Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6030

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

005 Cherrybrook is contentious with concerns regarding access, flooding and overdevelopment in view of its close proximity to the M6.

Comment

Representation ID: 6031

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

In the present Review of the Local Plan it is proposed that some future housing growth may be inevitable/acceptable for the next period 2028 to 2039 but only in a reasonable and well planned manner .
This should include the 224 dwellings stated above with the benefit of planning permissions and also the possibility of approximately 160 dwellings from sites 005 and 006 making a total of 380 dwellings, which may be considered acceptable to the community to 2038.

The Bloor and Cameron sites are an examples of piecemeal development and have not been designed or approved with the benefit of a Masterplan to incorporate the developments in an appropriate manner to fit in with existing Community and services of Penkridge. This leads to concerns about the possibility of allowing piecemeal development of the future land.
The design of a Masterplan should include the centre of the village at its core.
Any future housing developments around Penkridge should be designed to provide safe access and adequate cohesion with the Village centre .

Comment

Representation ID: 6032

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

A proposal by SCC to promote some land in their ownership for future housing to the west of Penkridge -
this land may include a Spine road running from the South with a connection from the A449 near Gailey to connect back to the A449 near Lower Drayton Lane to the North of Penkridge.

The site 010 may be affected by this proposed route. Therefore the design of any Masterplan for the area should reserve this part of the route. Although it is suggested that traffic from the WMI may be constrained from using the A449, this will be of little effect should the M6 be shut and all traffic is diverted through Penkridge, which is a very regular occurrence. A new spine road would give an alternative relief for the centre of Penkridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 6033

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

Any new housing should connect with the village with alternative routes for roads, if possible, or at least alternative routes and links for footpaths and cycleways being designed and provided.
There is a possible route for an alternative link from land to the north of Penkridge via a new bridge across the River Penk and the flood plain to the east toward the Teddesley Road and to connect to the schools and the Village Centre.
There are concerns that any development on the west side of the A449, to the north, will not have adequate and safe crossings and safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists to the Village centre, without following in close proximity to the busy and potentially dangerous A449 highway.

There are concerns that increased traffic from the new dwellings may not be able find parking in the village centre for shopping and also at the Rail Station, which is now a major user in the region, mainly by non- residents of Penkridge to commute to work elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 6034

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Neighbourhood Plan review policy for the provision has been changed. The open space requirements have been reduced to 0.006ha from 0.01ha per dwelling.
This effectively nearly halves the provision of amenity and usable open space and green spaces throughout all the new estates. It will also have the potential of the increase the density of the proposed housing delivery. It will certainly have the effect of reducing the openness of the future housing estates.

The Local Plan review does not take seriously the opportunity to allocate the river flood plain areas as new open space/ parkland from the north – toward the Village centre connecting the previous River Park on the Teddesley Road/The Roller Mill in 2001. And to the west to Cuttlestone Bridge on Pinfold Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 6035

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

Wind turbines and the Anaerobic Digester are established. There now appears to be the opportunity to preserve the countryside with the proposals for Solar energy.

Comment

Representation ID: 6036

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

Travellers Site A449
There are concerns that the site is to made permanent this has already been rejected since 2009 and should continue to be part of the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 6037

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land South of Stafford A34 Acton Hill – site 582
This land is for Stafford Borough Council overspill and it an unsuitable intrusion into the Open Countryside.
It is not connected to the villages of Penkridge or Acton Trussell and therefore unconnected to all the village services.
The opportunity to discuss the bigger picture of how and what should be available for delivery in the future growth of Penkridge should not be missed at this time.

Comment

Representation ID: 6038

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

The Local Plan Review does not include consideration of land to the west. The land beyond the Railway already has some development to the west. There are services already available within close reach of the village, there appears to be land available for future growth of the village to the west which should be considered for growth after 2038, without the need to set up new communities at Dunston or Gailey.

Comment

Representation ID: 6039

Received: 28/05/2024

Respondent: Penkridge Parish Council

The WMI is identified as a major employment site. This in turn will create major traffic movements in and through Penkridge and for users of the existing village centre services.

The Local Plan review does not show any other small scale sites for commercial development in Penkridge, although the availability for such sites may also be possible on land to the west of Penkridge.
There are also concerns about the provision of adequate Doctors’ services with the growth of the population.

The Local Plan review does not show any justifiable and sustainable development for retail development community use or and possible a sustainable school site. The design of any masterplan will need to show more detail before acceptance by the community. Or should the existing retail and school provisions be extended.