chapter 7 chapter 8 chapter 11 sad1 sad2 sad3 sad4 … preferred option… · chapter 6 chapter 9...

Chapter 6 Chapter 9 Chapter 10

SAD1 SAD2 SAD3 SAD4 SAD5 SAD6 SAD7 SAD8 SAD9 SAD10

Local Plan Review Housing Allocations Safeguarded Land

POLICY: Gypsies,

Travellers & Travelling

Showpeople

Pitch ProvisionEmployment Land

Allocations

GB & OC Boundary

AmendmentsOpen Space Standards The Bratch Policy Area Hatherton Branch Canal

Acres Land and Planning

Ltd on behalf of Hallam

Land Management

Welcome recognition that

an early review is required;

accept the point that the

Council must continue with

preparation of the SAD; the

review should begin as

soon as possible; more

safeguarded land should be

identified in the SAD.

Object to the scale of the

allocations proposed as

requirement has been

changed based on

completions and

commitments -

commitments should not

automatically be deducted

from the total. Oppose

sites 406 and 443 as not

best sites to remove from

the Green Belt

Scale of safeguarded land

proposed is inadequate

to cater for sufficient

housing beyond the plan

period - amount of

safeguarded land should

be double. Oppose

safeguarded land on sites

406,419 and 443 as these

are not considered the

most suitable sites for

release from Green Belt.

object to sites 443, 406

and 419 - site 222 would

be preferable for release

from the Green Belt.

Traffic light analysis supported.

Concern that the Green Belt and

Sequential Test criteria tend to

overlap; a subjective assessment

of landscape quality plays an

exaggerated role in determining

the outcome. In contrast access

to facilities has limited influence

in determining the outcome. Site

222 when considered against

landscape should be coloured

light green or yellow, and should

be light green against the impact

on the green belt criterion.

SAD prepared in the context of

the adopted CS with its origins

and assumptions underpinned

by 2008 RSS; CS requirement

significantly below market

demand; substantial need for

affordable housing in the

district; PBA report (September

2015) identified South Staffs as

having a key role in meeting the

metropolitan area's needs and

defines South Staffordshire as

falling within the Black Country

sub market. The Council should

look towards the early review

of the Local Plan (combining the

CS with the SAD) - this should

be in parallel with the Black

Country Plan. Plan must be

positively prepared which in

this instance means taking a

liberal approach to identifying

land. Object to SAD 2 and SAD 3

and as a consequence object to

the village map for Codsall and

Bilbrook.

Advance Land & Planning

Ltd on behalf of Barratt

Homes and Messers

Brown and Stephens

Should allocate well in excess of

the minimum requirement;

should allocate safeguarded

land for development in the

current plan;

AJM Planning on behalf

of KGL (Holdings) Ltd

reference to an early

review is acknowledgement

that the current approach

does not account for a

proper up to date

assessment.

The scale of safeguarding

for each village is split on

the same proportion as

the Core Strategy

allocations - there is no

proper basis for this

other than convenience

Site scoring flawed as no scoring

basis for comparing one site with

another; SA only evaluates the

Preferred Option sites and

therefore had no involvement in

the site selection process itself;

the fact that the partial Green

Belt review has not evaluated

individual sites within the overall

parcel is a fundamental flaw. As a

tier 2 consideration, potential

community benefit has not been

a determining factor in the choice

of sites; not clear from the

documentation when the need to

provide a defensible boundary

has resulted in the housing

numbers being increased; noted

that a site that includes an area of

high and low landscape sensitivity

can be categorised as low overall

if the area of low sensitivity is

large enough to accommodate

the village allocation - this

approach does not seem to be

applied consistently.

Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection

Criteria

Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 11



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

AJM Planning on behalf

of Mr. & Mrs. N Machin

reference to an early

review is acknowledgement

that the current approach

does not account for a

proper up to date

assessment.

The scale of safeguarding

for each village is split on

the same proportion as

the Core Strategy

allocations - there is no

proper basis for this

other than convenience

Site scoring flawed as it is not

possible to evaluate if the scoring

is supported by the evidence, and

it assumes the evidence is correct;

SA only evaluates the Preferred

Option sites and therefore had no

involvement in the site selection

process itself; the fact that the

partial Green Belt review has not

evaluated individual sites within

the overall parcel is a

fundamental flaw; As a tier 2

consideration, potential

community benefit has not been

a determining factor in the choice

of sites; not clear from the

documentation when the need to

provide a defensible boundary

has resulted in the housing

numbers being increased; Ignored

NPPF advice on identifying long

term defensible Green Belt

boundaries

The Council does not consider the

Site Allocations Document to be

the appropriate point at which to

revise the housing target

established in the Core Strategy.

The Site Allocations Document is

seeking to deliver the Core

Strategy and there is a policy in

the Site Allocations Document

(Policy – SAD1: Local Plan Review)

to offer certainty that this matter

will be addressed when the Core

Strategy is reviewed. Therefore, it

would be inappropriate to revise

the District’s housing target within

the Site Allocations Document,

the scope of which is simply to

give effect to the existing adopted

policies in the Core Strategy.

Ancer Spa on behalf of

Lord Wrottesley

Voluntary Settlement

Agree with the principles of the

methodology employed, and the

robustness of the evidence base,

but disagree with final

conclusions reached by the

Council; If the Council was to

follow its own methodology then

site 238a would have been

identified for allocation;

Barton Willmore LLP on

behalf of Taylor Wimpey

UK

In view of the wider

regional development

needs the Council should

safeguard additional

areas of land in the SAD.

If the Council is minded

to retain the draft

allocation as proposed

then this should include

site 285.

A number of flaws in the site

selection process; LVAGBR study

confirms that the site should

score a 'light green'; site 416

should be categorised as red on

landscape sensitivity; 285 should

be categorised as dark green

against the access to amenities

consideration; 285 should score

dark green on natural

environment as no site specific

designations should preclude

development; 285 should score

light green on environmental

quality; 285 should score dark

green on historic environment.

Berrys on behalf of Mr J R

Holt and Mr M B Holt

Final point in the text box

on page 33 of the SAD

should be amended to

read: 'To support the

aims and ambitions of

the emerging

Staffordshire and Stoke-

on Trent Local Enterprise

Partnership (SSLEP)

including a portfolio of

high quality and

investment ready sites

across the area'.

Proposing allocation through

the SAD of Land north of

school, Dunston, and Land east

of A449, opposite the church at

Dunston. This is proposed to

meet local need and could see

community benefits by

providing an enlarged school

playing field; Proposals will help

meet the aims of the NPPF and

CS.



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

Bilfinger GVA on behalf of

Trebor Developments

the 208 baseline housing

need provides further

rationale for planning

positively; risk of not

allocating enough land to

meet OAN - this risk would

be reduced somewhat if

the land proposed for

safeguarding is allocated

for housing now;

CS housing numbers are a

minimum; difference

between what the SAD is

expected to deliver (1070)

and the minimum

requirement (1012) only

provides a buffer of 58

dwellings which is

insufficient; This buffer

would be reduced to 20 if

the 38 units (Lowes Garage)

were added back on to

Kinver's requirement as

they ought to be;

Applying a numerical score to site

selection shows that 274a and

274b are of equal merit and

should come forward as one site;

The new retirement scheme in

Kinver is at the premium end of

the retirement market and

therefore won't meet the needs

of Kinver residents; retirement

scheme should be considered a

specialist element of the

housing supply that helps meet

the needs of the District as a

whole and therefore the

minimum requirement should

be adjusted by 38 units


Heyford Developments

Ltd

Evidence base is insufficient and

in some cases flawed, therefore

the approach is not justified

rendering the document

unsound; P Brady on behalf of the

owners of site 225 and

446

identifying sites and a

green belt revision is a high

risk policy when

considering lack of a proper

needs assessment; Degree

of permanence required

for revised Green Belt

boundaries will not be

achieved; approach flawed

and therefore object to

policy SAD 1

Not appropriate to propose

allocations based on

outdated needs

assessment; Degree of

permanence required for

revised Green Belt

boundaries will not be

achieved; approach flawed

and therefore object to

policy SAD 2

Not appropriate to

propose safeguarded

land based on outdated

needs assessment;

Degree of permanence

required for revised

Green Belt boundaries

will not be achieved;

approach flawed and

therefore object to policy

SAD 3

some of the tests in the

methodology paper too simple to

capture the issues; priority

attached to different Green Belt

purposes will vary in different

locations; landscape study not

clear on whether regard is had

only to the internal qualities of

the site or the wider impact;

accessibility to amenities - tests

do not consider potential for

public transport and gives equal

weight to small village shops as

major supermarkets; no weight

given to opportunities for

highway improvements or the

potential for public transport;

account is taken of different

grades of agricultural land only

after sites are selected;

insufficient information to enable

proper scrutiny of how decisions

have been taken; lack of

explanation of why site 225/446

scored a yellow whilst Keepers

Lane/Wergs Hall Road scored a

light green; concerns that no

account has been taken to

Bancroft Consulting accessibility

study confirming access is

achievable; no justification for

scoring yellow as opposed to

green on impact on the historic

environment;

oppose the LUC Green Belt

Review approach of scoring all

sites a 'one +' should they not

abut the boundary of the

conurbation, when considering

Green Belt parcels role in

restricting the unrestricted

sprawl of large built up areas

Geoffrey Brown Support the Methodology and

approach to site selection; Bruton Knowles on behalf

of the Simkin Family

Insufficient number of

safeguarded sites

identified in Policy SAD3

particularly when

factoring in Birmingham's

overspill requirement -

additional safeguarded

sites should therefore be

identified;

support paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9

in the SAD and the

development of mixed use sites

- provided details of land at

Bognop Road, Essington which

can provide a sustainable mixed

use development;



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

Bruton Knowles on behalf

of the Taylor Family (site

94, Wheaton Aston)

SAD fails to meet

requirements of the NPPF

as not based on an OAN -

housing needs should be

adjusted upwards by at

least 1000 to taken account

of most recent household

projection information;

additional sites should be

identified in SAD 2 to take

account of this increasing

housing requirement, this

should include site 94 in

Wheaton Aston

Carter Jonas on behalf of

TARMAC Ltd

Propose that new site

suggestion (their site A)

should be allocated

Propose that new site

suggestion (their site B)

should be identified as

safeguarded land

northern part of site is in

Hawkins Drive employment

area and could accommodate

approximately 200 dwellings

Peter Burnett FRICS on

behalf of the owner of

Longford Park

Promoting land to the north

west of Longford island; site

should be safeguarded for

longer term development and

Cannock DC and South

Staffordshire DC should work

together under the Duty to

Cooperate to safeguard the

site; could meet Cannock and

South Staffordshire's

contribution to the Birmingham

shortfall; should be considered

in light of the Cannock DC

Green Belt review

DLP (Planning) Ltd on

behalf of Mr Jim Lomas

(owners of site 005)

SAD not been prepared in

accordance with the NPPF;

housing figures out of date;

strategy of delivering the

Core Strategy is no longer

justified and effective;

Council should cease work

on the SAD and start work

on a new Local Plan which

incorporates an up to date

strategy taking account of

the GBHMA shortfall; by

delaying the new plan as

proposed in SAD 1 this fails

to meet Government policy

to significantly boost the

supply of housing;

Approach of continuing

to safeguard land at

Cherrybrook Drive until

the Local Plan review in

2022 is inflexible as it is

evidenced that additional

housing is required now -

therefore this


be allocated now

SAD not been prepared in line

with NPPF para 182 and

therefore cannot be considered

sound

First City on behalf of The

Trustees of the JEM

Rissbrook Discretionary

Settlement, Woolaston

Properties Ltd and

Staffordshire County

Council

Object to the SAD for non

inclusion of site 211 as a

Preferred Option

First City on behalf of Mr

T Fellows (site 420,

Penkridge)

Object to the SAD for non

inclusion of site 420 as a

Preferred Option



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

GL Hearn on behalf of

Severn Trent

Propose the allocation of a

mixed use site with an

indicative capacity of 70

dwellings on land at the

Bratch is included within

Policy SAD 2; Policy SAD 2

as currently drafted is

unsound as it is not

justified and not compliant

with national policy which

seeks to protect the Green

Belt

Support the proposed

extensions the west of

i54 contained within the

SAD. However modest

extension proposed to

i54 is insufficient to meet

the land requirements of

the sub region and

therefore the SAD is not

consistent with NPPF

paragraphs 19,20, 21, 160

, 161 and is not

considered sound having

regard to paragraphs 178-

182 of the NPPF; request

that Wombourne Sewage

Works is allocated in SAD

for employment

purposes;

Request that

Wombourne Sewage

Treatment Works is

released from the Green

Belt under policy SAD 7

Request the removal of

Policy SAD 9; saved policy

is technically time expired

and is not sound in

accordance with the

NPPF - it is restricting

development on a site

with no updated

evidence to justify this

approach, and therefore

is not positively prepared

Green Planning Studio on

behalf of the Dunne

family

Council should make

provision for an

additional 8 pitches on

Brinsford Bridge traveller

siteHawksmoor on behalf of

J.S Holford & Sons (site

134, Great Wyrley)

Support the proposal for

safeguarding site 134.

