Preferred Options November 2021

Object

Representation ID: 2930

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Save Kinver Greenbelt

4000 homes within the “Duty to cooperate” is too many.
Current population trends and statistics are in review.
Housing numbers for South Staffordshire are bias upward.
Used out of population trend data – these should be re-calculated.
Housing number should be reviewed in light of new information.
South staffs green fields should not be developed for ‘duty to cooperate’ housing. South staffs would have enough brownfield sites to meet local need if these were taken out of the plan and upward bias was removed from calculations.
GBHMA homes are intended for urban areas moving these homes to rural locations will increase carbon emissions.

Object

Representation ID: 2931

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Save Kinver Greenbelt

Release brownfield sites first.
Release green belt slowly to reduce green belt loss an planning blight in case demand does not materialise.
Small site policy does not constitute for the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 2932

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Save Kinver Greenbelt

Windfall allowance is too conservative.
There should be a policy on windfall allowance and adjustment in calculations, and during the Plan.
Not clear that all brownfield sites have been fully exploited in either GBHMA or South Staffordshire.
Kinver is Classed as a tier 2 village due to the presence of a secondary school however other services to not reflect this.
Information about Kinver services within the Plan are incorrect – there is no leisure centre, one small supermarket and one GP surgery.

Object

Representation ID: 2933

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Save Kinver Greenbelt

Objects to proposed developments in Kinver sites 272,274, 576

Allocating housing in Kinver is counter to national and SSDC policy of building in larger, well serviced centres to reduce carbon emission
Lack of public transport to local services/work
Flooding: effected by both river and storm flooding at both the high street and housing, the River Stour has not been included in the climate-change model. All proposed sites regulate flooding by absorbing rainfall.
Highway Issues: Increase traffic and (including the A449 Stewponey junction) – it’s already bad. How will this be mitigated with more residents and how will it be funded?
Expanding road systems to mitigate traffic could damage the appeal of the area.
Further exacerbate pinch points at Potters Cross and the High Street.
Objects to building on the green belt.
Urban sprawl – towards Stourbridge/Black Country.
Exceptional circumstances have not been presented to justify site selections.
2 sites do not have natural boundaries which incites sprawl (NPPF paragraphs 135,136).
All three sites contrary to NPPF paragraph 138 – green belt released to sites well services by public transport.
Loss of views from Kinver Edge.
Loss/Impact on wildlife, habitat, biodiversity, geodiversity and ecology.
By over-expanding Kinver, the sense of place is being lost.

Site 272 -
Create an urban view due to being situated on the crest of a rise.
Site adjoins a conservation area
Access and infrastructure for the site is not clear.
Flooding: raised site increased risk of flooding existing properties.

Site 576 -
Loss of arable land.
Development of this site would breech natural boundaries urban sprawl.
Extending visibility of Kinver North will damage green belt.
The shape of the development makes no sense as an adjunct to Kinver.
Flooding: would create storm water flows flooding the Hyde Lane.

Site 274 -
Critical part of the wildlife corridor and adjacent to National Trust/Kinver Edge.
Prime site for nature recovery.
Loss of green, recreational space.
Staffordshire Way footpath passes onto this site. Policy dictates that openness is maintained at such paths.