Question 7

Support

Representation ID: 874

Received: 27/01/2022

Respondent: Association of Black Country Authorities

Request that proposed housing locations north of Wolverhampton require further joint work to address infrastructure requirements, including cumulative transport assessment and delivery of effective sustainable transport solutions. Request nomination rights for Wolverhampton residents on Linthouse Lane and Cross Green affordable housing. Support continued promotion of rail-based Brinsford Strategic Park and Ride and request that this is fully promoted in the SSLP. Langley Road site should also be subject to similar policy guidance due to the significant cross-boundary infrastructure and design implications for the site.

Support

Representation ID: 881

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support the infrastructure led strategy which supports your local communities and allocates sites which are the most sustainable, deliverable and viable. Agree strategic sites should be masterplanned.

Object

Representation ID: 890

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Bilbrook Parish Council

Do not support allocation of site 519 due to impacts on Green Belt, BMV agricultural land, impact on highways infrastructure, flooding near site, Severn Trent sewage system currently overloaded, lack of demand for new first school, concerns regarding new retail and its impact on existing centre, no justification for Bilbrook as Tier 1 settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 894

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Cllr Gary Burnett

Object to site 519 in Bilbrook which would result in over development. Would see erosion of the Green Belt and loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, contrary to national policy. Concerns on impact on local infrastructure including sewage works, health provision and local roads (including Pendeford Mill Lane). Don't agree there is a need for a new First School as capacity to expand at Lane Green First. Loss of Green Belt at site 519 would have a detrimental impact on the green gap between Billhook and Wolverhampton. Concerns of impact on air quality and from traffic pollution. Concern at the lack of green infrastructure planning. Should proritise brownfield developments in the Black Country urban area rather than developing Green Belt in Bilbrook.

Object

Representation ID: 902

Received: 28/01/2022

Respondent: Brewood and Coven Parish Council

The extension of the West Midlands beyond the natural boundary of the M54 all the way to the east side of Coven is wrong. The Parish does not want the confusion and anger from using the word 'minimum' in previous plans to be repeated. The Parish has suffered major industrialisation of Green Belt sites and there will be a significant increase in the volume of traffic and pollution in an area already affected by West Midlands Interchange development. There is no consideration of wildlife such as the destruction of tress and the loss of habitats for a number of wildlife specifies. It appears to give 'carte blanche' to inappropriate housing development in the parish.

Object

Representation ID: 918

Received: 22/12/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Potential recreational impacts on Cannock Chase SAC.
Assess potential air quality impacts on designated sites.
It is noted that sites are within Agricultural Land Classification 2 and 3, which should generally be safeguarded.
Allocations should contribute to Nature Recovery Network.

Support

Representation ID: 919

Received: 22/12/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Support masterplan and design code approach.

Object

Representation ID: 928

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Essington Parish Council

Linthouse land site is very car dependent and will result in additional traffic and rat running, impact on the local landscape and the impact on public access to the countryside. Commitment to sustainable transport to the site too vague. Concerned on deliverability/commitment of developer to deliver local infrastructure, including local centre, and the impact on the sustainability of the site. Concerns about the impact on biodiversity and flooding. Site would result in high Green Belt harm. In the SA, Linthouse Lane only performs better than other sites in the Essington area in terms of education and worse in terms of several other indicators, including climate change. Concern on impact on the Public Rights of Way running across the site, would see the loss of Grade 3 agricultural land. The site would potentially create some coalescence. Unclear if there is sufficient secondary school capacity to serve the site. Site is adjacent a AQMA, Presence of a moated site may need to be explored for its impact on the historic env.

Support

Representation ID: 942

Received: 01/02/2022

Respondent: Cllr L Bates

Housing sites north of Penkridge should be identified in a Master Plan to prevent piecemeal developments. Has concerns regarding North of Penkridge sitting in a flood plain; the Sow and Penk Drainage Board have commissioned the Environment Agency to carry out a survey of the River Penk which will be available in a matter of weeks.

Object

Representation ID: 954

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Gavin Williamson CBE MP

The district council, in reducing their overall target housing numbers, should reduce the scale and size of their proposed strategic housing allocations or delete some of them altogether. Concerns with SA1 in Bilbrook which represents a clear threat to the green wedge between the Codsall/Bilbrook and Wolverhampton. The scale of the development will create insurmountable pressures on the social and physical infrastructure in Bilbrook/Codsall. Concerns with SA3 at Linthouse Lane - danger of an orphan community being created that belongs neither to urban Wolverhampton nor to rural South Staffordshire.

Support

Representation ID: 955

Received: 01/02/2022

Respondent: Highways England

Policy SA1 - Likely to impact on M54 Junctions 2 & 3 and on A449 north of M54 Junction 2
Policy SA2 - Will directly impact on A449 and M54 Junction 2 and abuts the M54
Policy SA3 - Main traffic impacts likely to be at M54 Junction 1
Policy SA4 - Greatest traffic impacts likely to be at M6 Junction 13 and on A5/A449 Gailey roundabout. Proposed green infrastructure abuts M6.

