth, as expressed through proposed strategic allocation SA4. That reflects the site's suitability for development (as set out in the full-length representations) and indeed the submitted Masterplan for the site demonstrates the opportunity to deliver c. 1,210-1,285 dwellings within the allocation.

However, BHL are of the view that, rather than deferring design and infrastructure considerations to a site-specific SPD, it would be more appropriate to deal with those through the plan (in the form of specific policy/design requirements and a more detailed IDP).

Object

Representation ID: 750

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs R Groom

I do not agree with the proposal for SA3. This is greenbelt and should not be developed whilst there are brownfield sites. The area farmed land and not suitable for development. It is full of wildlife and has severe problems with flooding. I do not believe this proposal is right for our local area - we simply cannot cope with the influx of site traffic and then residential traffic. Linthouse Lane is an incredibly busy road, utilised by the emergency services as a throughfare for the area. Additional traffic on this road would impinge on their ability to attend emergencies.

Object

Representation ID: 772

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Gregory Yerbury

There is a need for improved parking around Penkridge station before any new houses can be built as already Penkridge station draws people into the town just to park. I believe a new enlarged garden village could be built around Dunston with a new station creating a new sustainable village which was one of the options that was rejected. Another option would be to build a small station to the north of Penkridge with it's own parking.

Object

Representation ID: 774

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr R Draisey

In line with Governments 'change in direction' utilise Brownfield over Green?
SA1 Proposed Site 519. Has Bilbrook not met quota for new build (just over 100 houses) Already 168 new build. Additional 848 = over 1000, increasing housing for this village by over 30%!
One school for maybe an extra 1000 kids!
Wildlife. We have many wild birds including birds of prey inhabiting the fields.
Traffic generation. 500 to a 1000 additional cars? Pollution, noise, Let alone whilst construction is ongoing.
Flooding. The fields are wet now, more so since Bilbrook Mill development. My property is at risk now.

Object

Representation ID: 778

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Completelink Ltd

Agent: Zesta Planning Ltd

In relation to Question 7(a), despite the four strategic development locations seeking to contribute in excess of 3,000 dwellings, none of Policies SA1, SA2, SA3 or SA4 make any specific reference to the provision of specialist accommodation to meet the established needs. These appear to be solely focussed on standard market and affordable housing.

In any event, all of the strategic development locations are in the northern half of the Council area, further increasing the disparity in housing need distribution within the Council area.

Object

Representation ID: 785

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: 792

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Greg Ball

See previous comment on question 5 about the total amount of housing proposed in the district.
If the volume of housing is required then would support the need for detailed masterplans and supporting infrastructure. Where sites are in the vicinity of existing and proposed railway stations, then provision should be made for safe linking routes for cycling and walking.

Object

Representation ID: 806

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

Whilst we have no particular objection to these sites Redrow’s land interest at Castlecroft is significantly better placed to accommodate a large scale urban extension to the Black Country. Furthermore, these two sites are located to the north of the Black Country urban area. Additional allocations are required to the west of Wolverhampton, further south, so that development is focused in a range of locations around the edge of the conurbation.

Support

Representation ID: 817

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Land Fund Limited

Agent: Turley

Land Fund support the identification of strategic housing allocations within the LPR, the allocation of smaller sites such as the proposed allocation of land to the west of Wrottesley Park Road, Perton (Ref. 239), are equally as important and will make a significant contribution to the overall housing need early on in the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 830

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

The impacts to biodiversity are not currently known. It is not clear that all important wildlife habitats have been identified for avoidance, that 10% BNG would be achieveable, or that sites are appropriate in terms of protecting or enhancing key habitat corridors. It is not clear whether the green infrastructure allocations are sufficient to address any deficits in accessible natural greenspace or how they would interact with the nature recovery network.
We agree that any strategic allocation site should have its own policy. Sufficient information on ecology constraints and opportunities, is required to enable key assets to be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 837

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Williams

There is adequate land available in the West Midlands to full file their needs

Object

Representation ID: 866

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr J Ball

There are too many houses being proposed in the area, this will cause unprecedented traffic, overcrowding and ruin the village culture.