Site 134 is available,

developable and deliverable

now and is therefore capable of

coming forward as a housing

allocation within the SAD.

Heine Planning Insufficient provision to

meet existing need;

immediate need from

those who do not have

an existing pitch; no

account taken of in-

migration from the West

Midlands; If gypsy sites

are not removed from

the Green Belt they will

remain inappropriate and

contrary to national

policy; pitch selection

was not made on the

basis of NPPF para 85;

proposals rely on infill of

existing sites which will

not address the need for

travellers not living on

these sites; Council

should provide some of

their own sites to ensure

a choice of location

tenure etc.; no transit

provision which is

essential given the

change in definition of

travellers in the PPFT -

August 2015; GTAA relies

too heavily on turnover;

more sites needed to

meet immediate need.

If gypsy sites are not

removed from the Green

Belt they will remain

inappropriate and

contrary to national

policy; site/pitch

selection should be

reassessed for suitability

for removal from the

Green Belt;

Indigo Planning on behalf

of AA Homes and Housing

Ltd

Site 145 should be

allocated.

Inglewood Investment

Ltd

Sites 17/22 should be

allocated in Huntington

If not allocated, sites

17/22 should be

safeguarded for future

development



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

JLL on behalf of Nurton

Developments (Hilton)

Ltd

object that Jct 11 M6 not

an allocation; insufficient

land allocated and a

different strategy to that

of CS is now justified;

new sites should be

considered; policy does

not seek to meet full

needs; ignores other

aspects of different

needs; BC shortfall

actually 200ha; ignores

WM Strategic Sites

conclusions; RLS not

addressed in SAD; ROF

Featherstone has not

been demonstrated to be

deliverable should be

deleted as per p22 NPPF;

welcome LPA considering

impact of M54/M6 link;

Jct 11 in Sandwell travel

to work; takes no account

of need from South

Staffordshire

object SAD7 include own GB Review; same

contribution as proposed

allocations

Marrons Planning on

behalf of Bloor Homes

Limited

support SAD2; support SAD3

Michael Hargreaves

Planning

GT accommodation

needs will prove to be

underestimates; turnover

from existing sites cannot

be used as a source of

supply; exactitude due to

privacy cannot be

achieved - local

knowledge says its

higher; GT14 should be

extended south to0

include 2 pitches; sites

should be removed from

the Green Belt p17 NPPF

GT sites should be removed

from GB p17 NPPF

NextPhase Development object to SAD2 at Brewood;

should allocate 376;site has

benefit of numerous

technical papers already

prepared therefore

developable and

deliverable



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

Nathaniel Lichfield &

Partners on behalf of the

Bradshaws Estate

object SAD2 at Perton,

should allocate 246a; 246a

on NLP assessment is

second best at tier 1 and

should be considered at

tier 2

two-tier process heavily weighted

to environmental constraints

rather than balancing env, social

and economic matters; RAG lacks

transparency and robustness; GB

review overstates 246a

contribution to GB; Landscape

Sensitivity fails to take account of

existing built development; no

flood risk or surface water issues;

site lower ALC compared to

others; scores well against tier 2;

tier 2 should be RAG; three sites

should have made tier 2; access

to amenities shouldn't be

comparative with other sites;

highways assessment is only

limited assessment and has

significant weight; shouldn't be

downgraded due to below ground

HER; Council needs to reconsider

otherwise SAD is not sound

Philip Brown proposed site allocations

based on 2014 GTAA has

not been tested at EiP;

flawed to apply a

turnover rate to private

sites; no allowance for

movement between

pitches; from brick and

mortar or in migration;

GTAAs normally assume

no net effect from in

migration/ outmigration

or bricks and mortar

movement; remove

turnover means unmet

need for 77 additional

pitches; pitches allowed

at CLU Poplar Lane were

not part of unmet need

more efficient use of

existing sites not

appropriate as will

increase supply for

existing families but not

increase supply of

generally available supply

and no publically rented

pitches; support

GT02;GT03;GT13; GT20

and GT24

PlanIt on behalf of N & M

Holmes

support recognition of

Birmingham shortfall;

housing requirement

should be met by 2031; 2/3

yr. new plan making, then

applications will result in

significant pressure to

deliver by 2031; SAD

opportunity for a wide

variety of safeguarded sites

to meet overflow, released

once shortfall known;

simpler and quicker than

plan review; plan should

identified these sites for

that purpose; CS not

compliant with NPPG; RS

led and out of date; not

OAN;

household projections

show increase of 4851;

1001 household shortfall;

CS fails to meet NPPF tests;

delivering higher figures CS

complaint as minimum;

table of numbers included

on prorate basis for 1001

additional houses;

additional sites needed;

need sites if BC can't meet

their need and adjoins

MUA

support identification of

safeguarded land;

however insufficient

number and range of

sites; need enough land

for 2500 dwellings; need

to safeguard land for

several plan reviews; land

off Codsall Road, Palmers

Cross Claregate suitable;

not previously promoted

through plan; 68 acres

former landfill; does not

perform any GB role;



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

PlanIt on behalf of

landowners W Yeomans,

J Law & R Law



housing requirement














complaint with NPPG; RS


OAN;

object site 251 not included

to deliver 28 dwellings inc 4

bungalows and 9

affordable; adjoins rural

exception site; household

projections show increase

of 4851; 1001 household

shortfall; CS fails to meet

NPPF tests; delivering

higher figures CS compliant

as minimum; table of

numbers included on

prorate basis for 1001

additional houses;



their need;

support identification of

safeguarded land;


number and range of




several plan reviews;

object site 251 not

included

PlanIt on behalf of

landowners Hose, Jenks

and Smith



housing requirement
















OAN;

support site 406 for

allocation but should be a

larger site; household







numbers included on


additional houses;




MUA;

support site 406 for

safeguarding but should

be a larger site; support

identification of

safeguarded land;


number and range of





PlanIt on behalf of

landowners Rutherford

and Wright



housing requirement
















OAN;

object site 430 not

included; household







numbers included on


additional houses;




MUA;

object site 430 not

included; support

identification of

safeguarded land;


number and range of







POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

J Price SAD is fundamentally

flawed, unlawful and

unsound; no OAN; required

to meet OAN in full; no

strategy to meet OAN in

full; RS led and constrained

figures; out of date; South

Staffs introducing a Local

Plan on housing capacity

rather than housing need;

provision of sufficient

quantity and quality of

housing to meet areas

needs should be central to

strategy; unmet need from

MUA; 11,205 dwellings

allocated to South Staffs as

part of Birmingham Plan;

affordability is an issue in

South Staffs; affordable

housing need is greater

than allocation; zero

commitment to delivery of

affordable housing; not

positive plan preparation,

justified, effective or

consistent with national

policy; unable to

demonstrate 5 yr. supply

because of RS figures; 5yr.

supply does not

demonstrate where

housing for different

groups is delivered e.g.

elderly; South Staffs state

hierarchy is an out of date

artificial constraint to

growth; South Staffs are

required from Birmingham

plan to allocate 11,205

dwellings; policy out of

date, unsound and

unlawful

question why gypsies

being treated differently

and have an up to date

GTAA but not housing;

also treated differently

as not CIL

modest extensions are an

out of date artificial

constraint on sustainable

economic growth;

ignoring RLS; faking

cooperation on

employment; hiding job

figures due to mismatch

in employment and

housing provision; ROF

Featherstone isn't a

credible strategy

must produce credible

boundaries likely to last

the plan period;

mismatch of housing and

economic growth not

accounted for

para.3.5 Where is the CIL

study?; para.4.3 distinct lack of

ambition to deliver Park and

Ride; SAD fails to allocate it;

mismatch of housing and

employment provision; need to

boost housing to match

employment growth; South

Staffs failed DtC, confirmed by

Council letter 5/9/14 to Sir

Albert Bore; failed to allocate

RLS and DtC; against the spirit

of localism to ignore GB sites

with unanimous local support;

chain of conformity between CS

and SAD no longer required

Quod on behalf of Four

Ashes Ltd

SAD not the appropriate

vehicle to consider

potential locations for

SRFI; however

inconsistency with CS as

does not consider

outstanding issue;

clarification that the need

for RLS remains

outstanding is necessary;

concerns that extensions

to employments sites

exceed modest;

additional paragraph

suggested



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

RCA Regeneration Ltd on

behalf of David Wilson

Homes (Mercia) Ltd

urgent review of CS needed object to SAD2; 313 should

be allocated; Incorrect to

state that the landowner

isn't willing to deliver 10

dwellings; landowner is

irrespective of DWH; DWH

firm that 10 dwellings

would not be sufficient

allocation to meet current

needs of settlement; site

313 was highest scoring ;

Council putting off

inevitable increase in

housing because not

delivering OAN; significant

GB release needed to avoid

economic decline in

Borough; unsustainable

patterns of development

are emerging because of

such constraints; DWH

believe a larger release of

GB offers significant

benefits

RPS on behalf of

Persimmon Homes

object to SAD2 allocating

168; support allocating 170

object; support 170 LPA suggested consultation on

proposed changes to NPPF in

respect of brownfield may lead to

site coming forward in an

unplanned manner, only where

harm is not substantial; difficult

to see that it would be anything

than substantial; unlikely to be

amended to give an

unconstrained presumption in

favour; response summary to I&O

is not an analysis; Appendix B

does not reflect loss of existing

facilities was revised to include

land quality; methodology - 170

should be same as 168

sequentially due to proximity and

integration with settlement; GB

review flawed as should be

openness; lesser landscape

sensitivity and LCP too big; score

higher than 168 in accessibility

due to links into existing

residential to south of village;

disagree FRA from previous

appeal; inconsistent re loss of

facilities - loss of agri land

reference and not on 128, 141,

003; 168 wrong ref to PDL under

loss of facilities; community views

should be Tier 1; 170 scored

better at Tier 2 so not followed

own methodology;

GB Review - site is open as

blended into the landscape;

does not meet para 89 NPPF;

failed to make provision to

protect GB; site is open for GB

purposes; site is greenfield;

tests for releasing GB should be

on function it performs

specifically openness; no

preference for PDL ; no public

consultation on methodology;

inconsistencies and inaccuracies

with scoring; parcel 6 to west

should have same discount

reasoning as parcel 1 to east;

SA - wrongly states 168 is PDL;

RPS on behalf of St

Modwen Ltd

land at Landywood

Enterprise Park should be

allocated for housing;

adjacent to recent

residential development;

lack of attractiveness to

market as employment

site;



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

Ruston Planning Ltd object to no allocation at

New Acres Stables

(GT01); GTAA flawed; no

ref to previous

assessments; decrease in

identified need between

2014 GTAA and previous

assessments; no

explanation of reduced

need; use of turnover

rate; does not account

for settlement of new

pitches or where new

pitch occupiers have

come from or likelihood

to move again; turnover

against 86% interviewed

and 100% not moving;

Arc4 since accepted

turnover on family sites

not accepted (Merseyside

GTAA); lack of steering

group involvement of rep

groups; lack of alternative

sites

Savills on behalf of Taylor

Wimpey

support ROF

Featherstone expansion

west and east; TW

agreeable to provide

landscaping between east

ROF and proposed

residential development;

additional safeguarded

land needed to ensure

adequate HQ

employment land is

available; Council needs

full GB review; more land

east and west best suited

for safeguarding; strategy

for economic

development shouldn't

be based on pessimistic

expectations and should

be based on increasing

economic activity; land

requirement in SAD

should not be a target

and should be flexible;

principle of allocating

land to cross subsidise

road is supported;



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

Signet Planning on behalf

of Peveril Securities

extension to Hilton Cross

would be in accordance

with intentions to

provide employment land

but not necessarily in

accordance with ELS; ELS

underestimates the need

for quality sites; random

choice of likely demand;

overestimation of supply -

potential 20ha

contribution from Walsall

sites unrealistic; Hilton

Cross can fill that gap;

increased population

means more sites are

needed; Council accept

50% extension is modest

at ROF so Hilton Cross is

21.5ha and extension

should be the same (50%)

and allocate 10.75ha;


be identified; lack of HQ

sites for BC; proposed

ROF link road supported;

potential quality of Hilton

Cross land release will be

increased; west of Hilton

Cross would require the

relocation of the existing

strategic landscape strip

to replace it on outer

edge of new site; regard

would be had to setting Signet Planning on behalf

of Peveril Securities and

St Francis Group

concern with the proposed

allocation of site 168 due

to competing neighbour

uses; ROF may have 24hr

uses and operations that by

definition do not make

appropriate close to

housing; separated by

Brookhouse Lane; could

restrict development of

ROF; a less sensitive

location in amenity terms

may be more appropriate;

support the principle of a

new link road that will

provide a direct route

from ROF to the M54;

strong support for the

provision of employment

land as an extension to

ROF; concerns that the

quantum of employment

land is not sufficient; land

should be safeguarded

for longer term needs;

current connectivity to

M54 restrict capacity to

serve B2/B8 employment

site; support 50%

extension; support 10ha

landscaping to protect

amenity of Featherstone

village; wording in table

SAD6 needs clarity;

support link road to

Junction 1 M54; B8 only

take place once new road

created; support working

on a masterplan; EIA

required;

employment needs to 2026 yet

plan to 2028

Stewart Vick Associates

on behalf of Kinver Green

Belt Action Group

(KGBAG)

object 274 object 274



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

Turley on behalf of Mr

Bremner

support 312 support 437 in sequential test it should be

green 'land in open countryside/

safeguarded'

question inconsistency in GB

Review parcels 1, 2 and 5 -

parcel 5 should be yellow;

question landscape sensitivity

rating as SSC study has low

medium yet matrix is orange -

should be green; FRS states low

risk of flooding and SUDs could

help - should be green;

