Publication Plan November 2022

Support

Representation ID: 4135

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

We welcome the council’s recognition of the climate emergency. However we feel that it should be more strongly embedded in all policies.
In particular, increasing housing in areas with few jobs and poor transport links inevitably increases energy use and carbon emissions.

Object

Representation ID: 4136

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

You state that larger villages (including Kinver) contain facilities eg leisure centres, commercial and employment areas. Kinver does not at present have a leisure centre, and has no proper employment areas. You also state that you are locating housing in areas with transport links. Kinver’s transport links are inadequate for accessing work or further study. Locating housing in areas with limited transport and employment will increase carbon emissions, contrary to your policy.

Support

Representation ID: 4137

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

Please update this information. Kinver have submitted their plan for regulation 16 consultation, and Bilbrook are well beyond the scoping stage.
We would welcome more text on how the Local Plan will interact with Neighbourhood Plans since several are likely to be adopted during the life of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4138

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We do not believe the current plans for building on Green Belt are justified. Apart from protection of the green belt, building over green land will increase carbon emissions relative to building on brownfield. Given the recent demographic, ec (population not rising so fast), economic (recession) and policy trends (climate change; likely reductions in targets and duty to cooperate), we believe the whole plan should be paused and reviewed, in particular with respect to building on green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 4139

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

While we understand the council is working to an obligation to provide minimum levels of new homes, we feel that the constant use of ‘minimum’ numbers for development sites should be reconsidered. It suggests that housing numbers will be allowed to creep up at the developers’ wish. In the past, South Staffordshire has indeed consistently and over-delivered on housing, and sites have been built out to substantially higher numbers than originally specified. This does not increase confidence in the Plan among local communities. We suggest that a maximum be indicated.

Object

Representation ID: 4140

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We understand that when the plan was drawn up, the duty to co-operate resulted in about 4000 dwellings additional to local need. This is about the same number as the number of new dwellings planned on land being released from the Green Belt. We do not see the evidence to support this number of new homes being built on the Green Belt. We further believe that the requirement from the neighbouring conurbation has substantially changed. Political changes to planning priorities including greater protection for the Green Belt, reduced targets for housing, and possibly removal of the duty to cooperate,

Support

Representation ID: 4141

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

We note the requirement for public on-site spaces. We urge the council to ensure that these are actually provided on-site, unless discussion with the local community indicates a preferable option.

Support

Representation ID: 4142

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

We welcome this policy and its requirement for zero carbon and for proven reduction in energy use. However we believe that offsetting should be avoided. If essential, we suggest it should be in the form of providing equivalent renewable energy. Treeplanting does not help our transition, and is not particularly effective unless it takes land out of arable, which then reduces food security.

Object

Representation ID: 4143

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Development on these sites will increase traffic flow. Both will contribute to congestion in the area of Potter’s Cross, and its two schools. This junction area is already of concern to local people due to congestion and danger to children.

Site 274: This is a very sensitive site, crossed by the Staffordshire Way/bounded by NT nature reserve. Highly visible from the Kinver Edge viewpoint. Its much used by local people for walking/recreation. Great care to ensure the character and attractiveness of this Way is maintained; the wildlife corridors are maintained/enhanced, amenity for local walkers/play area is maintained and enhanced.

Object

Representation ID: 4144

Received: 21/12/2022

Respondent: Kinver Neighbourhood Plan Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

274/576Development on these sites will increase traffic flow. Both will contribute to congestion in the area of Potter's Cross, and its two schools. This junction area is already of concern to local people due to congestion and danger to children. Site 274: This is a very sensitive site, crossed by the Staffordshire Way/bounded by NT nature reserve. Highly visible from the Kinver Edge viewpoint. Its much used by local people for walking/recreation. Great care to ensure the character and attractiveness of this Way is maintained; the wildlife corridors are maintained/enhanced, amenity for local walkers/play area is maintained and enhanced.