Question 10

Object

Representation ID: 11

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

new developments have to move out of the towns and cities in shape of complex with internal facilities which will let people to be more local , reducing the load of traffics and creating more jobs and employment and saving people a lot in terms of travelling cost and travelling time which is very precious .

Support

Representation ID: 20

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Ms M Collins

No comment

Object

Representation ID: 42

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Whale

Leave the green belt alone

Object

Representation ID: 79

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr James Aust

I fully disagree with the proposed plans to build more houses in Wombourne

Object

Representation ID: 102

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Imms

If this proposal on green belt land then of course I will object for all the reasons given previously

Support

Representation ID: 115

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Griss

If it doesn't effect Wombourne as there's no space ....then I say yes.

Support

Representation ID: 141

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Flavell

.

Object

Representation ID: 177

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Graystone

Building on green field sites is not acceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 207

Received: 20/11/2021

Respondent: Mr David Jackson

Yes, but none is anywhere near the Stafford housing development.

This policy ignores this whilst championing sustainability.

Support

Representation ID: 250

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex Fenlon

Yes - providing green parkway between Park and Ride at brinsford and WMI

Object

Representation ID: 263

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Jones

There is no provision for Wombourne here following the appalling decision to sell most of the enterprise park to a supermarket. Wombourne has one of the highest populations of all the settlements in SSDC and one of the lowest employment provision opportunities

Object

Representation ID: 267

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr L Wildman

Site E33
I oppose this major development due to its sheer scale and impact upon the local countryside and surrounding road infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 276

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Hughes

Additional employment opportunities are always welcomed with key access routes being available

Support

Representation ID: 298

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

No comment

Object

Representation ID: 311

Received: 26/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Kirsty Shaw

Use it for mixed residential and employment not just employment

Object

Representation ID: 319

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Jacquie Leach

68% of employment will be in the Penkridge/Gailey and Four Ashes area. This huge concentration will have a big impact on the roads coming in out of these villages. Once again NO road infrastructure has been considered. Traffic will be coming in via the M6, A5 and A449. The A449 runs through a densely populated area with no provision for existing residents, for example reducing air and noise pollution. Alternative transport is also limited and needs huge investment. A bypass needs to be in place before development takes place.

Object

Representation ID: 324

Received: 28/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Beaman

There’s significant over-emphasis for development/further extension on/around the area north of the M54, Junction 1 and 2.
Nearly 50% of the overall Housing Requirements arise from the amount added to meet unfulfilled West Midlands needs, yet provision is focussed around this one broad area. Any “overspill will have family/friends employment ties to other parts of West Midlands.
This area already has large employment sites with other developments planned/underway and the plan to expand this further is excessive in the extreme.
Infrastructure and Facilities will not support the plans, which collectively do not represent what I thought South Staffordshire is about.

Object

Representation ID: 343

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Butler

Who does support the West Midlands freight interchange?

Object

Representation ID: 366

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: Nicola Dixon

Removing Leanne from the greenbelt should be illegal and would be frowned upon by future generations, as it were should be. This development is a vanity project and money making scheme should not be allowed

Object

Representation ID: 376

Received: 05/12/2021

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association (IWA)

IWA was and remains opposed to the West Midlands Interchange which will have damaging impacts on the environment and users of the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal and the setting of its Conservation Area. However, IWA recognises that now the plans have been approved by Government, SSDC has little option but to remove the development zones from the Green Belt, but we support retaining in the Green Belt the land specified for Green Infrastructure provision adjacent to the Canal Conservation Area and the country park to the south of Vicarage Road.

Support

Representation ID: 411

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Lichfield & Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust

We accept that the WMI project now has support from Central Government and will go ahead. We welcome the land around it will be Green Belt and the protection of the corridor around the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal to which the Hatherton Canal connects. We support the creation of a direct vehicular link from the M6 into the WMI as an opportunity to create a culvert under the M6 for the Hatherton Canal. We are seeking to engage with National Highways regarding creation of the culvert needed under the M6 for the Hatherton Canal and Heritage Towpath Trail

Object

Representation ID: 452

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Manton

This whole WMI is wrong - You should ALL be ashamed !

Support

Representation ID: 505

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Parsons

I back the proposal

Support

Representation ID: 521

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: DOCTOR Prabhjoyt Kler

Along with increase in employment there needs to be increase in solar panels, green access sites, e.g. distant parking and for commuters to cycle or electric buses between sites.

Object

Representation ID: 539

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mr R Gidlow

use brown field sites first

Object

Representation ID: 553

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Toni Proverbd

Housing needs have been met with several developments in Essington. The village is semi rural and this will be completely destroyed with the loss of green belt and the addition of 2500 houses at linthouse Lane. The surrounding villages are already swamped with traffic and there are insufficient local amenities. further housing and traffic will not help. There are few local amenities in the area, there is a limited bus service, schools are already over subscribed. The loss of green belt land will be detrimental to health and the natural environment will be lost for every and sacrificed for greed

Support

Representation ID: 570

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: R Simner

If it has to happen then concentrating it into one large(r) single area seems appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 598

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mr G Jordan

No if it means building on green belt land.

Support

Representation ID: 712

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Penk Valley Academy Trust

No further comment

Object

Representation ID: 735

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Nurton Developments Ltd

Agent: JLL

Please find attached our response. This provides also a bullet point summary.