Turley on behalf of David

Wilson Homes

Review needed before

2022, higher housing

numbers likely, more sites

need to be identified to

meet the HMA shortfall in

the short and medium

term; need to meet OAN;

need an up to date

evidence base; relying on

RSS figures no longer

acceptable; SAD not

consistent with NPPF as RS

led; PBA identified a 37,500

shortfall in HMA;

object to 396 not included support 397

Turley on behalf of Land

Fund

do not have an OAN so

safeguarded land may need

to come forward earlier to

meet additional housing

requirement

support 239 support 239 GB Review - this site

contributes least to GB

Turley on behalf of the

Wordley family

support the SAD to deliver

the CS and safeguarded

land; relying on RSS figures

no longer acceptable; SAD

not consistent with NPPF as

RS led; PBA identified a

37,500 shortfall in HMA;

more sites may be needed

in accordance with a

different distribution

strategy than that of CS;

new housing evidence

needed and additional

sites; recognise early

review however SAD does

not deliver OAN; additional

sites should be identified to

meet need arising within

South Staffordshire;

object to 443 GB Review - correct

methodology however

parameters used when scoring

parcels do not allow for

balanced weighting to be

applied to each GB purpose; full

ownership site assessed and

not a smaller site as suggested

by Turley

Tweedale Ltd on behalf

of Marston's PLC

object to 086 object to 082

Tyler Parkes on behalf of

Mr Guest

object to site 416 and 283;

site 309 should be included

object to 416 and 283 GB Review should have

assessed each site to compare

against each other;

Welcome Homes object to site119, support

118

support 118 no clear scoring basis for site

selection; not possible to

compare evaluations of each site;

no detailed ecology or drainage

so natural env assessment is

without real foundation;

inappropriate to rely on GB

review categorisation; GB

review should be done for each

site



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria

Pegasus Group on behalf

of Bloor Homes site 443

yet to undertake OAN; will

be criticism that no OAN

however it is clear that land

needs to be taken out of

GB asap to enable

continuous supply of

housing to meet short term

needs; SAD provides most

expeditious route to

significantly boost housing;

Review informed by OAN

supported; clarity in

timescales for evidence

needed; should not be

linked and constrained by

timescales for BC Local

Plan; support ref to

GBHMA;

support site 443; SAD

provides opportunity to

uplift housing delivery

over the minimum CS

numbers; uplift informed

by most up to date

evidence - 208dw.p.a; meet

this would not undermine

CS;



uplift safeguarded land;

meet this would not

undermine CS;

assumption of 30

dwellings p.ha gross is

not reflective of housing

allocations assumptions

and not robust; need to

assume 70% as per

allocations; further 20ha

of safeguarded land

required; 443 suitable;

process is robust; general

support; process is positively

prepared, justified and effective;


of Bloor Homes site 54





GB asap to enable



needs; SAD provides most

expeditious route to









GBHMA; SAD provides

opportunity to uplift

housing delivery over the

minimum CS numbers;

uplift informed by most up

to date evidence -

208dw.p.a; meet this

would not undermine CS;




over the minimum CS


by most up to date



CS;

process is robust; general

support; process is positively

prepared, justified and effective;



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria


of Richborough Estates

site 006





GB asap to enable



needs; ensure plan led

approach can be

maintained; SAD provides

most expeditious route to









GBHMA;

object to site 006 not

being included; GB

release required to

ensure a continuous

supply of housing land

available; without GB

release Council's ability to

meet 5yr supply is

significantly diminished;

Boscomoor Lane is

deliverable; SAD provides


safeguarded land; meet

this would not

undermine CS;

assumption of 30





assume 70% as per


of safeguarded land


not clear whether 005 is

being carried forward;

SAD3/SAD7 not clear

whether this site will be

carried forward or

whether there are any

issues that would render

the site undeliverable;

process is robust; broad support;

object to GB Review; 'pure

review' against 5 purposes

supported, however in practice

sites have not been considered

against 5 purposes as part of

much wider parcel; wider parcel

may provide a very different

conclusion than a discreet site

within it; not in dispute at GB

Review being strategic, reliance

on strategic GB review to consider

individual sites is fundamentally

flawed; 006 scored well against

site criteria with the exception of

GB Review;



site 270





GB asap to enable




approach can be











GBHMA;

support site 270; GB release required to

ensure a continuous




meet 5yr supply is


270 is deliverable; SAD



meet this would not

undermine CS;

assumption of 30





assume 70% as per


of safeguarded land

required;

general support; process is

justified;



site 302





GB asap to enable




approach can be











GBHMA;

support site 302 GB release required to

ensure a continuous




meet 5yr supply is


302 is deliverable; SAD



meet this would not

undermine CS;

assumption of 30





assume 70% as per


of safeguarded land

required;


robust; justified;



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria



site 407





GB asap to enable




approach can be











GBHMA;

object to 407 not

included; GB release

required to ensure a


housing land available;

without GB release

Council's ability to meet

5yr supply is significantly

diminished; 407 is




this would not

undermine CS;

assumption of 30





assume 70% as per


of safeguarded land

required;

contest scoring - site 407 scores

better against GB than 239 which

has higher weighting so should be

PO; site had significantly more

local support than PO;

methodology refers to landscape

sensitivity and reference to

landscape quality- Clarity needed;

all sites in Perton are greenfield

agricultural does not differentiate

however ALC should be a

planning consideration in

accordance with NPPF; PRoW

shouldn't be a constraint;

biodiversity enhancement;

heritage assessment proves

should be light green;

junction assessment at a41

shows overcapacity since 2016;

potential strategy in highway

land;



site 224





GB asap to enable




approach can be











GBHMA;

object to 224 not included object to site 224 not

being included; GB

release required to

ensure a continuous




meet 5yr supply is


Boscomoor Lane is




this would not

undermine CS;

assumption of 30





assume 70% as per


of safeguarded land


not clear whether 005 is

being carried forward;

process is robust; broad support;

object to GB Review; 'pure

review' against 5 purposes

supported, however in practice

sites have not been considered

against 5 purposes as part of

much wider parcel; wider parcel

may provide a very different

conclusion than a discreet site

within it; not in dispute at GB

Review being strategic, reliance

on strategic GB review to consider

individual sites is fundamentally

flawed; 224 scored well against

site criteria compared to other

sites; incorrect to state

discounted due to landscape

sensitivity as scored well against

this criteria; highways works are

minor not major; ALC should be

taken into consideration;

should all sites have been asked

to submit flooding

issues/surface water for level

playing field?



POLICY: Gypsies,


Showpeople


Allocations

GB & OC Boundary



Criteria


of Touch Developments

site 55/68





GB asap to enable




approach can be











GBHMA;

support site 55/68; SAD



over the minimum CS


by most up to date



CS;

support site 55/68; SAD



meet this would not

undermine CS;

assumption of 30





assume 70% as per


of safeguarded land

required; 55/68 suitable;


robust; justified;


of Touch Developments

site 86





GB asap to enable




approach can be











GBHMA;

support site86; SAD



over the minimum CS


by most up to date



CS;

SAD provides



this would not

undermine CS;

assumption of 30





assume 70% as per


of safeguarded land

required;


robust; justified;

Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments

443 Pendeford Mill Lane,

Bilbrook

Pegasus on behalf of Bloor

Homes

good opportunities for vehicle and pedestrian access; low/medium

impact on natural and historic environment; no env quality issues;

low landscape sensitivity; loss of agricultural land however no other

site in Bilbrook outperforms on this criteria; close to local amenities

and facilities inc train station and schools; scores positively in flooding

and highways; good links to strategic highway network and local

employment; opportunities for open space and community

infrastructure benefits; lesser contribution to GB; site is deliverable in

5 years; up to 130 dwellings; phase 1 would access via ghost right

turn, safeguarded land introduce roundabout, deliver 130 dwellings

on safeguarded; safeguarded should be released now and further

safeguarded up to Barnhurst Lane should be identified;

Acres Land and Planning Ltd on

behalf of Hallam Land

Management; P Brady on

behalf of the owners of site

225 and 446; EJ Planning Ltd

on behalf of Mr G Winwood;

PlanIt on behalf of landowners

Hose, Jenks and Smith; Turley

on behalf of the Wordley

family;

Acres Land and Planning Ltd: Allocating site conflicts with the

purposes of the Green Belt - narrowing the gap between Bilbrook and

Wolverhampton. P Brady: Council has overridden the strategic

importance of the parcel identified by LUC; an arbitrary site boundary

has been adopted; if former MOOG site was developed then this

would narrow the strategic gap further; LUC Green Belt review parcel

within which the site falls is not justified; site 500m to the City

boundary. EJ Planning Ltd: the allocation of 283 has taken no account

of the LUC Green Belt review findings; removal from the Green Belt

conflicts with the NPPF; would lead to significant encroachment and

the risk of merger of Bilbrook and Wolverhampton; represents

significant intrusion in the countryside; site occupies an elevated

position and would have a significant impact on the landscape; impact

on residential amenity due to proximity of former MOOG site;

allocating a significant proportion of the site as safeguarded land will

reduce the ability of the Council to resist speculative applications; no

ecological assessment - site locate on valuable grassland; former

MOOG could meet the allocation; exacerbate traffic issues along

Pendeford Mill Lane; proposal does not respect existing pattern of

development; PlanIT - no better than safeguarded land at 406 Codsall

in terms of access to services and facilities; impact on the landscape

sensitivity and loss of historic field patterns; makes a greater

contribution to Green Belt than 209 as it extends always from the

settlement;

443 Pendeford Mill Lane,

Bilbrook

Pegasus on behalf of Bloor

Homes

good opportunities for vehicle and pedestrian access; low/medium

impact on natural and historic environment; no env quality issues;

low landscape sensitivity; loss of agricultural land however no other

site in Bilbrook outperforms on this criteria; close to local amenities

and facilities inc train station and schools; scores positively in flooding

and highways; good links to strategic highway network and local

employment; opportunities for open space and community

infrastructure benefits; lesser contribution to GB; site is deliverable in

5 years; up to 130 dwellings; phase 1 would access via ghost right

turn, safeguarded land introduce roundabout, deliver 130 dwellings

on safeguarded; safeguarded should be released now and further

safeguarded up to Barnhurst Lane should be identified;


Hose, Jenks and Smith; Turley

on behalf of the Wordley

family;

Impact on and loss of Green Belt, including proximity to

Wolverhampton; should be on site 406 (Codsall) instead; impact on

the landscape sensitivity and loss of historic field patterns; makes a

significant contribution to Green Belt;

209 land off Lane Green

Road

Turley on behalf of the

Wordley family

lesser impact on landscape sensitivity; would link well to existing

settlement and pattern; site influenced by urbanising factors;

210 land off Lane Green

Avenue

Discounted Sites

BILBROOK

Proposed Safeguarded Sites

Proposed Allocated Sites


BILBROOK

211 Land north of Manor

House Park


Trustees of the JEM Rissbrook

Discretionary Settlement,

Woolaston Properties Ltd and

Staffordshire County Council;

would provide 66 dwellings outside the floodplain with the requisite

open space and landscaping; site is a logical extension and rounding

off of the settlement; SA used to support the proposed allocations is

flawed as it states the site is constrained due to the floodplain and is

within a highly sensitive landscape; the fact that the site cannot meet

the entire allocation is not a reason for discounting the site - as this

principle has not been applied elsewhere in the SAD; would provide

public access through the formal open space; avoids the sequential

test as outside the floodplain; not in a highly sensitive landscape as

screened by existing vegetation along Moat Brook; land not in

agricultural use; close to village facilities; PRoW would be retained

and enhanced; no historical field boundaries within the site;

213 Bilbrook House,

Carter Avenue

RespondentP Brady on behalf of the

owners of site 225 and 446


Trustees of the JEM Rissbrook

Discretionary Settlement,

Woolaston Properties Ltd and

Staffordshire County Council

Proposing that site 211 is allocated for 66 dwellings; allocation for 443 is revised accordingly to 36 dwellings; safeguard the remainder of site 443 for longer term development.

