Question 7

Support

Representation ID: 1176

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Support the identification of strategic sites. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 1191

Received: 19/11/2021

Respondent: Mr John Anthony

Objects to Linthouse Lane.
Loss of farming land
Loss of Open Countryside
Brownfield sites should be used before green space.

Object

Representation ID: 1218

Received: 17/02/2022

Respondent: Mr Neil Aston

Objection Linthouse Lane
Imapct on wildlife
Loss of openness - affects to family's health
Devalue property prices - loss of view
Impact on Schools - access to places
Impact on Healthcare Services
Highways Infrastructure - increased traffic
Brownfield sites should be developed first, including within West Midlands conurbation

Object

Representation ID: 1225

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Barberry

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Policy SA2 – Delivery of the site is heavily reliant on the ‘Land at Cross Green SPD’ and there is no clear justification to demonstrate that this allocation can be implemented. As there is no clear timeline for delivery the plan should allocate further sites to ensure it can meet the 8,881 dwelling housing target.

Object

Representation ID: 1227

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: Historic England

SA1 - Include HESA recommendations. Give full consideration to historic environment at masterplanning/SPD stage.
SA2 & SA3 - Can't find reference to this site in the HESA. Please submit so we can comment.
SA4 - recommend that additional detail is provided on how the significance of the heritage assets will be affected & appropriate mitigation strategies.

Support

Representation ID: 1237

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

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.

Object

Representation ID: 1254

Received: 18/11/2021

Respondent: Susan Athersmith

Linthouse Lane - This is green belt land.
Plenty of brown site areas which would benefit from being tidied up.
Climate emergency - land needs to be used as a nature reserve.
Green spaces are needed for our mental wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 1256

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Royston Ault

Linthouse Lane - Objection.

Derelict factories or land should be built on not Greenbelt land.

Support

Representation ID: 1263

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The key infrastructure and design requirements set out in the policy for Land East of Bilbrook are supported. Bloor land interests cover the whole of the proposed East of Bilbrook site. Bloor 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.

Object

Representation ID: 1281

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: CCB Investments

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Policy SA2 – Delivery of the site is heavily reliant on the ‘Land at Cross Green SPD’ and there is no clear justification to demonstrate that this allocation can be implemented. As there is no clear timeline for delivery the plan should allocate further sites to ensure it can meet the 8,881 dwelling housing target.

Object

Representation ID: 1290

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Goldfinch TPS

Agent: Goldfinch TPS

Goldfinch TPS view the proposed planning polices SA1 - SA4 are developed through out of date data and insufficient technical evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 1317

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RCA Regeneration Limited

Policy SA2 – Delivery of the site is heavily reliant on the ‘Land at Cross Green SPD’ and there is no clear justification to demonstrate that this allocation can be implemented. As there is no clear timeline for delivery the plan should allocate further sites to ensure it can meet the 8,881 dwelling housing target.

Object

Representation ID: 1330

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Policy SA2 – Delivery of the site is heavily reliant on the ‘Land at Cross Green SPD’ and there is no clear justification to demonstrate that this allocation can be implemented. As there is no clear timeline for delivery the plan should allocate further sites to ensure it can meet the 8,881 dwelling housing target.

Object

Representation ID: 1339

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Reed Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

Policy SA2 – Delivery of the site is heavily reliant on the ‘Land at Cross Green SPD’ and there is no clear justification to demonstrate that this allocation can be implemented. As there is no clear timeline for delivery the plan should allocate further sites to ensure it can meet the 8,881 dwelling housing target.

Object

Representation ID: 1347

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration

Policy SA2 – Delivery of the site is heavily reliant on the ‘Land at Cross Green SPD’ and there is no clear justification to demonstrate that this allocation can be implemented. As there is no clear timeline for delivery the plan should allocate further sites to ensure it can meet the 8,881 dwelling housing target.

Object

Representation ID: 1360

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Jay Farm Homes and Lawnswood Homes

Agent: SLR Consulting Ltd

7a - YES – However, in accordance with the Council’s own evidence base, further smaller non-strategic sites should be identified for allocation and/or safeguarding along the urban edge of Wolverhampton to support housing
needs now and beyond the plan period.

7b - YES – no further comment.

