Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 5942

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

SHELAA 2023 identifies Site 274b within HEA area of particular sensitivity and it is unclear how this will be mitigated. Further constraints on the site include ProWs running through site; important GI providing linking corridor between Kinver Edge and rural surroundings; adjoins National Trust land and closely connected by woodland to SSSI Kinver Edge; is within habitat corridor between areas of lowland health; views to Kinver Edge and Potters Cross Farm; and issues of access and impact on road pedestrian safety due to increased population.

Comment

Representation ID: 5943

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

The build-out of site 274 will put additional strain on services and cause a substantial increase in car travel meaning the site is not sustainable. Lack of practical public transport means Kinver is an unsustainable location for growth. Doctors surgery is already close to capacity and the sport and recreation facilities are limited with the sport centre having limited opening hours.

Windfall developments in Kinver is substantial compared to the district average - consider that the method for arriving at housing need in the plan undervalues windfall developments.

Support a creative approach to specialist housing provision.

We welcome the emphasis on use of brownfield sites, and would welcome further clarification of the approach to redevelopment and repurposing of redundant buildings and brownfield sites outside the settlement boundary, which may be overwashed by greenbelt but provide potentially useful sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5944

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

When applying site assessment factors consistantly Site 274b would not be considered favourable for development. If the site is developed these factors would require careful consideration and mitigation: Land is prominent from Kinver Edge. Site is in an area of strategic importance to strengthen links between KInver Edge and Highgate Common being one of the narrower parts of the Heathland Habitat Connectivity Opportunity Area. Protection of hedgerows trees and the boundary with adjacent green spaces is vital. Site would create urban surroundings along the Staffordshire Way. Site would see the loss of a recreation/walking area. Site will see increase in car journeys and walking and cycling provision is currently poor. Scale of development would not result in additional infrastructure. Should monitor impact of site 274a in relation to highway safety before any further development takes place.

Comment

Representation ID: 5945

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

As a tier 2 settlement housing should fit the local semi-rural character. The AECOM design codes developed for the Kinver Neighbourhood Plan make clear that typical housing density locally to the site is at most 20 dwellings/ha, and lower towards the village fringes. Policy HC2 should make reference to the design policies in the Kinver Neighbourhood Plan which refer to degree of set back, pattern of place and other characteristics that are reflective of typical housing density design in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 5946

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

The HNA prepared for the Kinver Neighbourhood Plan points up the increasing need for specialist housing. There is a need for housing with additional support and flexibility, providing different tiers and types of care provision, on-site facilities, and transport, to cater for greater dependency. Large brownfield sites away from village boundary locations could meet these specific care needs and provide local employment.

Comment

Representation ID: 5947

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

We are concerned that the provision of open space in new developments should be on-site, since contributions for off-site facilities are unlikely to be sufficient to purchase land and create such facilities, nor is there normally appropriate space available in the immediate vicinity of developments. Any offsite provision will therefore be inaccessible to the new communities created, and inadequate.

Comment

Representation ID: 5948

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Policy could be strengthened and made more specific, noting that there is no mention of local green spaces in the plan. LGS designation is the only protection which takes account the value local people attach to a site and is the only protection truly site specific. This is clearly a missed opportunity, and policy enhancement should be linked to Biodiversity Net Gain projects.

Comment

Representation ID: 5949

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

While we welcome this policy, we believe it should contain explicit reference to cooperation with adjacent authorities, notably the Combined Authority, since so many settlements (including Kinver) have their main or only public transport links to the conurbation, rather than to other parts of Staffordshire.

We also consider that the LCWIP should include more focus on smaller settlements, for whom good cycling routes could provide a credible alternative to car travel when public transport is inadequate

Comment

Representation ID: 5950

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

It is disappointing that BNG has not been set beyond the minimum, for example to 20%.

Comment

Representation ID: 5951

Received: 23/05/2024

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

We welcome the support expressed for renewable and sustainable energy. We are however surprised that there is no mention of specific support and encouragement of rooftop solar, which is less hampered by infrastructure inadequacies.