Question 8

Object

Representation ID: 600

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anita Ellis

Housing site, Cheslyn Park has just been built
Not enough infrastructure to accommodate more house. We will loose our community and end up as a small tomn

Object

Representation ID: 601

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin Ellis

For area 523 there is no more room in the village for the extra houses in question. What once was a village will become a town the way it is expanding and Cheslyn Hay and Great Wryley will become one the way it is expanding . There is not enough infrastructure in the village to support this number of new houses including doctors, dentists, play groups, schools , you can’t get a doctors appointment as it in in the village without all these extra people coming in . There is also a dangerous bend in Wolverhampton road aswell .

Object

Representation ID: 602

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Miss Isabelle Ellis

For site 523. (Cheslyn hay)
There are already enough houses in cheslyn hay, if you build anymore it will turn it into a small city rather than a village where there is a lovely community and everyone’s friends. There aren’t enough school/dentist/doctor places to support more people living here. Teachers won’t be able give as valuable 1-1 support that pupils need if you build more houses as the school will become overcrowded . Cheslyn park has just been built, we do not need anymore houses than this! It is absurd to think the infrastructure can support more people.

Object

Representation ID: 611

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Site 426b is considered by Keon Homes to perform better than a number of the preferred allocations identified against a number of the site selection criteria.
Site 426a is supported by Keon Homes as ‘sound.’

Object

Representation ID: 615

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Site 426a represents a sound housing allocation and Site 426b should be allocated within the Regulation 19 Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 625

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Lovell Homes supports the allocation of site 459 (minimum of 97 dwellings) and site 562/415 (minimum of 44 dwellings) at Pool House Road, Wombourne.

Support

Representation ID: 627

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Land at Pool House Road, to include sites 459 and 562/415, represents a sound housing allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 630

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs S & H Dubberley

We object to the development of green belt land in South Staffs for housing.
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: 635

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Newell Paul

Reference 523
Will cause increased traffic problems on an already busy road.
Was a lovely green area for walking, to be spoilt forever.
Really feel for the neighbouring houses who’s quiet and views will disappear.

Object

Representation ID: 636

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Russell

Insufficient schools, medical services and shops. High risk of flooding to Railway Walk and garden in Bhylls Lane if natural ponds/drainage is replaced with tarmac and hardstanding. Use of important green belt land and subsequent loss of wildlife and habitat. Increased traffic and pollution, danger to children and elderly when trying to cross in Bhylls Lane. Insufficient employment in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 639

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Bentley

Infrastructure lack of for new developments
Accident waiting to happen near to the school in a morning and afternoon
surprised nothing happened so far
On a bad bend of Wolverhampton road access would be very dangerous

Object

Representation ID: 640

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Bentley

S582

Infrastructure can’t cope in morning and afternoon due to close proximity of schools

Surprised an accident hasn’t happened already near to the schools

On bad bend of Wolverhampton road very inpratical

Object

Representation ID: 645

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr S Wynne

Lack of amenities - one small shop, No Doctors Surgery, Over crowded first school, Poor highway infrastructure, Poor public transport network, Poor utilities (drainage etc), Very little to no local employment opportunities.

Object

Representation ID: 647

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Ms N Morris

Affect distinctive character of village. Few facilities in village. Increasing numbers of commenters. Poor roads and highways locally, increasing demand in use. Poor public transport. No local health provision. Small first school only. Again other schools are communing distance. Proposed site subjected to regular flooding historically.

Object

Representation ID: 649

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

All 3 sites proposed for Kinver are part of the setting and character of Kinver and Kinver Edge. Their destruction is unnecessary and pointless. Alternatives exist and should be explored. We would be happy to discuss these with South Staffs council.

Site 274 has exceptionally high wildlife, community and landscape value, is adjacent to Kinver Edge and hosts the Staffordshire Way. Site 272 and site 576 are both in Green Belt, and exceptional circumstances for removal from Green Belt have not been proved. Both invite further urban sprawl, in breach of NPPF, and have other problems.

Object

Representation ID: 657

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Burke

Site 582 Langley Road
1.Local schools are over subscribed. The number of spaces available in nearby staffordshire schools will be taken up by a new housin estate jn wombourne.
2. No doctor surgeries are within walking distance and the nearest one is over subscribed
3. Emergency services will they be able to access the estate
4. Road network. The country lanes are unstable for the extra traffic
Bellencroft gardens is not a suitable access point for construction vehicles as it is a small residential neighbourhood and vehicles could cause years of disruption.

