Question 8

Object

Representation ID: 451

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Manton

Have a rethink !

Object

Representation ID: 458

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Boydon

Agent: Stansgate Planning

N/A

Support

Representation ID: 467

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: NHS

The Black Country & West Birmingham CCG have considered where relevant those respective site allocations close to the BCWB CCG boundary and responded with the mitigation measures required to ensure a robust Health Care Infrastructure is in place through developer contribution and planning obligations where affected by cross border implication.

Support

Representation ID: 476

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited (Hyde Lane site)

Agent: Turley

Flexibility need in Council’s approach to 10% provision of sites of one hectare. ‘One size fits all’ approach does not allow for a judgement to be made in terms of environmental context or balancing other requirements of NPPF.

Balanced approach does not require any amendment to the minimum quantum of development proposed for an allocation, sono departure from spirit of approach to deliver a mix of sites.

Relevant to Bellway’s site at land at Hyde Lane (west), Kinver. We have proposed an alternative area of land to be released from the Green Belt, 1.76ha.

Support

Representation ID: 485

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Bellway Homes Limited (Dunsley Drive site)

Agent: Turley

We wholly support the principle of the proposed release of land east of Dunsley Drive, Kinver (site 272) from the Green Belt and allocation for housing growth. The Council’s evidence base is clear it performs better than other options at Kinver. Bellway is now preparing a detailed site specific evidence base for the site which will inform an updated masterplan. This will be submitted to the Council in due course, once complete.

Object

Representation ID: 488

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julia Clinton

Site 582 Langley Road
I object to the proposal to build at the above site because:
It will destroy the habitat of diverse and important wildlife
The local infrastructure can barely support existing population - e.g. primary healthcare, schooling, nurseries
The site is not well served by public transport. This will lead to increased traffic and pollution as people are forced to drive for work etc
Increased traffic will severely impact local country lanes which are already used as 'short cuts'. The quality of these lanes for existing residents is already poor and more traffic will only damage them further

Support

Representation ID: 489

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Miss EMP Shaw Hellier Settlement

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Please see attached document.

Object

Representation ID: 495

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Sport England

Site 82 access route is not supported as it run through a playing field site which is identified for protection within the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy. Provision should therefore be made for replacement playing field land within the policy to ensure there is no loss of playing field land and pitches.

Site 16 and 79 are adjacent to playing field sites. The site layout if these sites should ensure that the use of the playing field sites are not prejudiced in line with the agent of change principles.

Object

Representation ID: 496

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Heather Bolton

Site 036c (Stafford) does not
1) provide housing or economic benefit for people of South Staffordshire
2) support any village or town in South Staffordshire
3) is essentially an extension to Stafford and people will not feel part of South Staffordshire
5) does not support the Council's vision
6) does not support Strategic Objective 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11
7) potentially opens the door to further development which could blur the boundaries between the settlements of Stafford, Acton Trussell, Walton on the Hill and Brocton, resulting in them becoming part of a larger Stafford.

Object

Representation ID: 499

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Grainger

Site 036c.
This site has been the subject of two previous applications, the first one being rejected unanimously by the planning committee. The only change in circumstances this time is it is the district council is making the decision. Councillors from Stafford and Acton Trussell are all against this proposal on the same grounds as before. The only thing that has materially changed is the volume of traffic along the A34 towards Stafford. The schools your experts have studied are incorrect (one is actually Oakridge and the other school named; Marshlands no longer exists) Not a convincing argument.

Object

Representation ID: 501

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Parsons

I object to sites 536A and 136 as they will be built on green belt land and building there will cause extra strains on the local roads and infrastructures WE ARE A VILLAGE AND DO NOT WANT TO BE TURNED INTO A TOWN

Object

Representation ID: 503

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Heath

With regard to site 036c - this proposed development fails to take into account developments by other councils to the East of Stafford and Baswich Grange by Bellway homes on the A34, which is already increasing traffic flow on A34, Radford Bank and Baswich Lane (with a pinch point at the double roundabouts). This is a greenfield site and a min of 168 new houses will contribute to the detriment of HC13/14/15 and NB1/2. County hospital has been reduced, GP services and education places stretched already.The Bellway site does not appear to conform to HC1/3 so how will 036c?

Object

Representation ID: 510

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr David Ravenscroft

(Tier 1 Settlements). - In the past local residents, parish councillors and local MP's have repeatedly objected to developments in Great Wyrley / Cheslyn Hay . And yet it is still being considered !

Object

Representation ID: 519

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: DOCTOR Prabhjoyt Kler

I can only comment on Tier 1 and codsall. I do not support housing on Histons Hill as this road and the local infrastructure cannot cope with the level of traffic, increased accidents. It does not fit with the local housing, and objections have already been raised previously for this site and I am not satisfied that the a reduction in environmental damage from increased flooding, sewers coping and TPO'd trees will be protected along this site. I also object to housing on station road and keepers lane due to the great impact on local biodiversity

Object

Representation ID: 526

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Ms Liz Sithole

How will the developers be selected? Need to be available for local businesses as well not just multinationals who have economies of scale. Not sure of the types of residential properties that will be built.

