Preferred Options November 2021

Support

Representation ID: 2096

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: First City Limited

Policy DS1 - Green Belt is of similar direction as both National and the current planning policy for Green Belt. Welcome the proposal for a separate GB SPD to be prepared which will take into consideration the latest updates in the NPPF.

Disappointed the land at Cherringam, Wightwick has not been selected as a proposed allocation in the Local Plan Review and remains in the Green Belt. The site should be allocated for residential development in the plan or as a minimum released from the Green Belt and identified as safe guarding land for future development into he next Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 2097

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: First City Limited

Land at Cherringham has the ability to fulfil the DS3 principal aim. The site is located within a sustainable location on the edge of the built up area within minimum constraints that could not be mitigated for as part of the overall scheme of the site.

Support

Representation ID: 2098

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: First City Limited

Empahsis there should be an increase on safeguarding of site on the edge of the built up areas to cater for future developments needed.

The proposed new settlement will require a significant level of investment and infrastructure. Concerns into the realistic timeframes in which it will take to deliver a new settlement and therefore there should be the allocation of safeguarded land to cater for future development needs beyond the plan period that can be delivered at a quicker rate and offer an alterative strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 2099

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: First City Limited

Disagreement to supporting the proposed housing allocation in Policy SA5.

Disapointment to see site 260: Land at Cherringham, Wightwick has not been allocated as a residential site in the Local Plan.

Require further explanation into the comments in the Housing Site Selection Topic Paper Appendix 3 - Site Proformas in connection to site 260.

The site has access to pedestrian footways into the wider urban area and therefore should not be seen as a constrain of the site. The site has not been used in the past and is currently not used as agricultural land so this should be consideration and listed as a constraint of the site.

There are a number of trees along the boundary of the site which are covered by a TPO however, the proposed access poiunt to the site has been designed to create the least amount of impact. Do not consider the proposed access arrangments would result in loss of more than a maxiumum of three trees. The majority of the region is identified as a mineral safeguarding area and therfore should not be seen as a constrain of the site.

Concerns into the Council's summary fails to indicate any significant constrains of the site that cannot be mitigated for and contradiction in the summary and to the evidence bas and Duty to Co-operate.

Disagreement into the Sustainability Appraisal regarding site 260 to being considered unsustainable for future development. Emphasis that the site should have been considered a score of Minor negative not Major negative against the Landscape matrix.

Comparison of sites against the Sustainability Appraisal where site 260 is emphasized to be scored at a lower rating.

Site 260 should be allocated for residential development alongside or instead of site 582 to provide two allocations along the western edge of the Black Country or in the very least should be allocated as safeguarding land for future development for the next Local Plan Review.

Support

Representation ID: 2100

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: First City Limited

HC1 - Agreement with the need to provide a greater number of 2 and 3 bedrooms properties however each development should be accessed on a case by case basis with the merits of each proposal taken into consideration.

Concerns into the level of flexibility which should be applied to the mix to ensure diversity and relevant all development looking the same and lacking distinctiveness.

Support

Representation ID: 2101

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: First City Limited

Polices DS1 - DS4 and SA1 - SA7 represent policies which are limited to those necessary to address the strategic priorities of the area providing a starting point for any non- strategic policies that are needed as defined by NPPF.

Do not consider SA1- SA4 should be included as strategic policies as they are fairly detailed policies.