Question 10

Support

Representation ID: 2052

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Four Ashes Limited

Agent: Mr Mark McFadden

FAL supports the principle of the allocation of the site for Class B8 employment floorspace at WMI and its removal from the West Midlands Green Belt. FAL queries the allocation of 297 hectares (ha.) of Class B8. employment land, given that circa. 36% of the site area is reserved for green infrastructure, and much of the green infrastructure is proposed to remain within the West Midlands Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 2053

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Four Ashes Limited

Agent: Mr Mark McFadden

FAL proposes wording at para 25 to remove reference to a specific area of land and instead refer to floorspace, so that it is clear how much of the District’s employment land/floorspace requirement is to be satisfied by delivery at WMI.
FAL proposes wording amendments to clarify Policy SA7.
FAL also proposes that the table in Draft Policy SA7 is amended to reflect the area of 232.5ha rather than 297ha of Class B8 employment area, as 297Ha relates to the total site area rather than the total area available for employment development.

Support

Representation ID: 2054

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Four Ashes Limited

Agent: Mr Mark McFadden

It is understood that Staffordshire County Council and South Staffordshire District Council members have raised queries regarding the ability for WMI to also accommodate high-quality manufacturing development.
As this would constitute Class E(g)(iii) / Class B2 General Industrial development, this would not currently be able to accommodate such development. At the time of the Order’s Examination in Public, alternative sites such as i54 at City of Wolverhampton/South Staffordshire District were preferred locations for advanced manufacturing uses. However, it is understood that i54 expansion land is nearly fully committed / let out, and therefore permitting Class Eg)(iii) / Class B2 uses as part of Draft Policy SA7 allocation would not divert inward investment from i54 as a location for advance manufacturing.

Object

Representation ID: 2055

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Four Ashes Limited

Agent: Mr Mark McFadden

FAL proposes the revision(s) to the proposed site boundary / Green Belt boundary as shown in draft Local Plan Appendix E in Appendix C of this document. It is considered that parts of the site currently within the proposed new Green Belt boundary do not perform Green Belt purposes as defined in NPPF para 138.

Proposes a number of changes to the Green Belt boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 2057

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Bericote Properties Limited

Agent: Quod

Local Plan provides an opportunity to deliver expansion land at Four Ashes. Sites have limited Green Belt impact and a free from constraints besides trees which are ageing and have non statutory protection. Current supply relies heavily on WMI which meets a national need, with the expansion land meeting a completely different need. Following completion of WMI the expansion land will be completely surrounded by built development. Development could result in 170-225 FTE construction jobs and 570 – 1,160 FTE jobs once operational,

Support

Representation ID: 2074

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: ST FRANCIS GROUP

Agent: Mr Simon Chadwick

General support for the principle of allocation of the WMI site but this should take place alongside delivery of other good quality employment land so that there is not an over-reliance on the WMI site coming forward that could result in difficulties if delivery of that site is delayed.

Object

Representation ID: 2273

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Ted Berry

Concerns regarding proposed housing development in Wombourne due to the preservation of the green belt land and the character which creates the village.

Support

Representation ID: 2333

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Dr R Painter

Location has appropriate transport links.

Support

Representation ID: 2518

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Ms Shellee Phipps

Supports SA7 allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 3001

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr C Stonehouse

WMI is a major issue to the growth of Penkridge - effecting both community and infrastructure.
WMI has not been address in the IDP.
Centre of Penkridge should not be a major transport corridor for the M6 and alternatives should be considered.
Introducing a new spine to the village and changing the priorities in the village centre - safe passage of pedestrians, cyclists, parking and local traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 3175

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Dunphy

Some understanding of required employment opportunities that will be required as a result of this development

Support

Representation ID: 3558

Received: 12/07/2022

Respondent: Suan Lawson

-

Object

Representation ID: 3652

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mr V Kelly

WMI is a major issue to the growth of Penkridge.
WMI will effect the community and infrastructure of Penkridge and surround.
Alternatives to the A449 leading to the M6 should be considered. - Western Spine Road and changing priorities of the village centre.

Support

Representation ID: 3905

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Tarmac

Whilst Tarmac is generally supportive of the proposed allocation in Policy SA7 and the delivery of upper land requirements for both industrial and residential uses. Due consideration should be given by the council in its local plan preparation to allow existing employment sites such as the Hilton Main Industrial Estate to intensify and diversify the uses found on the site to meet market demands. Where it can be shown that amenity impacts are not affected extended operational working hours should be supported to enable businesses to meet the strategic objectives of the plan.