General Comments CommentFundamental weakness of the SAD is that all Green Belt sites being released around Codsall/Bilbrook lie in crucially sensitive areas near the boundary of Wolverhampton; Green Belt boundaries should be

sustainable in the long term, it is therefore a matter of concern that key sites in Codsall, Bilbrook and Brewood that are to be allocated or safeguarded have proposed new boundaries that follow no ground features

and will not have the degree of permanence required by the NPPF; there has been no assessment of the role that site 223 in Codsall could play in meeting Bilbrook's needs, nor a response to Wolverhampton City

Council's suggestion that the Council should look to the north west of Codsall to find sites;


54 Engleton Lane Pegasus on behalf of Bloor

Homes site 54

good access opportunities from Engleton Lane; bounded by

Engleton Lane, field boundaries, existing playing fields, and

dev boundary; low/medium impact on the natural and

historic environment; wildlife on site could be surveyed to

identify mitigation measures; scores positively in flooding and

highways; minor surface water issues; SAD notes it is some

distance from village however no alternative site

outperformed it; village centre, schools etc. still accessible by

foot and car; site is deliverable in 5 years; deliver 55

dwellings; new access off Engleton Lane; new footpath link;

designed to be in keeping with surrounding layout; green

infrastructure provided; boundary change needed to that of

PO SAD for certainty the 55 can be delivered; extended to

east in line with existing hedge line and increased planting on

site; land north of site is identified as land for open space

provision

55 Four Ashes Road; Pegasus Group on behalf of

Touch Developments

site bounded by Four Ashes Road, field boundaries and

development boundary; preferred safeguarded site excludes

floodplains and alleviates previous flooding concerns; site

assessment stated it is some distance from village, however

no alternative site outperformed on this criteria; services and

facilities can be accessed on foot and by car; support from a

considerable number of residents; alleviate flood risk with

SuDs and provide new open space and recreation; deliver 90

dwellings however site size not capable of on site open space;

opportunities outside proposed safeguarding to provide open

space - green corridor along the brook; access off Four Ashes

Road

68 Land off Oak

Road/Rowan Road

Pegasus Group on behalf of

Touch Developments

site bounded by Four Ashes Road, field boundaries and

development boundary; preferred safeguarded site excludes

floodplains and alleviates previous flooding concerns; site

assessment stated it is some distance from village, however

no alternative site outperformed on this criteria; services and

facilities can be accessed on foot and by car; support from a

considerable number of residents; alleviate flood risk with

SuDs and provide new open space and recreation; deliver 90

dwellings however site size not capable of on site open space;

opportunities outside proposed safeguarding to provide open

space - green corridor along the brook; access off Four Ashes

Road

53 Land off Horsebrook Lane

Discounted Sites

BREWOOD




BREWOOD

376 land at Fallowfield, off

Horse Brook Lane/Barn

Lane

NextPhase Development object to SAD2 at Brewood; should allocate 376; site has benefit of

numerous technical papers already prepared therefore developable

and deliverable; any development requires a new boundary; would

restrict encroachment by emphasising development adjacent to

Horsebrook Lane, infills land to north; encroaches less than PO;

improve connectivity to Horsebrook Lane; widen Lane to benefit

access egress from north of village to A5

444 Land adjacent to

Horsebrook Lane,

Brewood (extension to

existing site 376)

RespondentP Brady on behalf of the


First City on behalf of

Archdiocese of Birmingham

General Comments CommentGreen Belt boundaries should be sustainable in the long term, it is therefore a matter of concern that key sites in Codsall, Bilbrook and Brewood that are to be allocated or safeguarded have proposed new

boundaries that follow no ground features and will not have the degree of permanence required by the NPPF

Proposed site adjacent Brewood surgery suitable for allocation as: in a sustainable location very close to shops, services, schools and employment opportunities; more sustainable location that the proposed

allocation and safeguarded sites; not aware of constraints to the site that would prevent development; not aware of restrictive covenants; no flood risk, no known physical constraints, suitable topography, no known

contamination; site owned by one entity; can be developed within 5 years; site is adjacent the development boundary beyond the canal; would not negatively impact on nearby historic assets;


119 Land adjoining Saredon

Road

Advance Land & Planning Ltd

on behalf of Barratt Homes and

Messers Brown and Stephens;

Geoffrey Brown

Advance Land & Planning Ltd: consider the Green Belt review

categorisation that the site makes a more limited contribution to the

purposes of the Green Belt to be fair; north western part of the site

should have been categorised as medium sensitivity and the central

part of the site as low sensitivity in the landscape sensitivity study;

good access to schools, local services and amenities; site has little

ecological value; restoration of quarry would have no greater impact

than existing development in Lodge Close. Geoffrey Brown: large

enough to accommodate all the future housing needs of the village;

development could commence without delay; proposed car park

could relieve congestion in the village; strong public support for the

car park.

Welcome Homes impact on GB and reducing gap with Cannock; greater impact on

Green Belt, landscape character, surface water flooding, and natural

environment than 118; northern boundary is illogical and not in

accordance with NPPF requirements for long term GB boundaries;

119 Land adjoining Saredon

Road

118 Land east of

Wolverhampton Road

Welcome Homes should be allocated not safeguarded; access to amenities and lesser

impact on Green Belt, landscape character, surface water flooding,

and natural environment than 119;

First City on behalf of Jack

Moody Holdings plc

Proximity to Jack Moody Holdings recycling centre would have an

unacceptable impact on residential amenity of residents of the

proposed site; contrary to Core Strategy Policy EQ9; Unviable for the

recycling business to relocate elsewhere

115 New Horse Road

116 Land South of

Wolverhampton Road,

Campions Wood Quarry

120 Land adj Wood Green

424 Land west of Canal adj

Campions Wood Quarry

445 Saredon Road

(extension to site 119)

RespondentAdvance Land & Planning Ltd

on behalf of Barratt Homes and

Messers Brown and Stephens

Carter Jonas on behalf of

TARMAC Ltd

Suggested a site off Hawkins Drive for allocation and land to the south (a clay pit quarry) as safeguarded land; both sites would score well against the site selection criteria - non Green Belt/area that makes a

limited contribution in LUC Green belt review, cause no harm to the surrounding landscape, is in walking distance of facilities, no flood risk, accessible off Mill Lane, existing business could be relocated, given the

degraded character of the sites development would have a positive impact on the natural environment, noise from M6 toll would be mitigated, not known as an area of any historic environment value; would focus

development at a Main Service Village;

CommentShould be a revision to the boundary of site 119 - see plan 2189-P06d; Allocation of housing land in Cheslyn Hay to provide for a minimum of 63 dwellings is inadequate; provision for Cheslyn Hay should be

increased to cater for local needs and unmet needs from adjoin areas by the allocation of site 119 in its entirety, and if necessary, the other 'Preferred' safeguarded site 118.; concerned current approach to

meeting housing needs is unsound; more appropriate allocation for Cheslyn Hay would be around 150 dwellings; proposed housing allocation should be enlarged to include the land currently proposed to be

safeguarded.

General Comments

CHESLYN HAY

Discounted Sites




223 Land at Watery Lane

228 Adult Training Centre,

Histons Hill

406 Land at Keepers Lane

and Nine Acres Farm


Hose, Jenks and Smith

site is near neighbourhood centre; good pedestrian links; close

proximity town's railway station; can deliver in the short term;

proposed safeguarded site should be allocated also;



Management; AJM Planning on

behalf of Mr. & Mrs. N Machin;

P Brady on behalf of the


Acres Land & Planning Ltd: site extremely prominent within the

countryside; no logical boundaries; combined with site 419 would affect

around 50 properties; FCPR Green Belt review does not support the LUC

Green Belt review assertion that the site scored the least worst in terms of

satisfying Green Belt purposes. AJM Planning: if the site is Grade 2 ALC

then this is a significant negative factor; no assessment of ecological or

drainage constraints; contrary to the Council's landscape study that

recognises that development could be accommodated in the north

eastern part of the LCP; site fails to use existing field boundaries in conflict

with NPPF paras 83 and 85; open space/community infrastructure

appears constrained by the sites configuration; Green Belt review

questionable - would reduce the gap between Codsall and

Wolverhampton and breach a well established settlement boundary,

encroaching into the countryside; conflict with NPPF (para 83 and 85)

regarding site boundaries. P Brady: footpath provides a secure and

defensible boundary to the Green Belt; footpath provides a buffer to the

built up area of Codsall and the allocation of land beyond it conflicts with

the LUC Method Statement; what is proposed is an indefensible boundary

across a flat field; negative impact on the landscape; Neither Suckling

Green Lane nor the junction at Birches Bridge should be asked to take

more traffic; site is Grade 2 ALC

CODSALL




CODSALL

406 Land at Keepers Lane

and Nine Acres Farm


Hose, Jenks and Smith

housing levels should reflect household projections and

approximately 1000 dwellings shortfall so proposed safeguarded site

should be allocated also; land not identified further south from site

should be safeguarded also; site is near neighbourhood centre; good

pedestrian links; close proximity town's railway station; can deliver in

the short term; better site than east of Codsall (443 Bilbrook);

safeguarding land further south reflects strong boundaries; extending

Bedford Gorse would provide a strong boundary;









around 50 properties; their FCPR Green Belt review does not support the

LUC Green Belt review assertion that the site scored the least worst in

terms of satisfying Green Belt purposes. AJM Planning: if the site is Grade

2 ALC then this is a significant negative factor; no assessment of ecological

or drainage constraints; contrary to the Council's landscape study that

recognises that development could be accommodated in the north

eastern part of the LCP; site fails to use existing field boundaries in conflict

with NPPF paras 83 and 85; open space/community infrastructure

appears constrained by the sites configuration; Green Belt review

questionable - would reduce the gap between Codsall and

Wolverhampton and breach a well established settlement boundary,

encroaching into the countryside; conflict with NPPF (para 83 and 85)

regarding site boundaries. P Brady: LUC Green Belt review parcel within

which the site falls is not justified; development would result in the site

being highly visible in the open countryside; lack of sustainable boundary

means that Green Belt will be at risk in the longer term; Neither Suckling


more traffic; site is Grade 2 ALC.


CODSALL

419 Land off Wergs Hall

Road









around 50 properties; their FCPR Green Belt review does not support the

LUC Green Belt review assertion that the site scored the least worst in

terms of satisfying Green Belt purposes. AJM Planning: some 1km from

Birches Bridge shops and railway station; if the site is Grade 2 ALC then

this is a significant negative factor; no assessment of ecological or

drainage constraints; potential further ecological constraints around the

area of woodland have not been evaluated; local representations suggest

surface water drainage is a significant concern; proposed safeguarded

land is high sensitivity; conflict with NPPF (para 83 and 85) regarding site

boundaries; SHLAA identifies site within HEA area of particular sensitivity;

Green Belt review questionable - would reduce the gap between Codsall

and Wolverhampton and breach a well established settlement boundary,

encroaching into the countryside. P Brady: LUC Green Belt review parcel

within which the site falls is not justified; development would result in the

site being highly visible in the open countryside; lack of sustainable

boundary means that Green Belt will be at risk in the longer term; risk that

Wergs Garden Centre could be considered as brownfield and therefore

the urbanising effect on this strategic gap would be increased; gap

between safeguarded land and the garden centre too narrow to be

sustainable in the long term; 500m to the City boundary; Neither Suckling


more traffic; site is Grade 2 ALC;

220 Land at Hollybush

Lane/Oaken Lane

221 Land at Dam Mill AJM Planning on behalf of Mr.

& Mrs. N Machin

Green Belt review did not review site 221 specifically but as part of a

wider parcel - this approach is flawed; site 406 not significantly closer

to Bilbrook Neighbourhood centre; site 221 very close to convenience

store along Birches Road; In the absence of a FRA there is not basis for

relative scoring of surface water flooding; 2014 Wardell Armstrong

study confirmed that drainage was not a constraint; no real basis for

the assessment that achieving vehicular access to site 221 is

questionable; scores well in the landscape study but these conclusions

have not been followed in the SAD; site has recognisable and

defensible boundaries; deliverability not an issue; site has

recognisable and defensible boundaries appropriate to the Green

Belt; could accommodate development with minimal visual impact

Discounted Sites


CODSALL

222 Land north of Sandy

Lane



Management

Site 223 now provides an important precedent for the continuation of

development to the north of Codsall. Use of large parcels for

landscape study has impacted on the overall scoring - particularly

parcel CD08 ; once site 223 is developed the site will be developed on

3 sides and become more urbanised; eastern part of CD08 very

different from land to the north and west within the same parcel so

should be appraised separately; site 222 should be light green or

yellow against landscape sensitivity criterion. Green Belt review has

used same parcel as landscape study which again has distorted the

results; site should score a light green against the impact on the Green

Belt criterion which would indemnify it as the most suitable site

around Codsall/Bilbrook for Green Belt release; site could provide a

blend of market and affordable housing; site has straightforward road

access; provision has already been made for extension of services

from site 223 into 222; readily accessible to shops and services

including railway station and school; site is believed to be Grade 4

agricultural land and therefore not 'best and most versatile';

developer has proven track record for delivering good quality homes;

has relatively little impact on the North Codsall Conservation Area.

