Publication Plan April 2024

Support

Representation ID: 6321

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Generally support the text in paragraph 5.14 confirming the spatial approach as Spatial Option I.
Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay are Tier 1 settlements that independently and jointly offer a wide range of community services and facilities, in a highly accessible location. They represent a logical and sustainable location for housing growth.
Support the settlement hierarchy approach and spatial strategy in Policy DS5.

Comment

Representation ID: 6322

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Factors other than walking distance of railway stations should be taken into account and suggest that accessibility to employment opportunities and more particularly the proximity to schools and other community services are just as important when assessing "sustainability".

Support

Representation ID: 6323

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Site 139 - Pool View
Site 139 was scrutinised and endorsed by the Council and the Inspector through the SAD and was subsequently removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing.
Circumstances have not changed since the allocation and it therefore remains wholly appropriate that the allocation should be retained and carried forward in the emerging Local Plan. We fully support and endorse its continued allocation which will be delivered in the early part of the plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 6324

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Note that the latest SHMA identifies an affordable housing requirement of around 28% in the North-Eastern Locality 3, nevertheless we support the proposed affordable housing target of 30%.

Object

Representation ID: 6325

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Health infrastructure is rightly funded through the NHS and we are concerned that the potential requirements for financial contributions to the Integrated Care Board represents nothing more than another 'roof tax' on new housing.
The implication is that provision of new homes will add to demands on health infrastructure that cannot otherwise be funded. The Local Plan is primarily to meet local housing needs. The requirement implies that all future residents will be new to the area when the opposite is true - the majority of occupiers, especially first-time buyers and the elderly, are likely to be living in the area and therefore will not necessarily create additional pressures.
The NHS has the responsibility to fund and provide care for residents of development and therefore it is unclear how a developer can legally be required to contribute to the funding of NHS care that is entirely unrelated to the development - (R. (on the application of University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust v Harborough DC) [2023] EWHC 263.

Object

Representation ID: 6326

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We do not consider that there is a clear and compelling evidence base to require carbon reduction measures over and above those introduced by the Government's recent changes to Building Regulations Part L and its proposals for the Future Homes Standard. A Written Ministerial Statement "the Government do not expect plan-makers to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planning building regulations."
We strongly object to Policy NB6A which we consider is not justified and will detrimentally impact on the viability and deliverability of new housing.

Object

Representation ID: 6408

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Huntington is a Tier 2 settlement in the plan. However, the level of development apportioned to Huntington in Table 8 of the plan is only 41 dwellings is significantly less development than other Tier 2 settlements within the plan and even less than the Tier 3 settlements of Coven and Featherstone.We recognise that the AONB is a constraint, but there are potential options for development that would have a limited impact upon the AONB.

Given that we are now more than a decade on from the completion of the Littleton Colliery site, and bearing in mind the very low level of development provided in Huntington since that period, it is necessary to reconsider the future approach for Huntington, reflecting its status as a Tier 2 settlement and to ensure local needs are met. Huntington is therefore capable of accomodating higher levels of housing growth.

Object

Representation ID: 6411

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Seabridge Development Limited

Agent: Emery Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Our client proposes an omission site for allocation (land north of Sycamore Way, Huntington).The site is currently in equine use and comprises stables, a manege and paddocks.

The site is PDL as the operation of the stables, manege and paddocks are physically and functionally related to one another, and the use of the existing buildings is intrinsically linked to the operation and use of the paddocks. In line with para 147 of the NPPF, As the site comprises previously developed land, it should be given first consideration for release. It is considered that
the development of the site would have little if any impact on the purposes of the Green Belt. We propose that an allocation of the site for approximately 50-60 dwellings would not comprise major development in the AONB for the purposes of paragraph 183 of the Framework, Furthermore, taking into account the existing topography and the potential for an appropriately designed scheme including landscaping, the development of the site would not have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated as an AONB. Without prejudice to the above, should it be considered that a proposed allocation would comprise major development within the AONB, we consider that exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated, in terms of the need for the proposed development and the limited impact that it would have upon the AONB.

Huntington is a highly sustainable settlement with a wide range of services an excellent bus services to Cannock and Stafford. No technical constraints exist which could not be adequately addressed or mitigated as part of the proposed development. The site is suitable, achievable and available, and would be deliverable in the short term. It is capable of delivering dwellings to meet South Staffordshire’s housing needs and those of the wider GBBCHMA. We therefore respectfully request that it is considered a new allocation through the Local Plan Review. Alternatively, if the site is not allocated in the current Local Plan Review, we request that it is considered
for an allocation through the next plan review.