Have sought to agree a SATURN model with SCC to determine trip distribution and assignment for Local Plan sites. This data is then provided to strategic sites to carry out their own assessments, including mitigation works on SRN.

Detailed specific comments provided for SA2 and SA4.

Support

Representation ID: 956

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Gavin Williamson CBE MP

While I disagree with the scale and location of some of these sites, it is appropriate that they have their own policy to set an appropriate vision for the site, alongside a detailed masterplan and design code.

Object

Representation ID: 967

Received: 01/02/2022

Respondent: Councillor Phil Bateman

Number of people: 3

Against allocation at Land North of Linthouse Lane - site should have a major role in the climate change strategy of the conurbation and Staffordshire. Land is arable land that floods and would result in biodiversity loss, watercourse pollution, light pollution, soil erosion and depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, waste disposal and sewage issues. The Minerals Railway corridor should be protected along with the rights of way running through the site. Likely to be archaeological remains which should be considered before permission is granted and the site history retained. A full ecological/environmental survey should also be undertaken before the site is allocated. Integrated plans for public transport would need to be in place for the development. Current housing target arbitrary and does not factor in likely conversion of City Centre retail to dwellings or the number of existing empty properties. Concerned about construction traffic and associated disruption. Proposal would 'blur’ the boundary between Wednesfield and Essington considerably. If approved, development would need to provide education and local shops. Would not support access/agrees onto Linthouse/Kitchen Lane. Development would need to provide new NHS facilities and set out plans for how it would be served by the emergency services

Support

Representation ID: 998

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Wolverhampton City Council

Agree 4 strategic sites should be subject to a detailed masterplan and design code, as should the Langley Road site.

Support

Representation ID: 1023

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Recognition of the need for strategic development locations is noted. However scale of development proposed under SA4 should be referenced.

Support

Representation ID: 1026

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Persimmon Homes broadly supports the allocations identified through Policy SA5, in particular Land at Cherrybrook Drive. Site would act as a natural extension to Penkridge and is available and deliverable. Application for the site was previously written up for approval demonstrating it is acceptable in policy terms. The technical work previously undertaken relating to landscape and visual impact, traffic and transport, heritage, ecology, flooding, noise and air quality all remains which valid and demonstrates that the site has both the capacity and qualities to be suitable for residential development

Object

Representation ID: 1041

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Acres Land & Planning

Approach adopted by the Council for its 4 strategic allocations seems to 'change the rules' for identifying housing sites. Sites SA1 - SA4 adopt different principles and it is suggested that due to their size and infrastructure requirements they may need to be immune to certain s106 contributions, yet the purpose of their allocation is to pay for infrastructure.
Site 519 (land east of Codsall/Bilbrook) runs counter to GB Policy by coalescing Codsall/Bilbrook and Wolverhampton. GL Hearn report identified such an area as localised restraint to protect this. The Council's approach contradicts this advice.
Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study highlights an area of GB release (Location PD2, land north of Codsall/Bilbrook) as one of their choices for development. The Council has ignored the advice that growth should be in the north and not east of the settlement in the PO Local Plan.
Shortcomings in the 2015 Landscape Sensitivity Study have ben reflected in the Sustainability Appraisal and GB Review.
Land to the east of Codsall/Bilbrook is also High Quality BMV Agricultural Land - Grade 2.
2019 GB Review highlights Site 519 (area to the east of Codsall/Bilbrook) as Very High or High in terms of harm, whereas land to the north of Codsall is Moderate/High harm.
The evidence base is inconsistent. It is noted that Appendix 5 (Policy and Physical Constraints Paper) of the 2019 Spatial Housing Strategy and Infrastructure Deliver Report has been ignored the fact that the land which is High and Very High harm is east where the strategic site has been selected. Also, it fails to explicitly set out the implications of the Moderate/High harm rating of the land north of Codsall.
The Council has contradicted it's consultants advice and evidence base by choosing an area of High or Very High harm in selecting its choice of strategic sites in particular land to the east of Codsall/Bilbrook. Appendix 5 of the Spatial Housing document identifies there should be growth to the north of Codsall/Bilbrook (Area PD2).
The Council has not made a reasoned case for land east of Codsall/Bilbrook, it simply explains the purpose of the allocation and facilities to be provided. For site SA1: it appears that the new community would integrate into the existing community but so would any strategic location. It would deliver a new First School, but this is only justified through the scale of proposed development and would apply to such a development elsewhere. It would be master-planned according to a SPD which applies to any urban extension. Sites 443 and 219 of 2018 SAD already extend Bilbrook to the east and the Council may feel the "damage has been done", however site SA1 is more damaging to fragile GB location.
Any site chosen as a Strategic Development location should be supported by a site-specific masterplan and design code as per 2021 NPPF requirement.

