Post on 16-Jul-2018
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
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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.
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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
Bilfinger GVA on behalf of
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;
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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
safeguarded land should
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
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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;
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
Criteria
PlanIt on behalf of
landowners W Yeomans,
J Law & R Law
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
complaint with NPPG; RS
led and out of date; not
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;
additional sites needed;
need sites if BC can't meet
their need;
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;
object site 251 not
included
PlanIt on behalf of
landowners Hose, Jenks
and Smith
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
complaint with NPPG; RS
led and out of date; not
OAN;
support site 406 for
allocation but should be a
larger 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;
additional sites needed;
need sites if BC can't meet
their need and adjoins
MUA;
support site 406 for
safeguarding but should
be a larger site; 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;
PlanIt on behalf of
landowners Rutherford
and Wright
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
complaint with NPPG; RS
led and out of date; not
OAN;
object site 430 not
included; 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;
additional sites needed;
need sites if BC can't meet
their need and adjoins
MUA;
object site 430 not
included; 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;
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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;
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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;
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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;
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 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
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
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;
support site 443; SAD
provides opportunity to
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;
Pegasus Group on behalf
of Bloor Homes site 54
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; 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;
support site 54; 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;
process is robust; general
support; process is positively
prepared, justified and effective;
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
Criteria
Pegasus Group on behalf
of Richborough Estates
site 006
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; ensure plan led
approach can be
maintained; 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;
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
opportunity to 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 23ha
of safeguarded land
required; 006 suitable;
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;
Pegasus Group on behalf
of Richborough Estates
site 270
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; ensure plan led
approach can be
maintained; 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 270; 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;
270 is deliverable; SAD
provides opportunity to
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 23ha
of safeguarded land
required;
general support; process is
justified;
Pegasus Group on behalf
of Richborough Estates
site 302
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; ensure plan led
approach can be
maintained; 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 302 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;
302 is deliverable; SAD
provides opportunity to
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 23ha
of safeguarded land
required;
general support; process is
robust; justified;
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
Criteria
Pegasus Group on behalf
of Richborough Estates
site 407
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; ensure plan led
approach can be
maintained; 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;
object to 407 not
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; 407 is
deliverable; SAD provides
opportunity to 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 23ha
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;
Pegasus Group on behalf
of Richborough Estates
site 224
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; ensure plan led
approach can be
maintained; 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;
object to 224 not included object to site 224 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
opportunity to 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 23ha
of safeguarded land
required; 006 suitable;
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?
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
Respondent Other commentsMethodology & Site Selection
Criteria
Pegasus Group on behalf
of Touch Developments
site 55/68
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; ensure plan led
approach can be
maintained; 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 55/68; 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;
support site 55/68; SAD
provides opportunity to
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 23ha
of safeguarded land
required; 55/68 suitable;
general support; process is
robust; justified;
Pegasus Group on behalf
of Touch Developments
site 86
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; ensure plan led
approach can be
maintained; 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 site86; 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;
SAD provides
opportunity to 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 23ha
of safeguarded land
required;
general support; process is
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;
PlanIt on behalf of landowners
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
BILBROOK
211 Land north of Manor
House Park
First City on behalf of The
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
First City on behalf of The
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;
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
Proposed Allocated Sites
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
owners of site 225 and 446
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;
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
Proposed Allocated Sites
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
223 Land at Watery Lane
228 Adult Training Centre,
Histons Hill
406 Land at Keepers Lane
and Nine Acres Farm
PlanIt on behalf of landowners
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;
Acres Land and Planning Ltd on
behalf of Hallam Land
Management; AJM Planning on
behalf of Mr. & Mrs. N Machin;
P Brady on behalf of the
owners of site 225 and 446
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
Proposed Allocated Sites
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
CODSALL
406 Land at Keepers Lane
and Nine Acres Farm
PlanIt on behalf of landowners
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;
Acres Land and Planning Ltd on
behalf of Hallam Land
Management; AJM Planning on
behalf of Mr. & Mrs. N Machin;
P Brady on behalf of the
owners of site 225 and 446
Acres Land & Planning Ltd: site extremely prominent within the
countryside; no logical boundaries; combined with site 419 would affect
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
Green Lane nor the junction at Birches Bridge should be asked to take
more traffic; site is Grade 2 ALC.
