Publication Plan April 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6799

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We object to SA3 and consider that insufficient land has been provided to meet the excessively high housing land shortfall in the GBBCHMA and that Land at Cross Green should be included as a strategic development location. Details on exceptional circumstances, including an overview of the Green Belt Review undertaken by EDP can be found in the full representation. A significant amount of technical work has been prepared by Taylor Wimpey throughout the plan process to support the allocation of Cross Green and demonstrate its deliverability – details of this can be found in the full representation.

Object

Representation ID: 6800

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Cross Green
The site performs better overall, specifically against the economy and employment objectives, than the proposed allocation ‘Land East of Bilbrook’. Despite this, the justification for removing Cross Green is that “the site is not consistent with the Council’s preferred spatial strategy and the findings of the site assessment process do not indicate that the site performs so well as to warrant departing from the preferred strategy”. Appendix H of the SA states in the outline reasons for selection that “the site is considered to perform better than other site options and failing to consider such areas for development may result in an unsustainable pattern of development”. The Council has not justified the removal of the allocation and the implications of its removal on the delivery of key infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 6801

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Taylor Wimpey support the retention of the adopted ROF Featherstone allocation where the Plan includes the land (Cross Green) needed to deliver the access road. SSDC decision to remove the residential-led allocation at Cross Green and the implications on the delivery of ROF Featherstone site have not been considered within the evidence base which Taylor Wimpey objects to.

Comment

Representation ID: 6802

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Details on the history of ROF Featherstone and its allocation can be found in the full representation. SSDC’s removal of the Cross Green allocation makes no reference on the ROF Featherstone access being taken through the site and the potential implications on the delivery of ROF Featherstone. Taylor Wimpey support the re-allocation of ROF Featherstone where the draft allocation on Land at Cross Green is also included to deliver the highways infrastructure and homes to serve the jobs being created.

Object

Representation ID: 6828

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Spatial Option I fails to consider that there are settlements outside of the SSDC, on the edge of the Black Country, which are far more sustainable than the Tier 1 settlements assessed. Land north of Linthouse Lane is immediately adjacent to the urban area of Wolverhampton and is well related to existing development and facilities, with good public transport connections. The Spatial Strategy should be amended to reflect a strategy which is positively prepared and fully justified.

Object

Representation ID: 6829

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We object to SA3 and consider that Land North of Linthouse Lane should be included as a strategic development location. The site was identified in the 2022 Publication Plan to deliver residential-led growth and to meet the housing shortfall of the HMA. It was allocated to deliver a minimum of 1,200 homes, community hub, primary school, community park, sports pitches and infrastructure. Full details of the exceptional circumstances and site assessment comparison can be found in the full representation. The Council’s evidence continues to support the proposed allocation at Land North of Linthouse Lane and should be included in the 2024 Publication Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 7149

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

DS1 remains broadly consistent with the provisions of the NPPF. In reviewing the Green Belt, the previous iteration of the Plan accommodated a much larger number of allocations, this has been significantly reduced. Having been previously removed from the Green Belt and identified as safeguarded land, the proposed allocation of Pool House Road offers an excellent opportunity to deliver new homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 7150

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Taylor Wimpey supports the inclusion of a policy setting out the need for Green Belt compensation in relation to sites being removed from the Green Belt. However, the policy contains elements of ambiguity, and its practical application is unclear. The policy requires further clarification by identifying and naming which particular sites it is specifically intended to apply to.

Comment

Representation ID: 7151

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

It is noted that the Vision remains broadly the same as that presented in the Core Strategy – it remains relevant and is broadly supported. However, the Plan’s vision and objectives should be amended to reflect the need to meet both the present and future housing requirements, including those pressures arising through the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities, in particular the GBBCHMA. There needs to be greater emphasis placed on a Vision which is locally relevant and picks up the key issues and challenges.

Comment

Representation ID: 7152

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Strategic Objective 2 could be strengthened in meeting the needs of both existing and new residents of the District and GBBCHMA. In determining what is considered to be a proportionate contribution to the HMA’s unmet housing needs, SSDC must ensure specific consideration has been given to the district’s ability to make a substantially larger contribution, and greater recognition should be given to Tier 2 and 3 settlements.