Support

Representation ID: 1051

Received: 08/02/2022

Respondent: Staffordshire County Council

- P5-26; Detailed summaries of evidence collected to date for strategic housing sites’ highways impact, accessibility and walking and cycling proposals
- P26- Indicates support for Policy SA1-4 sites subject to robust transport evidence base, which will be presented in the ‘Transport Impacts (with SCC) 2022’ report
- P30 The relevant proforma should show the proposed link road between Pendeford Mill Lane, Barnhurst Lane and Lane Green Road

Support

Representation ID: 1062

Received: 08/02/2022

Respondent: Cannock Chase AONB

Policy SA4 site lies within the setting of the AONB and could impact representative viewpoints identified in the AONB Views and Setting Guide. Reinforcing vegetation on site boundaries would help to retain the woodland character in long views from the AONB and contain development. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment should inform the site layout and masterplan to identify where additional structural planting could be located. A sensitive appraoch to lighting/light spillage should be adopted.

Object

Representation ID: 1101

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Clare Allen

Opposition to proposed development on fields adjacent to Linthouse Lane
Impact of loss of Green Belt and openness close to Black Country
Impact of urbanisation
Impact on Highways infrastructure - Increased traffic
Impact on wildlife
Brownfield land should be developed before Green Belt
Concerns about housing mix - too many large 4 bed homes

Object

Representation ID: 1112

Received: 04/02/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

SA1, SA2 & SA4 adjacent to Flood Zones 2&3. Further assessment required to ensure accuracy of boundaries especially taking into account updated climate change allowances.
Safeguarding regulated activities is a potential concern in relation to sites SA1 & SA5.
Sites SA1, SA2 & SA4: include additional requirements in the SPD to include measures to enhance the watercourses on-site by implementing WFD priorities.

Support

Representation ID: 1120

Received: 11/02/2022

Respondent: Lower Penn Parish Council

Support the need for a masterplan and design code.

Object

Representation ID: 1132

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs N Machin

Agent: AJM Planning Associates Ltd

Strategy approach places too much emphasis on "strategic development locations" - particularly SA2 (Cross Green) and SA3 (Linthouse Lane).
The approach is too heavily weighted towards infrastructure and imbalance with GB assessment.
Site SA2 appears to to 'safeguard' land for rail-based parkway and no requirement for any provision.

Object

Representation ID: 1135

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr D Conn

Agent: AJM Planning Associates Ltd

Strategy approach places too much emphasis on "strategic development locations" - particularly SA2 (Cross Green) and SA3 (Linthouse Lane).
The approach is too heavily weighted towards infrastructure and imbalance with GB assessment.
Site SA2 appears to to 'safeguard' land for rail-based parkway and no requirement for any provision.

Support

Representation ID: 1143

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The key infrastructure and design requirements set out in the policy for Land at Cross Green are supported. Taylor Wimpey hold the majority of the site under freehold ownership, with land interests in the remainder. Taylor Wimpey support the requirement for a masterplan and design code, but do not consider it necessary to require a separate SPD for establishing site requirements and assessment frameworks. The requirement for site-specific SPDs has the potential to delay delivery of strategic housing allocations and duplicate information prepared through the masterplan and design code process.

Due to the scale of the four sites Taylor Wimpey supports the inclusion of site-specific policies establishing a vision for each site alongside a detailed masterplan and design code.

Support

Representation ID: 1153

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Note the four strategic locations. The plan's reliance on these sites should not undermine the timely delivery of housing through a non-stepped trajectory.

Object

Representation ID: 1154

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr N Waugh

Agent: AJM Planning Associates Ltd

Strategy approach places too much emphasis on "strategic development locations" - particularly SA2 (Cross Green) and SA3 (Linthouse Lane).
The approach is too heavily weighted towards infrastructure and imbalance with GB assessment.
Site SA2 appears to to 'safeguard' land for rail-based parkway and no requirement for any provision.

Object

Representation ID: 1165

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Katy Appleby

Objection to Linthouse Lane
Loss of green space
Impact on wildlife- loss of animals and trees

Object

Representation ID: 1167

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr C Moreton

Agent: AJM Planning Associates Ltd

Strategy approach places too much emphasis on "strategic development locations" - particularly SA2 (Cross Green) and SA3 (Linthouse Lane).
The approach is too heavily weighted towards infrastructure and imbalance with GB assessment.
Site SA2 appears to to 'safeguard' land for rail-based parkway and no requirement for any provision.

Object

Representation ID: 1173

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Lyndon Askey

Objection to site at Linthouse Lane
Loss of green space
Brownfield sites should be used before Greenbelt and green space.