Question 7

Object

Representation ID: 1546

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mr John Walker

Objection to Linthouse Lane
- Impact on highways- increased cars causing additional road congestion.
-Loss of Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 1555

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: 1556

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. Significant reliance on strategic sites is not supported.

Support

Representation ID: 1568

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Babb

a. support
b. agree

Support

Representation ID: 1578

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited (Hyde Lane site)

Agent: Turley

We have no in principle objection to the proposed allocation at Cross Green (draft policy SA2), although there remain a number of concerns regarding timescales for its delivery. In summary:
There is currently no evidence available as to how the access road will be funded, which is estimated to cost just £20m.
There is no evidence regarding the delivery trajectory for Cross Green. 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. there is the potential to safeguard additional land to the north of land west of Hyde Lane for circa 65 homes.

Object

Representation ID: 1621

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bradford Estates

Agent: Berrys

The plan places a significant reliance on the delivery of four strategic sites (SA1-SA4), such reliance brings into question the deliverability of the plan should any of these fail to deliver at the rate envisaged.
The delivery of infrastructure to serve these sites is fundamental to their delivery and yet the issue(s) are identified for further consideration as part of preparing an SPD. Without these detailed assessments, their is considerable uncertainty as to the deliverability of the strategic sites.
The Housing Topic Paper notes that site SA1-SA3 all have 'major negative effects predicted against the landscape criteria due to GB harm'.
2019 GB study notes that all strategic sites will have either a 'high' or 'very high' level of harm to GB. Release of these sites will therefore result in the weakening of GB.
Less reliance should be placed upon housing delivery from large scale strategic sites with greater level of growth and allocations directed towards lower tier settlements on sites which do not give rise to 'high' or 'very high' levels of GB harm.

Support

Representation ID: 1631

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Jaguar Land Rover UK

Agent: WSP

(A)
Yes, subject to the comments made below.

Draft Policy SA1 mentions that the allocation was chosen partly due to the sustainable access to i54 business park, which in part highlights the importance of the i54 site. The SPD should provide a framework which helps to guide future planning applications ensuring that the agent of change principle is considered - protecting employment land.
Any future housing development needs to be carefully managed to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on Jaguar Land Rover’s operation that could undermine employment land.
The introduction of an agent of change principle would be beneficial to ensure there is no conflict between new housing developments and the existing employment land.
(B)
Jaguar Land Rover support the provision of separate policies for the four sites and the requirement of a detailed masterplan and design code, alongside the production of a Supplementary Planning Document.

Support

Representation ID: 1680

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr J Barnes

Definitely

Support

Representation ID: 1689

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicky Barnes

Definitely

Support

Representation ID: 1702

Received: 14/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Taylor Wimpey supports the proposed identification of strategic housing allocations at Cross Green (ref: SA2) and at Land North of Linthouse lane (ref: SA3).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.

Support

Representation ID: 1762

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips Land Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

(a)
Yes, St Philips fully support the proposed strategic housing allocations in policies SA1-SA4, with specific reference to draft Policy SA4 (Strategic development location: Land North of Penkridge) for the 1,129 dwellings.
Penkridge remains a Tier 1 settlement within the Spatial Strategy contained at PO Policy DS3 (The Spatial Strategy to 2038). By virtue of this categorisation, the settlement is a one of the most sustainable locations for future housing development, and is well-equipped to
accommodate significant levels of growth.
Whilst St Philips are generally supportive of the infrastructure identified to be delivered through
the policy, however, their comments in response to Question 2a

Support

Representation ID: 1763

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips Land Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

(b)
Yes, St Philips agree in principle to the requirement for a framework for future applications and infrastructure provision for the strategic residential allocations proposed with the PO. However, St Philips do not agree with the requirement for a Supplementary Planning Document
[SPD] to support the delivery of the proposed strategic residential allocation. St Philips suggest that the wording of the policy is amended to require the preparation of a
strategic masterplan by the respective landowners/ developers forming the allocation. Alternative wording suggested.

Support

Representation ID: 1774

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agree in principle with the requirement for a framework for future applications and infrastructure provisions for strategic allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 1786

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: John Davies Farms ltd.

Agent: Berrys

The plan places a significant reliance on the delivery of four strategic sites (SA1-SA4), such reliance brings into question the deliverability of the plan should any of these fail to deliver at the rate envisaged.
The delivery of infrastructure to serve these sites is fundamental to their delivery and yet the issue(s) are identified for further consideration as part of preparing an SPD. Without these detailed assessments, their is considerable uncertainty as to the deliverability of the strategic sites.
The Housing Topic Paper notes that site SA1-SA3 all have 'major negative effects predicted against the landscape criteria due to GB harm'.
2019 GB study notes that all strategic sites will have either a 'high' or 'very high' level of harm to GB. Release of these sites will therefore result in the weakening of GB.
Less reliance should be placed upon housing delivery from large scale strategic sites with greater level of growth and allocations directed towards lower tier settlements on sites which would maintain/enhance their local communities and do not give rise to 'high' or 'very high' levels of GB harm.

Support

Representation ID: 1833

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Wollaston Properties Ltd

Agent: First City Limited

Understanding the land east of Bilbrook, is intended to accommodate approximately 848 dwellings, a new first school, on site retail, open space and infrastructure.

There are no principle objections to the proposed strategic allocations, however, there are concerns regarding the delivery of the site.