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
CODSALL
419 Land off Wergs Hall
Road
Acres Land and Planning Ltd on
behalf of Hallam Land
Management; AJM Planning on
behalf of Mr. & Mrs. N Machin;
P Brady on behalf of the
owners of site 225 and 446
Acres Land & Planning Ltd: site extremely prominent within the
countryside; no logical boundaries; combined with site 406 would affect
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
Green Lane nor the junction at Birches Bridge should be asked to take
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
CODSALL
222 Land north of Sandy
Lane
Acres Land and Planning Ltd on
behalf of Hallam Land
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
Pegasus Group on behalf of
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
P Brady on behalf of the
owners of site 225 and 446
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
CODSALL
446 Land at the corner of
Moatbrook Lane and
Strawmoor Lane,
Codsall
P Brady on behalf of the
owners of site 225 and 446
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
behalf of Hallam Land
Management
P Brady on behalf of the
owners of site 225 and 446
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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;
Tweedale Ltd on behalf of
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
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Proposed Allocated Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
RespondentGeneral Comments Comment
ESSINGTON
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Discounted Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
FEATHERSTONE
397 Land adjacent to
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
RespondentGeneral Comments Comment
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
Proposed Housing Sites
Discounted Sites
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
GREAT WYRLEY
136 South of Upper
Landywood Lane
(north)
AJM Planning on behalf of KGL
(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)
AJM Planning on behalf of KGL
(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;
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
GREAT WYRLEY
441 Land north of Hazel
Lane
451 Land off Norton
Lane/Love Lane
(extension to Site 440)
RespondentGeneral Comments Comment
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
016 Pear Tree Farm
012 Land at Oaklands Farm
013 Land at Oaklands Farm -
Site 1
014 Land at Oaklands Farm -
Site 2
015 Land at Oaklands Farm -
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;
RespondentGeneral Comments Comment
HUNTINGTON
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Discounted Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
Bilfinger GVA on behalf of
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;
Proposed Housing Sites
KINVER
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
KINVER
274 Land south of White
Hill
Bilfinger GVA on behalf of
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other 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
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
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
DLP (Planning) Ltd on
behalf of Mr Jim Lomas
(owners of site 005)
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
Pegasus on behalf of
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
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Allocation
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other comments
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)
Tweedale Ltd on behalf of
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
DLP (Planning) Ltd on
behalf of Mr Jim Lomas
(owners of site 005)
site 005 should be allocated now to help meet regional housing needs
CommentGeneral Comments
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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;
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;
Proposed Housing Sites
Discounted Sites
PERTON
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
PERTON
238a Land at Perton Court
Farm
Ancer Spa on behalf of Lord
Wrottesley Voluntary
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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)
Pegasus Group on behalf of
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)
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
PERTON
RespondentAncer Spa on behalf of Lord
Wrottesley Voluntary
Settlement
Calculated that 11.1ha is needed to provide the allocation and safeguarded land on site 238a.
General Comments Comment
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other comments
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
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
SWINDON
General Comments Comment
Proposed Housing Sites
Discounted Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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.
Bilfinger GVA on behalf of
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
Bilfinger GVA on behalf of
Heyford Developments Ltd
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
Proposed Housing Sites
Discounted Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
Bilfinger GVA on behalf of
Heyford Developments Ltd
CommentGeneral Comments
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.
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
281a Land off Ounsdale Road
(part a)
Barton Willmore LLP on
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
Pegasus on behalf of
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;
Barton Willmore LLP on
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
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
Barton Willmore LLP on
behalf of Taylor Wimpey
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
Landscape and Visual Appraisal including Green Belt
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
Proposed Safeguarded Sites
Proposed Housing Sites
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
Barton Willmore LLP on
behalf of Taylor Wimpey
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
Landscape and Visual Appraisal including Green Belt
Review(LVAGBR) produced by Barton Willmore; Barton
Willmore review of the site selection process shows that the
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
behalf of Taylor Wimpey
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
Landscape and Visual Appraisal including Green Belt
Review(LVAGBR) produced by Barton Willmore; Barton
Willmore review of the site selection process shows that the
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
GL Hearn on behalf of
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
WOMBOURNE
285 Land off Poolhouse Road Barton Willmore LLP on
behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK
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.
288 Land adjacent to
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
WOMBOURNE
457 Land south of
Wombourne
458 Land off Poolhouse Road
(former land fill site),
Wombourne
459 Land adjacent to
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
Barton Willmore LLP on
behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK
GL Hearn on behalf of
Severn Trent
CommentGeneral Comments
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.
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
E7 Land off Lawn
Lane/M54 (north)
GL Hearn on behalf of
Severn Trent
Support the proposed extensions the west of i54 contained
within the SAD
E8 Land off Lawn
Lane/M54 (south)
GL Hearn on behalf of
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
of Vanjeks Management
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
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
of Vanjeks Management
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
Site No. Site Reference Respondents in Support Summary of Reasons for Support Respondents Who Object Summary of Reasons for Objection Other Comments
EMPLOYMENT PROPOSALS
Respondent
Berry's on behalf of Mr J R
Holt and Mr M B Holt
GL Hearn on behalf of
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;
General Comments Comment
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
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
GT04 Poolhouse Barn, Slade
Heath
2 more pitches in site
boundary
GT05 Granary Cottage, Slade
Heath
3 more pitches in site
boundary
GT06 The Spinney, Slade
Heath
1 more pitch in site
boundary
GT07 The Bungalow, Rock
Bank Brewood
3 more pitches in site
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
2 more pitches in site
boundary
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
GT14 Brickyard Cottage,
Essington
3 more pitches
GT17 The Stables, Old
Landywood Lane
3 more pitches in site
boundary
1 temporary pitch to
permanent;
2 more pitches in site
boundary
GT20 Horden Lodge, Coven
Heath
1 new pitch in site
boundary of the
Caravan Club site
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; 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
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
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
General Comments Comment
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