224 Land adj 44 Station

Road


Richborough Estates

224 scored well against site criteria with the exception of GB Review;

sustainable location, close to train station in Codsall, village centre

and amenities; support scoring for access to amenities; contest GB

Review findings; incorrect to state discounted due to landscape

sensitivity as scored well against this criteria; evidence demonstrates

development could assimilate into landscape well; Landscape and

Visual Green Belt Review submitted; further work shows surface

water flooding can be mitigated; highways works are regarded as

minor, not major and scoring should be changed to reflect; poorer

ALC which should be taken into consideration; impacts on natural

environment can be mitigated; recognise next to railway however env

quality impact can be mitigated so should be reconsidered green;

Heritage report concludes location within conservation buffer zone

has opportunities to preserve and enhance character, no direct

impact on assets, provision of car park will enhance setting of station

by removing parked cars; historic environment should be light green;

site is suitable and deliverable in 5 years;

225 Land off Wood

Road/Slate Lane



Green Belt Review flawed -site poses no threat to the purposes of the

Green Belt; Green Belt Review considered a wider area and not the

site individually; site is readily available and in one ownership; wider

landscape impact not significant because of surrounding contours; site

not useful for agricultural use; opportunity for highway improvements

to the local network; site would have defensible Green Belt

boundaries and is well contained; the western boundary would not

significantly close the gap between Codsall and Codsall Wood;

opportunity to provide for open space and tree planting; potential for

good access to services including public transport; site closer to a

major supermarket and potential public transport than 406/419; site

is Grade 3b ALC compared to grade 2 for sites 406/419/433

425 Land at Oaken Village


CODSALL

446 Land at the corner of

Moatbrook Lane and

Strawmoor Lane,

Codsall



Green Belt Review flawed - site poses no threat to the purposes of the

Green Belt; Green Belt Review considered a wider area and not the

site individually; site is readily available and in one ownership; wider

landscape impact not significant because of surrounding contours; site

not useful for agricultural use; opportunity for highway improvements

to the local network; site would have defensible Green Belt

boundaries and is well contained; the western boundary would not

significantly close the gap between Codsall and Codsall Wood;

opportunity to provide for open space and tree planting; potential for

good access to services including public transport; site closer to a

major supermarket and potential public transport than 406/419; site

is Grade 3b ALC compared to grade 2 for sites 406/419/433

447 Oaken Lodge, Oaken

Lanes, Codsall

RespondentAcres Land and Planning Ltd on


Management



PlanIt on behalf of N & M

Holmes

General CommentsAgainst a background where boundaries are meant to last beyond the next plan, consider 10 years worth of safeguarded land is not enough; SA only examines sites that have been chosen for allocation in detail and

incorporates evidence base work already undertaken by the Council, so any shortcomings with these documents - specifically the Green belt Review and Landscape Sensitivity Study - are transposed to the SA;

Fundamental weakness of the SAD is that all Green Belt sites being released around Codsall/Bilbrook lie in crucially sensitive areas near the boundary of Wolverhampton; Green Belt boundaries should be sustainable in

the long term, it is therefore a matter of concern that key sites in Codsall, Bilbrook and Brewood that are to be allocated or safeguarded have proposed new boundaries that follow no ground features and will not have

the degree of permanence required by the NPPF; Green Belt Review expresses concerns about Codsall Wood being 1km away but have no concerns about a similar gap between site 419 and Wolverhampton;

support identification of safeguarded land; however insufficient number and range of sites; need enough land for 2500 dwellings; land off Codsall Road, Palmers Cross Claregate suitable; not previously promoted

through plan; 68 acres former landfill; does not perform any GB role; need to safeguard land for several plan reviews

Comment


86 Land at School Lane Pegasus Group on behalf of

Touch Developments

site bounded to east by School Lane which provides pedestrian and

vehicular access, and field boundaries to north; support assessment;

limited impact on GB; capacity to deliver open space; good access to

the village and strategic highway network; low/medium impact on

natural and historic environment; medium landscape sensitivity; close

to local facilities and employment; deliverable in the next 5 years; can

deliver 64 dwellings; site is available;

First City Ltd on behalf of Peter

Maddox and Associates Ltd;

Tweedale Ltd on behalf of

Marston's PLC

First City - Site does not have the capacity to provide community

benefit/facilities unlike site 82; pylon easement impacts upon the

sites ability to provide open space and community infrastructure;

would involve smaller developments over 2 sites; Tweedale - no

strong defensible boundary to contain development from aerial

photos

82 Land between A449

Stafford Road and

School Lane

First City Ltd on behalf of Peter

Maddox and Associates Ltd

close proximity to Coven village centre and it shops and services;

close to strategic employment sites; site is highly sustainable with

excellent transport links; could meet the entire allocation and

safeguarded requirement for Coven and avoid piecemeal

development over 2 sites; can provide an appropriate mix of housing;

access agreed with Parish Council; provide improvements to existing

playing fields; not aware of any constraints on the site; no restrictive

covenants, PRoWs, flood risk; contamination, protected trees or

physical constraints including topography; site can be developed

within 5 years; site can provide community benefit unlike site 86; any

noise pollution would be appropriately mitigated;


Marston's PLC

no strong defensible boundary to contain development from aerial

photos

80 Land at Croft Garage,

Brewood Road

84 Land adjoining Star

Mobile Home Park

85 Land at Grange Farm Tweedale Ltd on behalf of

Marston's PLC

well related to existing village; easy walking distance of centre; site

consists of 9ha divided into 4 plots; site is of low ecological value; site

is infill in the village;

87 Land at Stadacona,

Stafford Road

100 Land west of the A449

448 Land off School Lane,

Coven (extension to Site

086)

RespondentGeneral Comments Comment

COVEN

Discounted Sites




153 Land South of

Hobnock Road

150 Land adjoining High

Hill Road

151 Land between M6

and Essington

152 Land North East of

Elmwood Avenue

154 South side of High

Hill

157 Hill Street


ESSINGTON


Discounted Sites


168 Brinsford Lodge First Plan on behalf of

Berrywood Estates Ltd

Site is available, deliverable and suitable for development; site is PDL

in a sustainable location; more cost effective than developing a

greenfield site as the hardstanding can be recycled; community

facilities can be provided on the western part of the site comprising a

sports pitch, changing rooms and other open space and landscaping;

western part of the site will remain in the Green Belt and act as a

green buffer; new vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access to and from

the site proposed;

RPS on behalf of Persimmon

Homes; Signet Planning on

behalf of Peverill Securities and

St Francis Group

RPS - buildings have been removed and remaining foundations have

blended into the landscape; location to the west of the village is

uncoordinated intrusion into the Green Belt therefore not in

accordance with CS; no defensible boundaries; create further

pressure to release land north and south to round off development;

site is essential to ensure separation of Featherstone and ROF;

development would result in coalescence; does not meet the

exception test in para 89 NPPF; discounted in 1993 Local Plan;

sequential test in CS not complaint with NPPF (SoS Burgess Farm

Appeal); site does not meet definition of PDL; site is open for GB

purposes; site is greenfield; tests for releasing GB should be on

function it performs specifically openness; no preference for PDL;

only appropriate if it would not have a greater impact on openness

which this site would; selection of sites is unlawful; representations

duly made objecting to site have not been recorded; significant

weight to community views; Signet Planning - concern with the

proposed allocation of site 168 due to competing neighbour uses;

ROF may have 24hr uses and operations that by definition do not

make appropriate close to housing; separated by Brookhouse Lane;

could restrict development of ROF; a less sensitive location in amenity

terms may be more appropriate;

396 Land off New

Road/East Road

J Price; Turley on behalf of

David Wilson Homes

98% public support so must be released; relates well to allocation;

198 and 397 represent good connect to village;

167 Land rear Red White

and Blue

169 Featherstone Hall

Farm, New Road

J Price Site should be released to meet housing shortfall

170 Land east of

Brookhouse Lane

RPS on behalf of Persimmon

Homes

can accommodate 60 dwellings and land for safeguarding; deliver

skateboard/bmx park; village playing fields/sports pitches/changing

rooms; can provide improvements to village centre through planning

obligations; also has land for allotments to come at a later stage;

Featherstone southern boundary is permeable, potential pedestrian

and vehicle links through existing residential; close to village centre

and amenities; adjacent to primary school; excellent road access from

M54 to south; roads help define boundaries of site; visible screened

from roads by embankments; no insurmountable environmental

constraints; Featherstone and Brinsford PC in support of site; results

of public meeting were in favour of Brookhouse Lane; significant

weight should be attached to views of local community

171 Land fronting Cannock

Road and New Road

J Price site should be released to meet housing shortfall

172 Land at Cannock Road

395 Land off New Road J Price Site should be released to meet housing shortfall

FEATHERSTONE

Discounted Sites

Proposed Housing Sites



FEATHERSTONE


Brinsford Lodge

J Price; Turley on behalf of

David Wilson Homes

site has 100% support in the Community Council report; suitable to

assist in mismatch between housing and economic provision;

sustainable location near strategic employment sites; site has a good

relationship with Featherstone; limited impact on the openness of

the Green Belt due to topography; allow growth to come forward on

one site rather than piecemeal; opportunity to deliver housing in

phases to meet existing and emerging needs; strong defensible

boundary at Rabbit Lane; accommodate additional facilities and open

space; new road for ROF;

433 Land at New

Road/Featherstone

Lane

J Price Site should be released to meet housing shortfall



139 Pool View,

Churchbridge

Advance Planning on behalf of

Seabridge Development

Limited

Consider the Green Belt review categorisation that the site makes a

more limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt to be

fair; propose that the landscape sensitivity of the site should be

classified as low sensitivity rather than medium; site will consolidate

the urban form of the settlement; no overriding physical, technical or

environmental constraints .

AJM Planning on behalf of KGL

(Holdings) Ltd; Hawksmoor on

behalf of J.S Holford & Sons

AJM Planning: Nearest convenience store is some 800m by foot,

other shops along Walsall Road are providing specialist services rather

than day to day shopping; reference to Grade 4 agricultural land

based on generalised classification maps - more likely to be Grade 3;

landscape study references that development would be detrimental

to the character of the LCP and therefore medium impact against the

countryside/landscape criterion is not justified; Inspector considering

1996 Local Plan acknowledged that Pool View Ridge forms a sensible

Green Belt boundary; no detailed assessment of ecological or

drainage constraints; affects the Bridgetown Subsidence Pools SBI; 35

dwls on 2.2ha is not an efficient use of land; anticipated limitations

for providing community infrastructure and open space; will reduce

the gap between the settlement edge and the built up area of

Cannock; Hawksmoor: protection of TPO trees would reduce the

developable area of the site; north western corner of the site within

flood zone 3

141 154a Walsall Road Hawksmoor on behalf of J.S

Holford & Sons

would involve a significant amount of site clearance to demolish the

existing buildings which could impact on viability.

440 Land east of Love Lane AJM Planning on behalf of KGL

(Holdings) Ltd

Nearest convenience store is some 800m by foot, other shops along

Walsall Road are providing specialist services rather than day to day

shopping; reference to Grade 4 agricultural land based on generalised

classification maps - more likely to be Grade 3; landscape assessment

reference that the "rural feel and relationship with the wider

landscape make development inappropriate"; a petition with 266

signatures objecting to the site was submitted in 2014; easement

running through the site reduces the density and is not an efficient

use of land; no detailed assessment of ecological or drainage

constraints; assessment of natural environment and flood risk are

without foundation; site has not be assessed for a highways

perspective; the specific site has not been evaluated in terms of

impact on the Green Belt;

134 Home Farm, Walsall

Road/Jacobs Hall Lane

Hawksmoor on behalf of J.S

Holford & Sons

site is available, deliverable and developable now. AJM Planning on behalf of KGL

(Holdings) Ltd

High school over 1500m away on foot; Quinton centre approx. 600-

800m away; reference to Grade 4 agricultural land based on

generalised classification maps; absence of established northern and

eastern boundary of the site; site makes a significant contribution to

the Green Belt; Inspector considering the 1996 Local Plan concluded

that the site was unsuitable; no detailed assessment of ecological or

drainage constraints; assessment of natural environment and flood

risk are without foundation;

GREAT WYRLEY


Discounted Sites



GREAT WYRLEY

136 South of Upper

Landywood Lane

(north)


(Holdings) Ltd

Tier 1 assessment of the site is flawed; agree that the site has

excellent pedestrian access to the railway station, shops and services;

site is Grade 4 ALC at best; community safety benefits of treating

existing mineshafts on the site; PRoW and TPOs can be

accommodated within any development; HERs appear to relate to

historic features of past mining activity; landscape study confirms

that along the northern LCP boundary development would relate well

to the settlement edge and these views on landscape are consistent

with the officer response to the 2013 planning application; flood risk

and ecological technical report confirms that the site can be

developed without any detrimental effects; Green Belt review did

not review site 136 specifically but as part of a wider parcel - this

approach is flawed; scoring of the site not consistent with the

landscape sensitivity study, surface water drainage and historic

environment are incorrect; opportunity to provide car parking as

highlighted as a project in the IDP - no other site can provide this;

potential for developer contributions towards regeneration of the

Quinton Shopping Precinct; includes open space proposals that

include linkages with existing areas of open space.

proposing that site 136 should replace

all sites with Green belt status

137 South of Upper

Landywood Lane

(south)


(Holdings) Ltd

Site closer to the railway station and health centre than 139 and 440;

could provide excellent pedestrian links to the High and Primary

school; site is Grade 4 ALC at best; community safety benefits of

treating existing mineshafts on the site; HERs appear to relate to

historic features of past mining activity; flood risk and ecological

technical report confirms that the site can be developed without any

detrimental effects; Green Belt review did not review site 137

specifically but as part of a wider parcel - this approach is flawed;

includes open space proposals that include linkages with existing

areas of open space; ability to utilise well established boundaries for

the Green Belt.