Object

Representation ID: 664

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr P Wilkinson

No, because of experience with recent developments not being in the interest of the local communities, natural environment or adapting to climate change. I would have been supportive if it had been demonstrated that the developments would deliver biodiversity net gain and local communities interests, but they have not. Where play equipment has been included in new housing, fences have severed off existing communities, so that there is no integration and residents still have no access to childrens equipment i.e. (Himley 'Meadows'). Developments have caused sustained nuisance in air (dust), water and noise nuisance pollution.
and noise pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 665

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janice Rowley

These proposals suggest a minimum number of dwellings. Experience has shown that eventual plans are far in excess of these figures and many areas have already been over-extended to the point they are becoming mini towns with overstretched amenities (schools etc) that cannot sustain these developments

Object

Representation ID: 668

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Middleton

- Seriously dangerous levels of road congestion and parking
- Heritage site destruction
- Regular flooding

Object

Representation ID: 672

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Knott

West of Wolverhampton is inappropriate given services and amenities. Significant risks from flooding and to nature.

Object

Representation ID: 684

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley

Reflecting our responses to Q2, Q5 and Q7 draft policy SA5 should include Site 369, or that part of it immediately to the west of Featherstone as a proposed allocation, or as a minimum safeguarded land.

Support

Representation ID: 688

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Jill Humphries

Agent: DBA Estates

Site ref. 255 - Land at Moor Lane, Pattingham. We support the allocation of this site for residential development. However, the subdivision of the field to create a 1 ha parcel is arbitrary and unjustified and fails to take into account the site's characteristics. It would also leave a small parcel of agricultural land surrounded by development on three sides. We consider the whole of this field should be allocated, particularly as Pattingham has good sustainability credentials for a Tier 3 village. The site is available and capable of being developed in the early years of the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 698

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Baggott

As previously commented there are also missed opportunities with regard to the allocation of smaller sites within defined settlement boundaries, such as Acton Trussell, which can provide a valuable boost to housing supply and deliverability, often being capable of being developed quickly.

Object

Representation ID: 700

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Stacey Macklin

I feel that no greenbelt should be considered for expansion. I don't believe that any of the Kinver sites are suitable. In particular 272 and 576, since they are fairly small, and therefore there is limited gain from significant destruction of greenbelt land. Site 274 makes the most sense to me in Kinver since it is a significant site, however, there would be destruction of the recreational land that leads via off-road footpaths to Kinver Edge. Infrastructure in the area would not cope. Potter's Cross junction is poor with limited visibility due to parked cars. Traffic would increase significantly here.

Support

Representation ID: 701

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Rachel Edwards

Agent: DBA Estates

Site ref. 614 - Land to the north of Back Lane, Wheaton Aston. The Housing Site Selection Topic Paper noted that "there are insufficient opportunities within the development boundary to deliver the infrastructure-led strategy identified for Wheaton Aston and therefore development in the surrounding Open Countryside will be required". Our client's site (site ref. 614) abuts the built up area of Wheaton Aston and is also adjacent to the proposed allocation of part of site ref. 379. Whilst recognising the current issue with access, we consider the LPA has failed to consider the potential for collaboration between adjacent land owners.

Support

Representation ID: 702

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Grade Planning

Site 016 is a highly sustainable site, close to shops, services and open space, on safeguarded land, not Green Belt. Following a pre-application meeting with the Council, an indicative layout has been prepared (attached) showing the minimum 39 units allowed by the allocation, with improved access from Stafford Road, new links to existing rights of way and open space, with a compliant housing mix and complying with residential amenity, parking and internal and external standards. However 39 units is considered too low density on this site as it equates to only approximately 26.5 dph and appears inconsistent with Policy HC2.

Support

Representation ID: 710

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Penk Valley Academy Trust

Penk Valley Academy Trust is supportive the proposed housing allocations in SA5 and would be willing and able to be the education provider of choice for any school provision required.

Object

Representation ID: 722

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Please refer to detailed comments.

Object

Representation ID: 729

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hankin

I do not support the inclusion of land South of Stafford (036c) because of the additional traffic it will generate particularly along Acton Hill Road through Acton Trussell and on the A34 as it enters Stafford. In addition loss of any farm land when alternative brown field site are available cannot be supported

Object

Representation ID: 744

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Timson

It is my contention that to develop site 610 as proposed would significantly damage both the heritage and the natural environment of Wheaton Aston and that a similar volume of housing could be delivered by minor adjustments to sites 379 and 426a/426b without incurring such damage. While I understand the pressure to provide new housing I feel strongly that this should be done in a way that minimises the collateral damage to the history and natural environment or our village.