Preferred Options November 2021

Object

Representation ID: 613

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

It's not possible to judge the adequacy of provision from these documents. There's no detailed plan. Of concern to us are the effects on the A449 Stewponey junction at Stourton; and on the road system and drainage system in Kinver.
Timescale is not described - will the infrastructure be provided in time?

Object

Representation ID: 617

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Mostly reasonable.
Objective 2: sustainable is used too widely with variable and malleable meaning.
Objective 12: Resilience to Climate Change is essential, but won't be enough unless we have strong, detailed mitigation policies and implement them.Renewables are a good start, we also need a retrofit policy and new homes to standards that will not need retrofit. And include location/transport etc . This policy is not wide ranging or quantitified enough.

Object

Representation ID: 641

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

The policy on Green Belt release is too lax, and does not prove 'exceptional circumstances' as required by the NPPF.
If the ‘need to cooperate’ were removed/reduced and South Staffs 'housing need' calculations were reviewed to remove upward bias, the need to take green field and green belt could be drastically reduced. Second, the use of existing brown field or previously developed land (in South Staffs and GBHMA) is underestimated. In South Staffs, smaller sites where one house is replaced by 2 or more provide a large amount of housing which is ignored.
See document by Gerald Kells, attached.

Object

Representation ID: 644

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

The strategy sounds plausible but is being applied in ways which defeat its intention.
Villages are described as having services, when these may be very limited.
In the case of Kinver, the lack of services, (no public transport usable to commute to work; inadequate health services; no leisure centre; no large supermarket etc) means car ownership is essential, defeating the aim of 'placing housing close to services and infrastructure'. There could be alternative locations closer to amenities and centres of work (e.g. at the edge of South Staffs) but are missed by the policy's inflexibility.

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: 652

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Policies SA1 to SA7 are detailed policies allocating plots of land for development. The level of detail is inappropriate for a strategic policy. Therefore we do not agree that policies SA1 to SA7 are strategic in nature.