138 Leacroft Lane/Roman

View, Great Wyrley

145 Land south of M6 Toll

at Churchbridge

Indigo Planning on behalf of AA

Homes and Housing Ltd

site scores well against tier 1 assessment; site will be able to deliver

on-site affordable housing; a number of other allocation sites have

flood risk and/or environmental constraints; site can accommodate

appropriate flood alleviation measures; environmental assessments

undertaken for adjacent Redrow development demonstrated no

issues that could not be mitigated; development would be delivered

without impacting on the restoration of the Hatherton Branch Canal

or any heritage assets; sustainable location with good access to

amenities; no objections from members of the public; site can be

developed without an adverse impact on existing community

provision; good links to employment opportunities; links to existing

open space; site benefits from defensible boundaries in all directions;

benefits from natural surveillance; scores well against the tier 2

criteria; performs well against the SA criteria;


GREAT WYRLEY

441 Land north of Hazel

Lane

451 Land off Norton

Lane/Love Lane

(extension to Site 440)



016 Pear Tree Farm

012 Land at Oaklands Farm

013 Land at Oaklands Farm -

Site 1


Site 2


Site 3

017 Land off Dogintree

Estate - Almond Road

Inglewood Investment Ltd unrealistic to consider that no more development needed in

Huntington over the plan period; could provide some local services

on site; sustainable linkages to Cannock and Stafford; could provide a

mix of housing; could protect the AONB by providing amenity within

the site; could meet some of the regional need arising from

Birmingham;


HUNTINGTON


Discounted Sites


270 Land off Hyde Lane

(east)

Pegasus on behalf of

Richborough Estates

site is adjacent to village and Brindley Heath Junior School; good

opportunities for vehicular and pedestrian access; north and west

boundaries are Mill Brook scored more favourably in assessment than

alternatives; lesser contribution to GB; development can be achieved

away from floodplain and TPOs; low landscape sensitivity; well

contained; close to local amenities; site is deliverable in next 5 yrs.;

43 dwellings net can be delivered with open space; delivery of

community benefit - affordable housing, POS and natural play, green

infrastructure links, new footpath network; water and surface water

infrastructure improvements; POS in excess of standards in SAD8;

Pegasus - Flood Risk Statement

included

274 Land south of White

Hill


Trebor Developments

entirety of the site is deliverable and suitable for development now;

site is plainly sustainable; site is within walking distance of the

amenities in the village centre; robust technical investigations have

already taken place in respect of flood risk, drainage, transport and

ecology - results show no constraints to prohibit development;

committed to providing a scheme of high quality architecture and

design to respect character and setting of the village; willing to

engage with the community and Parish Council to discuss aspirations

for the village; natural features can be retained; a good mix of homes

could be provided; site preforms well against the Green Belt tests;

preforms well against landscape sensitivity as it is visually contained

by housing and woodlands and subject to significant urban

influences; would represent infilling of the development boundary

and would avoid projection into the countryside; 130 additional

homes would result in a 4% increase in households and would not put

undue pressure of existing infrastructure; 100 homes on the site

would deliver significantly more infrastructure benefits; would

provide family housing to help sustain local services;

Stewart Vick Associates on behalf of

Kinver Green Belt Action Group

(KGBAG)

objection to site development held for many years; refer to previous

inspectors reports comments from 1981; CP6 states 60%

development on brownfield but not being applied to Kinver and

objects accordingly; windfalls since CS adopted average 15dw.p.a

means that 84-180 dwellings could be approved in village by 2028 so

no GB sites needed; no windfall allowance; recent permissions must

be taken into account for allocation; Highways issues at Potter's Cross

including increased volume of traffic at peak times; congestion;

pedestrian and road safety; no effective assessment of Potters Cross;

Impact on the landscape and setting, including visual impact on

Kinver Edge; loss of open Space including loss of open space to view

Kinver Edge; other sites on roads into/out of village are better suited

if GB sites are needed;


KINVER



KINVER

274 Land south of White

Hill


Trebor Developments

Stewart Vick Associates on behalf of

Kinver Green Belt Action Group

(KGBAG)

objection to site development held for many years; refer to previous

inspectors reports comments from 1981; CP6 states 60%

development on brownfield but not being applied to Kinver and

objects accordingly; windfalls since CS adopted average 15dw.p.a

means that 84-180 dwellings could be approved in village by 2028 so

no GB sites needed; no windfall allowance; recent permissions must

be taken into account for allocation; Highways issues at Potter's Cross

including increased volume of traffic at peak times; congestion;

pedestrian and road safety; no effective assessment of Potters Cross;

Impact on the landscape and setting, including visual impact on

Kinver Edge; loss of open Space including loss of open space to view

Kinver Edge; other sites on roads into/out of village are better suited

if GB sites are needed;

271 Land off Hyde Lane

(west)

272 Land East of Dunsley

Drive

273 North of White Hill

409 Land at Edge View

Home, off Comber

Road

452 Lowes Garage, Stone

Lane, Kinver

RespondentBilfinger GVA on behalf of

Trebor Developments

Proposed allocation of 274a for 30 dwellings is supported, however it is believed that the remainder of the site should also be allocated for housing development; allocating the remainder of 274 would increase flexibility;

Increasing the allocation at White Hill would deliver community benefit without undermining the spatial strategy; AH need in Kinver is unquantified but is likely to be much higher than the 58 identified in the 2012 HMA; if

130 units are allocated at Kinver (100 at White Hill and 30 at Hyde Lane) 52 affordable units could be delivered which is much more likely to meet Kinver's AH need. a scheme of 30 dwellings requires imposing an arbitrary

boundary across the site which does not leave space for additional features - a scheme covering the whole site could provide a more holistic development including open space, children's play etc.;

Discounted Sites

CommentGeneral Comments


255 Clive Road/Moor

Lane, Pattingham

PlanIt on behalf of

landowners W Yeomans, J

Law & R Law

part of site appears to be ALC1; road narrows to 4.5m and

safe access will require hedgerow removal; site is at

maximum extremities of acceptable walking distances; site

251 preferable; both sites have low landscape sensitivity value

however 255 has greater scenic qualities and contributes

more to GB; greater impact on visual approach to village;

greater impact on GB

249 Land adj

Meadowside off High

Street250 Land off Patshull

Road

251 Hall End Farm PlanIt on behalf of

landowners W Yeomans, J

Law & R Law

object site 251 not included to deliver 28 dwellings inc 4

bungalows and 9 affordable; adjoins rural exception site; 30m

landscape buffer to south for open space; sustainable

location; good pedestrian access to village and services; ALC

not Grade 1; actually Grade 2 and 3a; suitable access through

rural exception site; study states vehicle movements form

development are not expected to impact operation of local

roads and junctions; lesser visual impact than 255; lesser

impact on GB than 255

252 Land at Clive Road

253 Land off Westbeech

Road

401 Land adj to Beech

House Farm

421 Land between Rudge

Road and Marlbrook

Lane256 Field off Newgate,

Pattingham

257 Land at Highgate

Farm

453 Land adjacent

Meadowside, off

High Street,

Pattingham

(extension to existing

site 249)

Respondent

PATTINGHAM

General Comments Comment


Discounted Sites

Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other comments

001 Lyne Hill Industrial

Estate

005 Land off Cherrybrook

Drive




could maximise the green infrastructure asset of the canal

providing strong rights of way linkages; topography of land

would not constrain development; strong mature tree belt

providing screening to the M6; main part of the site clear of

any trees; believed to be no ecological constraints that would

prevent development; site not located within or close to a

conservation area; no known heritage or archaeological

constraints; site is in Flood Zone 1 and therefore appropriate

for development; if allocated now would help meet some of

the regional housing need; could accommodate circa 100

dwellings; in one ownership and is available now; in a

sustainable settlement identified for growth; accessible by

sustainable modes of transport;

Pegasus - SAD3 not clear whether

this site will be carried forward or

whether there are any issues that

would render the site

undeliverable;

003 Land adj Bridge

House Hotel

004 Land north of

Penkridge of A449

(west)006 Land off Boscomoor

Lane


Richborough Estates site

006

006 scored well against site criteria with the exception of GB

Review; Penkridge provides good local facilities and links to

other settlements; housing needs evidence suggests an uplift

in housing land is required; whilst non-GB land available

justification for safeguarding land to ensure continuous

supply of new homes; train station provides strong links to

Stafford and Birmingham and an appropriate location to meet

cross boundary housing pressures; site is visually contained,

enclosed by development on 3 sides; site is deliverable in next

5 years; can deliver 80 dwellings;

420 Land east of A449 First City on behalf of Mr T

Fellows (site 420,

Penkridge)

Disagree that the site would be very prominent from the

AONB; site has well defined boundaries - represents a logical

extension to the settlement; within walking distance of the

village centre shops; not in the Green Belt and therefore is

sequentially the most sustainable option for future housing

growth in the village; would provide public access through the

formal open space; no part of the site is within the floodplain,

not in a highly sensitive landscape area; well screened by

existing vegetation; involves land that is not best and most

versatile; clear options for pedestrian links to the village

centre; no historic field boundaries within the site;

PENKRIDGE

Discounted Sites


Allocation


PENKRIDGE

430 Land off Lyne Hill

Lane/A449

PlanIt on behalf of

landowners Rutherford and

Wright

South Staffs constrained by GB and land needs to be released

to meet local, BC or HMA needs and shortfall; suitable for

allocation and safeguarding; no technical showstoppers as

per Council's appraisal; good access off A449; only reason

discounted was Council assertion that it had met Penkridge

requirement and impact on GB however does not perform

any GB role; sustainable location; good access to Boscomoor

shops;

009 land north of

Penkridge

(disassociated from

village boundary)


Marston's PLC

separated from urban edge however should be considered

with 420 adjoining the village; in OC; not constrained by

flooding; not constrained by GB; good access into and out of

the village;

Respondent




site 005 should be allocated now to help meet regional housing needs



239 Land west of

Wrottesley Park

Road (south)

Turley on behalf of Land Fund available and deliverable; provide an appropriate mix including social

and elderly; access off existing roundabout; new open space including

allotments; scored most favourable in GB Review; Golf Course

provides a defensible boundary; query GB review due to boundaries/

encroachment/ coalescence of other sites;

Ancer Spa on behalf of Lord

Wrottesley Voluntary

Settlement

Separated from the village by Wrottesley Park Road which forms a

natural boundary to Perton; new residents of site 239 would need to

cross a busy road to access facilities; site 239 is not directly adjacent

to the village boundary as is separated by Wrottesley Park Road; the

selection of site 239 is not consistent with NPPF paras 34 and 35; risk

of unrestricted sprawl to the north and south of the parcel resulting

in the continued spread of urbanising influences to the west of

Perton; not in line with NPPF para 83 around the permanence and

long term nature of Green Belt boundaries; almost all facilities are

closer to site 238a than 239; EA flood risk mapping confirms that a

greater proportion of site 239 is subject to flood risk and therefore

238a should score better on surface water flooding; new residents of

site 239 are more likely to use a car to access amenities than those on

site 238a would; site overlays a mineral area which is not the case for

238a;

Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection

239 Land west of

Wrottesley Park

Road (south)

Turley on behalf of Land Fund available and deliverable; provide an appropriate mix including social

and elderly; access off existing roundabout; new open space including

allotments; scored most favourable in GB Review; Golf Course

provides a defensible boundary; query GB review due to

boundaries/encroachment/coalescence of other sites;



Settlement

Separated from the village by Wrottesley Park Road which forms a

natural boundary to Perton; new residents of site 239 would need to

cross a busy road to access facilities; site 239 is not directly adjacent

to the village boundary as is separated by Wrottesley Park Road; the

selection of site 239 is not consistent with NPPF paras 34 and 35; risk

of unrestricted sprawl to the north and south of the parcel resulting

in the continued spread of urbanising influences to the west of

Perton; not in line with NPPF para 83 around the permanence and

long term nature of Green Belt boundaries; almost all facilities are

closer to site 238a than 239; EA flood risk mapping confirms that a

greater proportion of site 239 is subject to flood risk and therefore

238a should score better on surface water flooding; new residents of

site 239 are more likely to use a car to access amenities than those on

site 238a would; site overlays a mineral area which is not the case for

238a;


Discounted Sites

PERTON



PERTON

238a Land at Perton Court

Farm



Settlement

Only propose development in the north western part of the site,

Green Belt review specifically excludes western half of the site as an

area best performing the purposes of the Green Belt; gap will be

maintained between Perton and Wolverhampton permanently

secured through a section 106; encroachment contained by existing

defensible boundaries; Landscape study paras 31-33 conclude that

the northern part of the site could create a strong settlement edge;

most sustainable location due to proximity to amenities; via Edgehill

Drive site can easily access footpaths, cycle ways that directly connect

to schools shops and community facilities; at worst, site should have

scored equally against the Green Belt consideration; proposing the

design solution advocated in the Council's Landscape Sensitivity Study

for the reinforcement of existing field boundaries; based on the

landscape study, site should have scored better than 239 against the

impact on the landscape criterion; almost all facilities are closer to

site 238a than 239; proximity to local bus stops; EA flood risk

mapping confirms that a greater proportion of site 239 is subject to

flood risk and therefore 238a should score better on surface water

flooding; site should score better on highways as highway solution

would not be 'significant' and could be delivered on land under the

control of the site owner of 238a; part of site believed to be Grade 2

ALC is not proposed for development; would provide 19.1ha for

community uses such as allotments and open space/playing fields;

proposing to improve the hedge line on the northern boundary to

protect the amenity of existing Perton residents; less community

safety concerns as than for site 239 where pedestrian links would

involve crossing busy road;