There is limited information surrounding the costing and delivery of the site. Details such as delivery trajectory and all the key funding strands for the site should be considered at this stage due to the significant size of the site and what it is intended to deliver. Therefore it is considered prudent and essential for the Local Plan to allocated safeguarded land that has the ability to come forward to meet the needs of the District.

Support the allocation of site 211 within the Local Plan at least as a Safeguarded site.

Support

Representation ID: 1840

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Peveril Securities ltd.

Agent: Mr Simon Chadwick

Support - in principle - the allocation of Cross Green Strategic Site (Policy SA2) due to it's sustainability benefits of delivering a new rail station and it's location to i54 and ROF.
Confirm that element of site under ownership of Cross Green (Policy SA2) will be brought forward.

Support

Representation ID: 1851

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

(b)
St Philips agree in principle with the requirement for a framework for the for future applications and infrastructure provision for the strategic residential allocations proposed with the PO.

Object

Representation ID: 1865

Received: 14/12/2021

Respondent: Miss C Bowen

Impact on schools - availability of places
Impact on highways - increased traffic volumes, unsuitable roads.
Further housing not required in Wednesfield.

Object

Representation ID: 1866

Received: 16/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Budd

Previously attended meetings pre covid, thought the matter was dealt with. Looking for response.

No Reasons for object given.

Object

Representation ID: 1922

Received: 28/03/2022

Respondent: The British Horse Society

Sites SA1-4 Improve and extend safe off-road provision for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, walkers and horse riders.

Object

Representation ID: 1938

Received: 29/03/2022

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Policy SA1 - Canal & Rivers Trust wish to be included as a stakeholder in production of SPD.
Highlight canal and river in blue on allocation plan.
Include canal in masterplanning of proposed Barnhurst Lane access.
Masterplan should retain rural character of the canal setting.
Upgrade towpath from Pendeford Bridge to Autherley Junction to support additional use and promote active travel.
Discharge storm water into Moat Brook rather than River Penk, Pendeford Aquaduct is more likely to have better capacity for increased discharge than the culvert at Wolverhampton boat club.

Object

Representation ID: 1939

Received: 29/03/2022

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Policy SA2 - Canal & Rivers Trust wish to be included as a stakeholder in production of SPD.
Maintain the rural character of the canal Conservation Area. Further strategic landscaping to the north of the existing identified area would provide an appropriate rural buffer to the canal corridor.
Towpath would benefit from upgrading of the surfacing and access points to provide a towpath of rural character capable of supporting increased use.
Possibility of discharging attenuated water into the canal which is higher up the drainage hierarchy.

Object

Representation ID: 1940

Received: 29/03/2022

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Policy SA4
Canal & River Trust wish to be included as a stakeholder in production of SPD.
Connectivity between the site and the canal via bridleway, this provides an off-road route into Penkridge village and towpath would benefit from upgrading.

Object

Representation ID: 1959

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Completelink Ltd

Agent: Zesta Planning Ltd

Policies SA1-4 fail to make any specific reference to specialist accommodation provision despite established needs, focusing solely on affordable and market housing, and are all in the north of the District skewing housing need distribution.

Object

Representation ID: 1968

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

Sites 584 and 010 fail to show current Bloors development and proposed Cameron Homes development. Does not show the anaerobic digester.
Green Infrastructure should not be used to offset or produce provision of local open space.
Masterplan needs to take account for potential future growth to the west of the village including provision of a future western spine road.

Support

Representation ID: 1985

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Terra Strategic

Agent: Terra Strategic

(a)
Terra agree with the principles of identifying strategic housing allocations that will be master planned and design focused. Furthermore, Terra agree that an aspect of community involvement is appropriate to ensure that the developments meet the needs of the current and future residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1986

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Terra Strategic

Agent: Terra Strategic

(a)
Strategic allocations often include long lead-in times. The Council should ensure that these sites are
supported by smaller allocations to secure a continuous Housing Land Supply (quotes para 69 of the NPPF). Settlements like Acton Trussell would benefit from residential lead allocations, which include a community benefit to improve the overall sustainability of the settlement. Acton Trussell is a large village which is in need of additional housing and services.

Support

Representation ID: 1987

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Terra Strategic

Agent: Terra Strategic

(b)
As these sites are allocated for a large number of dwellings, Terra agree that it is appropriate for individual detailed Policies.

Support

Representation ID: 2007

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: UKPI (Featherstone) Ltd

Agent: First City Limited

There are no principle objections to the proposed strategic allocations however, there are concerns regarding the delivery of strategic development locations: Land at Cross Green.

There is limited information surrounding the cost and delivery of the site and in particular with the road and infrastructure.

Understanding into the fundamental element of the allocation due to the proposed link road between the A449 and ROF Featherstone and therefore there should be more details available at this stage for interested parties to consider to make an informed choice in the delivery of the site. Details such as delivery and trajectory and all the key funding for the site should be considered at this stage due to the significant size of the site and what it intends to deliver. Concerns into the site not fulfilling the intended obligations and the Council having a significant shortage of land to meet the housing need of the Local Plan period.

The capacity issue will be resolved through the delivery of the M54/M6?M6 toll link road and the development consent order for which is due to be made in 2022. This will be well within the current plan period, any policy proposing to allocate or safeguard land to the west of Featherstone might be subject to a policy that is should not come forward until the link road has been delivered.

Support

Representation ID: 2026

Received: 14/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Parker Williams

Supports rationale for not including Radford Lane Site (350c, 350d) in the Local Plan Review.

Additional rationale for not including the site:
Lots of rare UK wildlife spotted in the area.
Already lots of local congestion.