Introduction

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Comment

Draft Black Country Plan

Representation ID: 11356

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maria Cassidy

Representation Summary:

We are all acutely aware of the pressures the NHS is under nationally.

To add to this burden locally will certainly have an effect on the current residents of Kingswinford. Doctor’s surgeries already struggle to facilitate the current population in the area and, without major changes, would only struggle further should more residents require registration at the existing doctor’s surgeries.

Object

Draft Black Country Plan

Representation ID: 14239

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Adam Gibson

Representation Summary:

On the point of specifics, there are several items of note. First is local amenities. The design principles listed under C.65-68 of this document state "Deliver appropriate local facilities to support the new residents and to enhance the sustainability of the existing area...". This is wildly generic and unhelpful. Having moved to the area 10 months ago, my family have still not been able to place our sons at a local primary school within Streetly and local medical practices are overrun and struggling. Secondary schools are oversubscribed and warning of a potential inability to offer places to local pupils. As such, a generic statement included in design principles leaves no reassurances and is greatly lacking. This would need significant consideration and proper application to have any chance of success.

Object

Draft Black Country Plan

Representation ID: 16960

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kerrie Richards

Representation Summary:

13. Not enough adequate studies on the infrastructure on land put forward as preferred by neighbouring authorities or within neighbouring authorities.

Object

Draft Black Country Plan

Representation ID: 18199

Received: 15/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Price

Representation Summary:

From my professional position as a community cycling promoter I see nothing that will promote sustainable transport in this plan.
Cycle lanes in Walsall are dire and usually unusable, traffic is horrendous and many of these developments will just make this worse.
I can give an example, the proposed development on Sutton Rd/Longwood Lane would introduce 200+ cars morning and evening to that junction which is usually blocked at rush hour. There is no provision for cycling on either roads. This proposed development will increase congestion, pollution and hazard. I am guessing that this will be the issue at all the housing developments proposed.
Without a strategic sustainable plan the local authorities cannot meet climate change targets and cannot reduce congestion. Tinkering around with token cycle lanes will not make things better and is pointless.

From an environmental point of view housing developments are usually destructive locally to wildlife habitat and amenity for people with little consideration by developers and planners.

The plan is wide ranging and important but many people are completely unaware of it. It should be given more time and everyone informed of it.

Object

Draft Black Country Plan

Representation ID: 43857

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

Representation Summary:

5.0 INFRASTRUCTURE AND DELIVERY
Delivery Constraints
5.1 The supporting text to the chapter on Infrastructure and Delivery highlights that the Plan adopts a 'brownfield first' approach to development. It also identifies that this approach is significantly constrained as a consequence of the Black Country's mining and industrial past and that intervention is likely to be necessary if these constraints are to be overcome. This clearly highlights the difficulty with developing brownfield land in the Black Country and in particular the inappropriateness of highlighting this as the top priority, rather than promoting a broader approach to delivering development. It also undermines a key part of the Plan which is to maintain a steady supply of housing land, as to do this will require a broader approach to the allocation of land than prioritising previously land, which the Plan already recognises is highly constrained.
5.2 Paragraph 4.7 refers to mineral resources and the benefit this may accrue if it is viable to extract them as part of a remediation scheme. The promotion of mineral extraction raises a number of issues which go beyond merely assisting in the remediation of despoiled/degraded industrial land. In itself mineral extraction can have significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. As set out elsewhere in this Representation, it is important that the Plan has regard to this.
Transport and Access to Residential Services
5.3 Paragraph 4.10 recognises that most new housing development in the urban area will enjoy good accessibility, including access to sustainable modes of transport, centres of employment, schools, shops and other residential services. It goes on to suggest that new development on sites removed from the Green Belt will require careful consideration in terms of sustainability and that transport improvements may be required on and off site. This phrasing is questionable bearing in mind that the Strategic Allocations identified as NGAs are located immediately adjacent to the urban edge of the conurbation and therefore benefit from proximity to many of the services and facilities that the existing residential areas already have access to. In addition, whilst the land identified as NGAs may necessitate transport improvements to offset the impact of the development proposals, it does not follow that they are necessarily unsustainable from a transport perspective as is suggested in paragraph 4.10.
Planning Obligations
5.4 Paragraph 4.21 refers to the financial viability that has impacted on the extent of planning obligations that can be secured in the Black Country. It states that greenfield sites and most brownfield sites will be able to sustain the full range of planning obligations required, as evidenced by the Viability and Delivery Study. However, this is clearly dependent on the sites' specific obligations that can come forward relative to each particular proposal. Should an individual allocation be identified as having a particular impact requiring mitigation, such as a significant upgrade to a major road junction, this will inhibit the ability to sustain the full range of planning obligations.