Question 10

Support

Representation ID: 753

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs R Groom

I agree with the proposed allocation, subject to this not being the development of greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 820

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

More employment land needs to be allocated to meet the substantial supply shortfall in the Black Country

Object

Representation ID: 840

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

The Secretary of State has granted development consent for the West Midlands Interchange, and the area includes green infrastructure. The project, however, has not been assessed in terms of biodiversity net gain, which will be mandatory for all sites including major infrastructure projects. We would recommend that before allocation, it should be determined whether the proposals would provide a 10% net gain, and whether any additional provisions may be required alongside the allocation to achieve this.

Object

Representation ID: 843

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Williams

Stick to current brown field sites

Support

Representation ID: 863

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Daker

But please make sure these create jobs for local people not for commuters from the West Midlands

Support

Representation ID: 884

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Cannock Chase Council

Support the proposed employment allocation of the West Midlands Interchange

Object

Representation ID: 922

Received: 22/12/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Potential air quality impacts on designated sites.
Close proximity to Four Ashes Pit SSSI
Loss of priority habitat - deciduous woodland.

Support

Representation ID: 947

Received: 01/02/2022

Respondent: Highways England

As no additional employment sites are identified above additional supply a transport evidence base for employment sites is not required.

Support

Representation ID: 964

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Gavin Williamson CBE MP

Given the Secretary of State’s decision on Monday May 4th 2020, it is correct for the WMI to be allocated as employment land for South Staffordshire. However, I do have extensive suggestions for how this allocation should affect the district council’s plans for its other proposed employment sites and I have outlined these in detail in my response to question 8.

Support

Representation ID: 1043

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Acres Land & Planning

General support for the formalisation of WMI.
The policy will need to consider its impact upon housing demand and emerging need for affordable housing.

Support

Representation ID: 1053

Received: 08/02/2022

Respondent: Staffordshire County Council

P27 – SCC was an active participant in the DCO process and agreed the necessary transport mitigation at that stage

Support

Representation ID: 1069

Received: 08/02/2022

Respondent: Cannock Chase AONB

In considering remaining details for the development the authority is requested to fully take account of enhancing mitigation for detrimental effects on the AONB.

Object

Representation ID: 1092

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Lilactame Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

An additional employment policy should be developed to specifically steer new development at the Wolverhampton Airport site. This represents a unique opportunity to foster aviation related employment at a site already established
as suitable for such a role.There is a need for additional investment at the site which could be achieved through introducing an additional employment allocation which would allow for enabling residential development to facilitate investment.

Object

Representation ID: 1246

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Table 9 employment sites don't have site reference number - have these been assessed?
Site E33 - Additional information required to enable assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 1293

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Goldfinch TPS

Agent: Goldfinch TPS

Goldfinch TPS view the proposed planning policy SA7 are developed through out of date data and insufficient technical evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 1313

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: J Holt & Sons

Agent: Spawforths

Concerned that the current approach does not provide a flexible framework for securing the provision of employment land, and to ensure sufficient choice of sites. Concerns with regards to the evidence base that underpins the identification of employment sites in Table 9.

Land at Junction 13 of the M6 Motorway should be allocated for Employment Use.

Object

Representation ID: 1505

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Rigby Estates LLP

Number of people: 2

Agent: Frank Whittle Partnership Limited

Land to the north and west of Dunston Garden Village site (SHELAA site refs: 588, 027 and 487, E30), given an "amber" score but was not allocated however, topic paper concludes confirmation the site is suitable location for distribution on logistics development and could deliver employment.

Support

Representation ID: 1570

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Babb

Support

Support

Representation ID: 1633

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Jaguar Land Rover UK

Agent: WSP

Yes. Support Policy SA7.
Available land for employment development mentioned within the description should be moved to the policy text. The inclusion of the i54 site within the draft Local Plan policy will ensure that previous employment land allocations are supported and reinforced.

Support

Representation ID: 1748

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips Land Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Yes. St Philips supports the Council’s proposed allocation in draft Policy SA7. It is entirely logical to rationalise the consented WMI within the emerging Local Plan Review and remove it from the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 1764

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips Land Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Yes. St Philips supports the Council’s proposed allocation in draft Policy SA7. It is entirely logical to rationalise the consented WMI within the emerging Local Plan Review and remove it from the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 1776

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Support the proposed allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 1820

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes Ltd

Agent: Marrons Planning

Concerns raised due to the limitations and lack of information on the Hansen mapping exercise which was undertaken. Assessments should recognise the availability of employment opportunities within an area that may be accessible by sustainable means other than by public transport and also opportunities to develop or provide additional public sustainable transport.

Object

Representation ID: 1823

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Evall Management ltd

Agent: Mr Joe Nugent

Site 649 (Essington Quarry, Bognop Road) has direct access to the strategic road network - M54 and A460 and is in close proximity to strategic employment sites such as i54.
Whole or part allocation of site 649 (Essington Quarry, Bognop Road) will form a natural extension to two exisitng employment sites.
Site 649 (Essington Quarry, Bognop Road) provides opportunity for sustainable and accessible employment land at an established location with vehicular access possible off Hilton Main Industrial Estate or via existing commercial access at Bognop Road.
Site 649 (Essington Quarry, Bognop Road) is considered to fall within the classification of PDL as defined by the NPPF with mineral reserves identified to be extracted within the immediate future, thus releasing the site for development.
Allocation of site 649 (Essington Quarry, Bognop Road) for employment purposes does not conflict with any of the five purposes of GB as provided by the NPPF.
Established sites at J1, M54 are seperated from broader urban area and do not form large built-up area; unrestricted sprawl would not occur.
Site 649 (Essington Quarry, Bognop Road) should be assessed for its contribution to employment land needs.
Omission of question relating to employment allocations in Table 9 removes the ability for responses to these allocations. This is considered to render this part of the consultation unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 1844

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Peveril Securities ltd.

Agent: Mr Simon Chadwick

Hilton Cross should be extended due to the low quantity of remaining land and will complement the WMI and ROF proposals.
To ensure a range and choice of employment sites, Land South of Hilton Cross extension should allocated for E(i), (ii), (iii) employment purposes with new road access from the A460 and defensible boundaries established between the site and GB by existing road/tracks and tree belts.

Support

Representation ID: 1854

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

Yes. St Philips supports the Council’s proposed allocation in draft Policy SA7. It is entirely logical to rationalise the consented WMI within the emerging Local Plan Review and remove it from the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 1933

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Lichfields

Richborough supports the Council’s proposed allocation in draft Policy SA7. It is entirely logical to rationalise the consented WMI within the emerging Local Plan Review and remove it from the Green Belt. Indeed, the adjoining Four Ashes Industrial Estate is already inset from the Green Belt, and such an approach would align with this.

Support

Representation ID: 1950

Received: 29/03/2022

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Note the retention of the canal Conservation Area within the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 1971

Received: 01/04/2022

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

WMI will have dramatic effects on Penkridge this needs to be reflected in the IDP policy. A449 should not be retained as a major transport corridor, consider a new spine road to the west.

Support

Representation ID: 1997

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: UKPI (Featherstone) Ltd

Agent: First City Limited

No objections to the proposed employment sites set out in the policy SA7 - Employment Allocation - West Midlands Interchange.