Object

Representation ID: 1375

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Baker

Objects to Linthouse Lane/ Kitchen Lane

Impact on infrastructure - Schools, shops, Healthcare services under strain
Impact on landscape - loss of natural beauty
Impact on Highways- increased traffic volumes, issues with construction traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 1391

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Taylor Wimpey also supports the inclusion of site-specific policies to establish a vision for each site, alongside a requirement for a detailed masterplan and design code. The key infrastructure and design requirements listed within the Policies are helpful in informing the masterplan and design code. Although it is not necessary for an SPD covering the site to be a requirement. Committed to a masterplan that would allow for a collaborative approach with local communities and stakeholders. Site 486c could deliver circa. 2,100-2,450 dwellings with a potential future phase a further 350 dwellings. Site can deliver primary school, local centre, GI and would see an enduring Green Belt boundary along dismantled railway line.Site can deliver allocation without undue harm to landscape character. Any harm to an off site scheduled ancient monument can be mitigated. Site has good public transport links with regular bus services, with proposals for 4 access points. Unlikely noise will have an adverse on the development of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 1398

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr D Parton

Number of people: 2

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: 1435

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

We support the allocation of Land East of Bilbrook (Policy SA1). However, as stated in our response to Question 1, we consider that our client’s land (reference 500) should be included within the strategic allocation in order to provide a revised Green Belt boundary that is clearly defined by permanent and physical features (NPPF
paragraph 143f).

We also consider that the Council should provide a housing trajectory for all of the allocations within the District to demonstrate that housing needs will be met across the plan period (NPPF paragraph 74). The plan should demonstrate that all of the strategic allocations have a reasonable prospect of being delivered within the plan period and that infrastructure providers have been engaged to discuss requirements (PPG Reference ID: 61-060-20190315).

Object

Representation ID: 1463

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

We consider that the Council should provide a housing trajectory for all of the allocations within the District to
demonstrate that housing needs will be met across the plan period (NPPF paragraph 74). The plan should
demonstrate that all of the strategic allocations have a reasonable prospect of being delivered within the plan
period and that infrastructure providers have been engaged to discuss requirements (PPG Reference ID: 61-060-20190315).

Object

Representation ID: 1474

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Helen Baker

Objections to housing developments planned for the Codsall and Bilbrook.
Infrastructure can not accommodate increase of people. Traffic and road safety is a major problem currently.

Object

Representation ID: 1478

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Eileen Young

Objects to Linthouse Lane.
-Loss of open countryside
-Impact on wildlife- loss of habitats
-Increased traffic
-Historic relevance

Object

Representation ID: 1496

Received: 16/11/2021

Respondent: Kate Wright

Objects to Linthouse Lane
- Loss of open space
- Impact on Highways- Increased traffic
-Environmental Impact- Increased pollution due to traffic
-Impact on existing infrastructure- Limited access to GPs, local schools and healthcare services. Lack of policing could increase crime.
Devaluation of surrounding properties.
Loss of wildlife

Object

Representation ID: 1508

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: D Morgan PLC

Agent: Peacock and Smith

a) No
D Morgan PLC do not support strategic housing allocations Policy SA2-SA4 and do not believe the Council’s evidence is adequate in justifying their inclusion for the reasons set out in this submission which evidences that these proposed allocations are in conflict with Local Plan and national policy. There is no justification which explains why our
client’s sites rank poorly than site refs 486c and 646 a&b. As an alternative to the unsustainable sites proposed for allocation, we propose the inclusion of our client’s sites (refs: 116 and 131) at Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley which utilise Landywood Station on the Chase Line.

Object

Representation ID: 1509

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: D Morgan PLC

Agent: Peacock and Smith

b) No
We consider that strategic allocations SA2, SA3 and SA4 to be unsound so therefore a masterplanning exercise is premature and unnecessary at these sites, and would be in conflict with NPPF. If the Council proceeds with its current approach, without ensuring adequate evidence and justification have been prepared, it is likely to encounter difficulties at examination, reflecting a similar
situation to that experienced by the City of York Council.

Support

Representation ID: 1540

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Boningale Homes ltd.

Agent: Alder King

Support the strategic development locations and that they will be guided by their own policies and design guides to ensure appropriate development.

Object

Representation ID: 1541

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Boningale Homes ltd.

Agent: Alder King

Smaller sites that can be delivered sooner than strategic sites should be allocated to provide immediate housing delivery and bridge the gap between strategic sites coming online.

Object

Representation ID: 1542

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Diane Wadelin

Objects to Linthouse Lane
- Environmental impact- air quality due to increase in homes and car dependency.
-Impact on Health Care- lack of GPs and Health services.
-Impact on schools- not enough capacity
-Loss of Green Belt
-Brownfield sites should be used before Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 1545

Received: 13/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs C Walker

Objects to Linthouse Lane.
-Loss of Green Belt
-Loss of of Open space for recreational use.
-Brownfield sites should be used before Green Belt.
-Impact on wildlife