241 Land off Dippons

Lane


PERTON

246a Bradshaws Estate NLP on behalf of the

Bradshaws Estate

two-tier process heavily weighted to environmental

constraints rather than balancing env, social and economic

matters; RAG lacks transparency and robustness; GB review

overstates 246a contribution to GB; Landscape Sensitivity fails

to take account of existing built development; no flood risk or

surface water issues; uniquely able to deliver significant

improvements to A41; site lower ALC compared to others;

scores well against tier 2; tier 2 should be RAG; three sites

should have made tier 2; access to amenities shouldn't be

comparative with other sites; farm shop on site adds to

amenity scores; unclear why surface water flood risk

comments - all sites should be acceptable in principle; should

include the proposed highways improvements in access

scores; highways assessment is only limited and has

significant weight; unclear why 246a needs significant

highways improvements yet 239 doesn't; junction

improvements would have an improvement on env quality

above other sites; shouldn't be downgraded due to below

ground HER; strong community support for site; can provide

economic opportunities through construction and indirect in

local shops; potential for new open spaces; use of natural

boundaries; additional woodland planting; screen

development with new planting; secured design;

402 Land at rear of

Winceby Road

407 Land west of

Wrottesley Park

Road (north)


Richborough Estates

site scored well against assessment; site well contained; low

landscape sensitivity; scored better against GB than PO; site adjacent

to village and north of PO allocation; least impact on GB in village;

development of 239 would lead to coalescence to south, however

this would not be an issue at 407; site is 6 arable fields, low

hedgerows that give a simple landscape fabric and open character;

considered low sensitivity to change; good access to village and

amenities and wider employment locations; support positive surface

water assessment; support positive highways assessment;

sustainable location; transport assessment shows junctions in vicinity

of site have sufficient capacity for 750 dwelling (239 and 407) with

exception of A41; strategy has been developed to increase capacity

within highway land; less sensitive ALC than site 239; proximity of

PRoW shouldn't be a constraint - opportunity to enhance linkages to

Staffordshire Way; no ecological in principle constraints;

opportunities for biodiversity enhancement within proposed County

Park; support positive env quality assessment; heritage assessment

demonstrates no designated assets within site and development

would not affect any assets; HER are not a constraint to

development; site is suitable and deliverable in 5 years;

Pegasus - supporting work includes EDP

comparative GB and landscape

assessment; Landscape and Ecology

Paper; Flood Risk and Drainage Technical

Note; Transport Review and Junction

Assessment; Heritage Report

454 Land at Dippons

Lane, Perton

467 Bradshaws Estate,

Holyhead Road

(extension to

existing site 246a)


PERTON

RespondentAncer Spa on behalf of Lord


Settlement

Calculated that 11.1ha is needed to provide the allocation and safeguarded land on site 238a.



312 Land off Church Road Lever, Turner and Cowdell deliver 9 dwellings; access achievable;

437 Land off Church Lane

(rear of Church Road)

313 Land off Himley Lane

(Site 1)

RCA Regeneration Ltd on

behalf of David Wilson

Homes (Mercia) Ltd

Incorrect to state that the landowner isn't willing to deliver 10

dwellings; landowner is irrespective of DWH; DWH firm that

10 dwellings would not be sufficient allocation to meet

current needs of settlement; site 313 was highest scoring;

Council putting off inevitable increase in housing because not

delivering OAN; significant GB release needed to avoid

economic decline in Borough; unsustainable patterns of

development are emerging because of such constraints; DWH

believe a larger release of GB offers significant benefits inc

enlargement of school, POS, affordable housing, public

transport contributions, landscaping, education and other

financial contributions

314 Land off Wombourne

Road (Site 2)

315 Land off Himley Lane

(Site 3

455 Greyhound Inn,

Wombourne Road

Respondent


SWINDON



Discounted Sites


379 Land off Back

Lane/Ivetsey

Beech Cole Architects Site provides best access and visibility to Ivetsey Road; a new

access will reduce the speed of vehicles earlier and protect

the more vulnerable junction at Ivetsey Close; further away

from sensitive sites like Mottey Meadows than other sites;

trees and hedgerows are mature and would be maintained as

part of the development; site is contained by physical

features; visual impact would be limited due to small

boundary with Ivetsey Road; site would ensure open

space/footpath links along the existing development

boundary to create a buffer zone to protect residential

amenity; would include a new bridleway linking to existing

footpath network; drainage of surface water will be

contained within the sites boundary; site lends itself to sub-

division into phases reflecting historic field pattern use; no

need for contractor vehicles to drive through the village

during construction.


Heyford Developments Ltd

Identifying site 379 as the Preferred Option is not consistent

with the findings of the landscape sensitivity study - this

inaccuracy is reflected in the RAG scoring; far-reaching views

of the countryside would be impacted by development of the

site; no evidence to suggest that 89 preforms less well in

landscape sensitivity terms than site 379; site is less

preferable than 89 when considering impact on the historic

environment; impact on amenity and setting of existing

residential area

89 Land off Badgers

End



SHLAA identifies the site as suitable for housing; could meet

entire village allocation; ground water deeper at site 89 than

Mottey Meadows and therefore there would be no impact on

ground water at the SSSI; ecological enhancements could be

achieved through the planting of additional trees and

hedgerows; direct access from Ivetsey Road; pedestrian links

could be enhanced; potential to accommodate pedestrian

and cycle link via Badgers End; sequentially preferable

location in flood risk terms; Utility Service search

demonstrates adequate utility connections; assessment

confirms that there are no statutory or non-statutory heritage

assets to preclude development; identifying site 379 as the

Preferred Option is not consistent with the findings of the

landscape sensitivity study which confirms development

could be accommodated on the site - this inaccuracy is

reflected in the RAG scoring; views of the wider countryside

are constrained and the site sits well within the landscape;

site able to provide natural extension to the village with

minimal impact to visual receptors; LVIA confirms the site is

less sensitive than 379 in landscape terms; HRA assertion that

site 89 is not taken forward in the SAD due to proximity to

Mottey Meadows is flawed, as both 89 and 379 are in the

1km Impact risk zone and sites need to be assessed in terms

of potential impact, not on distance from the SAC; ground

water at the SSSI will not be impacted by the development;

HRA determined that there were no likely significant effects

on Mottey Meadows from abstraction licences held by water

providers, and that no new abstractions would be required

over the next 25 years; impact on European designated sites

already scoped out from the Issues and Options

Methodology; site is preferable to site 379 in terms of

potential impact on nearby historic assets, specifically site is

further away from the Wheaton Aston conservation area and

a number of listed buildings ; HER is a historic ridge and

WHEATON ASTON


Discounted Sites


WHEATON ASTON

90 The Paddock

Hawthorn Drive

91 Land at

Brooklands

92 Back Lane/Mill

Lane

94 Land off Primrose

Close

Bruton Knowles on behalf

of the Taylor Family

well located adjacent a school; impact on landscape

considered to be low; variety of options available to access

the site93/377 Land east of Back

Lane

378 Land off

Broadholes

Lane/Badgers End

422 Trevett House

426 Land at Bridge

Farm

439 Grey House Farm,

Ivetsey Road

442 Land at Ivetsey

Road

456 The Paddock,

Hawthorne Drive,

Wheaton Aston

(extension to

existing site 90)

Respondent




SA has classified site 89 as amber against objective 5 for being within HER buffer, however assessment criteria for SA does not refer to the HER; both 89 and 379 fall within 400m of historic

assets (including the Wheaton Aston conservation area) so both sites should be classified as amber.


281a Land off Ounsdale Road

(part a)


behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK

Not conveniently located for the Business Parks in

Wombourne; site scored less favourably against the a

Landscape and Visual Appraisal including Green Belt

Review(LVAGBR) produced by Barton Willmore; site scored

an amber on highway accessibility; Barton Willmore review of

the site selection process shows that the site performs less

favourably than site 285

302 land east Beggars Bush

Lane


Richborough Estates site

302

site adjoins village, bounded by Beggars Bush Lane and A449;

site is well contained; site scores well in PO as best

performing greenfield site; cannot deliver the full minimum

housing requirement; can deliver 70 - 80 dwellings; site is

deliverable in next 5 yrs.; unmanaged trees on site have now

been removed from the site; ongoing dialogue with SCC re

access; 2 points of vehicle access on Beggars Bush lane and

pedestrian points of access are suitable, safe and deliverable;

widening of carriageway achievable if necessary; existing

hedgerow has no arboricultural status; delivery of community

benefit - affordable housing, POS and natural play, green

infrastructure links, new footpath network; water and surface

water infrastructure improvements; POS in excess of

standards in SAD8; potential to include allotments;



Not conveniently located for the Business Parks in

Wombourne; site scored less favourably against the a


Review(LVAGBR) produced by Barton Willmore; site scored

an amber on highway accessibility; Barton Willmore review

of the site selection process shows that the site performs less

favourably than site 285

Pegasus - PTB Transport Ltd

technical note provided re

deliverability of access

283 Land off Bridgnorth

Road

Marron Planning on behalf

of Bloor Homes Ltd

available, willing landowner; no constraints that will affect

timescales for deliverability; developed for circa 100

dwellings; no masterplan for safeguarded land and may be

appropriate for it to be carried out with allocation



UK; EJ Planning Ltd on

behalf of Mr and Mrs

Hickman

Barton Willmore: Not conveniently located for the Business

Parks in Wombourne; site scored less favourably against the a


Review(LVAGBR) produced by Barton Willmore; Barton

Willmore review of the site selection process shows that the

site performs less favourably than site 285; EJ Planning Ltd:

the allocation of 283 has taken no account of the LUC Green

Belt review findings; removal from the Green Belt conflicts

with the NPPF; would lead to significant encroachment and

the merger of Himley and Wombourne; allocating a

significant proportion of the site as safeguarded land will

reduce the ability of the Council to resist speculative

applications; not appropriate to accommodate some of

Birmingham's housing shortfall; site occupies an elevated

position and would have a significant impact on the

landscape; would lead to an increase in traffic volume and

have implications for highway safety - visibility to the north

inhibited with the presence of a blind summit; would

generate significant surface water run-off; major severn Trent

water main located underneath the site; land contamination

on the site.

WOMBOURNE




WOMBOURNE

283 Land off Bridgnorth

Road

Marron Planning on behalf

of Bloor Homes Ltd

available, willing landowner; no constraints that will affect

timescales for deliverability; developed for circa 100

dwellings; no masterplan for safeguarded land and may be

appropriate for it to be carried out with allocation



UK; Tyler Parkes on behalf

of Mr Guest

Barton Wilmore - Not conveniently located for the Business

Parks in Wombourne; site scored less favourably against the a




site performs less favourably than site 285; Tyler Parkes -

makes a more significant contribution to GB than 309; less

defined boundaries; lies in an important narrow separation

with Himley;

416 Land off Orton Lane Barton Willmore LLP on


UK; Tyler Parkes on behalf

of Mr Guest

Barton Wilmore - Site 416 should be categorised as red on

landscape sensitivity in light of the LVAGBR study undertaken;

located approximately 1km to the nearest facilities along

School Road; Not conveniently located for the Business Parks

in Wombourne; site scored less favourably against the a




site performs less favourably than site 285; Tyler Parkes -

makes a more significant contribution to GB than 309; less

defined boundaries; lies in an important narrow separation

with Wolverhampton;

279 Wombourne Day Centre,

Planks Lane

280 Land at the Bratch,

Bratch Lane


Severn Trent

Should be allocated for 70 dwellings within the settlement

boundary; site is available now with a realistic prospect of

housing being delivered within the next 5 years; mixed use

scheme would generate employment; potential to enhance

the tourism offer of the pumping station which could improve

the vitality of the village; site in a sustainable location near to

amenities, services and facilities; opportunity for meaningful

open space around the canal; scheme would be sensitively

designed to protect the conservation area and pumping

station; would provide detailed assessments on heritage,

ecology, access and landscape at the detailed design stage;

site sequentially preferable to Green Belt sites proposed for

allocation;

281b Land off Ounsdale Road

(part b)

282 Land rear Waggon and

Horses PH

284 Land off Gilbert Lane

Discounted Sites


WOMBOURNE

285 Land off Poolhouse Road Barton Willmore LLP on


Interest of national housebuilder confirms availability and

deliverability; site is in a sustainable location for residential

development; pedestrian links through the site to existing

woodland and an existing PRoW network; development

would not constitute a disorganised or unattractive extension

to the settlement pattern; structural planting would be

provided as part of the proposed development to limit impact

on the landscape; Landscape and Visual Appraisal including

Green Belt Review(LVAGBR) confirm that the site would have

between 'none' and 'very limited' impact on the Green Belt;

site should be categorised as dark green against the access to

amenities consideration due to proximity to employment ,

schools, retail etc.; technical FRA confirms no insurmountable

issues which would preclude development with the proposed

attenuation features sufficient to mitigate potential flooding -

as such site should be re-assessed as dark green; site should

score dark green against impact on the Natural Environment

as no site specific designations should preclude development;

site should score a light green against the impact on

environmental quality criterion as it is at low risk of

contamination and does not adjoin a use that would cause

noise or air quality issues; site should score dark green on

historic environment as the site is not close to the

conservation area and there are no listed buildings within or

adjoining the site; site is in an area of low landscape

sensitivity.