Object

Representation ID: 529

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Burgess

Unsustainable location that was previously rejected.

Object

Representation ID: 537

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr R Gidlow

used brown field first

Object

Representation ID: 554

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Toni Proverbd

We will become part of massive urban sprawl

Object

Representation ID: 555

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr David West

Sites Kinver - 274, 272 and 576
* Infrastructure of the village is inadequate for current housing let alone additional housing.
* Site 274 - Traffic concerns at Potters Cross junction, with local school on that junction plus additional traffic there will be an accident
* Site 274 - These are ancient meadows that have never been ploughed. Risks to bio-diversity at a time when we should be protecting it.
* The district is taking on overspill from the Black Country meaning green belt land is being used despite the amount of brownfield land is the Black Country area.

Object

Representation ID: 559

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr PHILIP GRIFFIN

REF SITE:- KINVER 274/272/576.There is inadequate infrastructure to support this level of growth let alone the existing community. Lost services include, Petrol Station, main post office, supermarket, the only bank, butchers, greengrocers, florist and the police station has closed. The library is run by volunteers, the fire station was saved. The one Doctors surgery is overwhelmed and a waiting list of over two weeks if they answer the phone, and this is with a large ageing population. We were recently sent to Moss Grove Kingswinford and had to see a Paramedic and no bus service from Kinver to kingswinford.

Object

Representation ID: 560

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Mary Toft

The roads are not able to take more traffic also there are three schools a bit further along and the roads are very congested at drop off and pick up time already the deliveries unless these were timed to miss these times would cause mayhem
No.129 130 -132 134 133

Object

Representation ID: 569

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: R Simner

With particular attention to the developments in an around Wombourne, it's clear that the existing village character will be irrepairably damaged, and both of the larger developments will simply increase the already severe traffic burden further. In addition, I see no plans for more GP surgeries or schools to cope with the huge increase in households.

Object

Representation ID: 573

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Smith

Site 523

Objections are as follows
1 . Increased Traffic through Cheslyn Hay
2 . Lack of Parking especially in the High Street
3 . Access to Site on a busy road and increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic on narrow footpaths which provides the main run to 2 schools
4. Additional strain on existing Health Care Facilities and Public and utility services
5. Loss of feeding and breeding grounds for protected wildlife.
6. Potential Pinfold Lane pedestrian access a property and resident safety/security concern

Object

Representation ID: 577

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Grocutt

The area site 523 is a key green area for residents to walk on. The added housing and subsequent traffics are a real concern to us as residents. This would spoil what is an area of natural beauty and I strongly oppose this new site.

Object

Representation ID: 578

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Grace Grocutt

In regards to site 523 I strongly oppose this due to the site bringing extra traffic to an already busy area! The site in question will disrupt a quiet nature walk that myself and many others enjoy.

Object

Representation ID: 585

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr J Knight

The proposals for major development in Bilbrook, Coven, Essington, Penn Common and Castlecroft are all immediately adjacent to existing dwellings on the border of the City of Wolverhampton and would further exacerbate urban sprawl and eliminate any remaining recreational space.

The proposed developments are not distributed equitably throughout South Staffordshire rather being concentrated in 5 areas.

The proposals for Bilbrook would increase the population of the village by more than 50% totally destroying its character. Bilbrook's existing road network would be insufficient to cope with the increased volume of traffic and any new development would overwhelm community health services.

Object

Representation ID: 590

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ribson

Ref Site 523, I think the access road to any housing would be dangerous as its a fast road and on a bend and an accident waiting to happen which would then be on the conscience of anyone approving this planning application, the road itself is like a race track of an evening as we can hear them at the back of our house racing up and down, also with the houses just over the road from the high school we feel there is more than enough housing in the area at the present time. Thank you for listening.

Object

Representation ID: 593

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Robson

Reference site 523.
I do not support this planning application. The entry road for the housing would be on a main, busy road into the village on a fast bend which already has a dangerous spot via a busy quarry site on the same road which has heavy vehicles and lorry’s entering throughout the day on yet another blind bend. The same road is the main access for the Hollybush garden Centre this also being a busy area.
The village has a lot of young children travelling to and from school and would be an accident waiting to happen.

Object

Representation ID: 596

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Anezka Hrozova

The ongoing development on ivetsey road in wheaton aston is disturbing the lives of the residents and there is yet another developmental proposal right opposite the current site. do we as a residents get at least a few years break between these two sites or are we going to have to suffer through few years of building right next to our homes? I wish the council was more considerate to it's residents

Object

Representation ID: 597

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Jordan

No if it means latching on to green belt land and next to the already stretched infrastructure and recourses of DMB