Greenhill Farm, Sytch

Lane289 Brookside Hostel

300 Land off Bratch

Lane/Flash Lane

415 Land off Pool House

Road/Clap Gate Road

417 Land adj Hartford

House, Pool House Road

Advance Land & Planning

Ltd on behalf of Mr K Smith

When considering impact on the Green Belt the site should

have been assessed as a separate and discrete parcel ; the

attributes of the wider parcel - very open with exceptional

views - cannot be attributed to the site which does not serve

any of the key purposes of the Green Belt; site should have

been categorised as yellow/amber against the Green Belt

criterion; the findings of the Landscape Sensitivity Study

identified the site as being low value in contrast with the

Partial Green Belt Review (PGBR); Highway Accessibility

should be amended to a green;

438 Land off Bratch Lane


WOMBOURNE

457 Land south of

Wombourne

458 Land off Poolhouse Road

(former land fill site),

Wombourne


Poolhouse Road,

Wombourne460 Land at Bridgnorth Road

461 Land off Orton Lane

(extension to existing

site 416) 462 Bratch Farm, Bratch

Lane, Wombourne

463 Wodehouse Estate

309 land off Bridgnorth Road

(disassociated from

village)

Tyler Parkes on behalf of

Mr Guest

makes a lesser contribution to GB than allocated sites; clear

boundaries; contest that the disassociation due to Smestow

Brook green corridor; no other settlements in close proximity

for concern merging; sustainable location; deliverable and

available; ensure future viability of existing services and

facilities; support public transport; deliver housing mix;

Respondent




Severn Trent


The SAD or supporting evidence does not provide any detailed feedback that justifies the Flood Risk Officers comments;

Wish to work with the Council to allay any fears around site access or any other technical matters.


E7 Land off Lawn

Lane/M54 (north)


Severn Trent

Support the proposed extensions the west of i54 contained

within the SAD

E8 Land off Lawn

Lane/M54 (south)


Severn Trent

Support the proposed extensions the west of i54 contained

within the SAD

ROF Site Extension Savills on behalf of Taylor

Wimpey; Signet Planning on

behalf of Peveril Securities

and St Francis Group

Savills - support ROF Featherstone expansion west and east;

TW agreeable to provide landscaping between east ROF and

proposed residential development; additional safeguarded

land needed to ensure adequate HQ employment land is

available; more land east and west best suited for

safeguarding; flood risk noted however if the culvert was

removed as a result of redevelopment the extent of flood

plain would change; 20m easements for pylons required;

estimate 9ha developable land to west of ROF and 15ha east;

total 24ha additional GB employment land and circa 17ha

planting; land east of WCML should be reserved for longer

term; Signet Planning - support the principle of a new link

road that will provide a direct route from ROF to the M54;

strong support for the provision of employment land as an

extension to ROF; concerns that the quantum of employment

land is not sufficient; land should be safeguarded for longer

term needs; current connectivity to M54 restrict capacity to

serve B2/B8 employment site; support 50% extension;

support 10ha landscaping to protect amenity of Featherstone

village; wording in table SAD6 needs clarity; support link road

to Junction 1 M54; B8 only take place once new road created;

support working on a masterplan; EIA required;

First City Limited on behalf

of Vanjeks Management

Limited;

Issues with viability - allocated for 20 years and has yet to be

developed; access constraints would be difficult to alter

without significant cost which would take a considerable

amount of time;

Signet Planning on behalf of Peveril

Securities and St Francis Group will

be seeking a planning application

on the site shortly.

ROF Access Road First City Limited on behalf


Limited;

road would significantly change the landscape; in close

proximity to Moseley Old Hall;

J Price - Only option C is credible

specifically for SFRI; Savills - TW

prefer route C as provides best link

to i54; opportunity to deliver

additional employment land to

west of WCML; Signet Planning-

support route to M54 Jct 1; Turley -

alternative route to New Road

through 396 should be considered

E4 Land south of

Moseley Road

Proposed Allocations

Discounted Sites

EMPLOYMENT PROPOSALS



E5 Land west of

Hilton Cross

Signet Planning on behalf of

Peveril Securities

extension to Hilton Cross would be in accordance with

intentions to provide employment land but not necessarily in

accordance with ELS; ELS underestimates the need for quality

sites; random choice of likely demand; overestimation of

supply - potential 20ha contribution from Walsall sites

unrealistic; Hilton Cross can fill that gap; increased population

means more sites are needed; Council accept 50% extension

is modest at ROF so Hilton Cross is 21.5ha and extension

should be the same (50%) and allocate 10.75ha; safeguarded

land should be identified; lack of HQ sites for BC; proposed

ROF link road supported; potential quality of Hilton Cross land

release will be increased; west of Hilton Cross would require

the relocation of the existing strategic landscape strip to

replace it on outer edge of new site; regard would be had to

setting of listed building; M54 key factor in releasing HQ

employment land

E9 Land south of

Hilton Cross

Signet Planning on behalf of

Peveril Securities

extension to Hilton Cross would be in accordance with

intentions to provide employment land but not necessarily in

accordance with ELS; ELS underestimates the need for quality

sites; random choice of likely demand; overestimation of

supply - potential 20ha contribution from Walsall sites

unrealistic; Hilton Cross can fill that gap; increased population

means more sites are needed; Council accept 50% extension

is modest at ROF so Hilton Cross is 21.5ha and extension

should be the same (50%) and allocate 10.75ha; safeguarded

land should be identified; lack of HQ sites for BC; proposed

ROF link road supported; potential quality of Hilton Cross land

release will be increased; west of Hilton Cross would require

the relocation of the existing strategic landscape strip to

replace it on outer edge of new site; regard would be had to

setting of listed building; M54 key factor in releasing HQ

employment land

E6 Land north of

Bognop Road

First City Limited on behalf


Limited;

Land to the east of Hilton Main should be allocated for

employment for a number of reasons: the site has excellent

transportation links; site close to Featherstone and Essington

with a good variety of facilities; not aware of restrictive

covenants; no flood risk, no known physical constraints,

suitable topography, no known contamination, no protected

trees or PRoWs; site could be developed within 5 years;

clients site should be developed instead of ROF Featherstone

as it would require far less infrastructure and would not

impact upon Moseley Old Hall; preferable to an extension to

Hilton Cross which would risks coalescence with

Wolverhampton and impacting upon Mosley Old Hall;

E11 Land east of Four

Ashes



Respondent

Berry's on behalf of Mr J R

Holt and Mr M B Holt


Severn Trent

JLL

J Price

Quod concerned that the extensions to employment sites exceed modest

object that Jct 11 M6 not an allocation; insufficient land allocated and a different strategy to that of CS is justified; new sites should be considered; site has excellent comms and connectivity

to workforce; attraction B class development; linked to development of M54/M6 link road; policy does not seek to meet full needs; ignores other aspects of different needs; BC shortfall

actually 200ha; ignores WM Strategic Sites conclusions; RLS not addressed in SAD; ROF Featherstone has not been demonstrated to be deliverable should be deleted p22 NPPF; welcome LPA

considering impact of M54/M6 link; Jct 11 in Sandwell travel to work;

Land to the north of I54 would be the next logical step in i54s extension; 40ha extension is considered too modest when considering the wider employment aspirations of the region, SAD

should be safeguarding land to accommodate anticipated growth up until 2033; explicit provision within GB2 for the identification of safeguarded land around the Four Strategic Employment

sites; Green Belt boundary should be reviewed to the north of i54 in light of the likely need to expand to 2038 in line with policy GB2; SAD modest extension to i54 is insufficient to meet the

land requirements of the sub region and therefore the SAD is not consistent with NPPF paragraphs 19,20, 21, 160 , 161 and is not considered sound having regard to paragraphs 178-182 of

the NPPF. Request that 2.6ha of land at Wombourne Sewage Works is allocated in the SAD for employment purposes; the proposed site does not fulfil the 5 purposes of the Green Belt and is

brownfield land;


Propose new employment site at Dunston (south of M6 Junction 13); NPPF requires more positive approach to employment growth than that set out in the Core Strategy; would meet a

SSLEP objectives; site not constrained by Green Belt; nearby employment land at Dunston identified as 'good' in figure 3.13 of the SA; SAD offers an opportunity to update a pre NPPF Strategy

so it is consistent with the NPPF

mismatch of employment and housing provisions

GYPSY PITCHES

Site Ref No. Site ProposalRespondents in

SupportSummary of Reasons for Support

Respondents Who

ObjectSummary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments

GT02 High House, Hatherton 1 temporary pitch to

permanent

Philip Brown additional pitches in site would minimise the loss of

openness of Green Belt; would not predjudice the

purposes of the GB; no significant adverse impact upon

the character and appearance of the countryside

GT03 New Stables, Poplar

Lane

2 more pitches in site

boundary





GT04 Poolhouse Barn, Slade

Heath


boundary

GT05 Granary Cottage, Slade

Heath


boundary

GT06 The Spinney, Slade

Heath

1 more pitch in site

boundary

GT07 The Bungalow, Rock

Bank Brewood


boundary

GT08 Brinsford Bridge 1 more pitch in site

boundary

Green Planning Studio

on behalf of the Dunne

family

Immediate family need for an additional 3 pitches; 5

other children who will need a pitch in the near future;

logical to allocate next to existing pitches

GT13 Hospital Lane, Cheslyn

Hay


boundary





GT14 Brickyard Cottage,

Essington

3 more pitches

GT17 The Stables, Old

Landywood Lane


boundary

1 temporary pitch to

permanent;


boundary

GT20 Horden Lodge, Coven

Heath

1 new pitch in site

boundary of the

Caravan Club site




the character and appearance of the countryside; site

could accommodate 4 pitches and marignal effect on

openness

GT23 Glenside, Dark Lane,

Slade Heath

2 new pitches in site

boundary

GT24 59a Long Lane,

Newtown

1 pitch on the

hardstanding to the

rear of the domestic

dwelling





GT30 Rose Meadow, Kinver 2 temporary pitches to

permanent

Proposed Allocated Pitches

GT18 Poolhouse Road,

Wombourne

Discounted Sites and Pitches

Site Ref No. Site ProposalRespondents in

SupportSummary of Reasons for Support

Respondents Who

ObjectSummary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments

GT01 New Acre Stables,

Penkridge

1 temp, 6 unauthorised Ruston Planning Ltd. refused planning permission on sole reason that

inappropriate in GB; proposal suitable in all other

planning terms; GTAA flawed; social cohesion issues

shouldn't be a constraint; question if there are any social

cohesion issues; well screened and good landscaping

GT09 Oak Tree, Featherstone 11 permanent, 12

transit

GT10 St James, Featherstone 9 permanent, 2 transit

GT11 Fishponds,

Featherstone

5 permanent

GT12 Malthouse Lane, Calf

Heath

6 permanent Phillip Brown scored highly and is an existing site capable of

accomodating 3 additional pitches whilst causing minimal

harm to GB;GT13 Hospital Lane, Cheslyn

Hay

10 permanent

GT14 Brickyard Cottage,

Essington

8 permanent Michael Hargreaves

Planning

should be extended to the south for 2 additional pitches

GT15 Long Lane, Newtown 4 permanent

GT16 Clee Park, Newtown 15 permanent, 5 transit

GT17 The Stables, Old

Landywood Lane

4 permanent

GT18 Pool House Road,

Wombourne

1 temp

GT19 1a Stafford Road 1 pitch (time immune)

GT21 Shareshill Middlehill (Site 1)

GT22 Shareshill Middlehill (Site 2)

GT25 Essington Broad Lane, Essington

GT26 Essington Land off Hobnock Road Phillip Brown entirely new site for 4 pitches; sustinable locatioon; edge

of Essington; not close enough to existing dwellings to

have any undue effect on residential amenity;avaialbe

and deliverable; adequately landscaped; no more

harmfull to GB except encroachment;

GT27 Featherstone Land off New Road

(adjacent to Fishponds)

GT28 Bilbrook Land off Lane Green

Avenue/Road

GT29 Seisdon Land off Church Road,

Seisdon

Respondent

Michael Hargreaves

Planning


GT accomodation needs will prove to be underestimates; turnover from existing sites cannot be used as a source of supply; eactitude due to privacy cannot be achieved - local knowdge says

its higher; GT14 should be extended south to0 include 2 pitches; sites should be removed from the Green Belt p17 NPPF

chapter 7 chapter 8 chapter 11 sad1 sad2 sad3 sad4 … preferred option… · chapter 6 chapter 9...

Documents