Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Comment

Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Representation ID: 33

Received: 30/11/2023

Respondent: Mr George Morran

Representation Summary:

2. Town Centres. There does not appear any proposal for Sedgley Town Centre. This is an important omission, given the withdrawal of banking, public services and ever increasing traffic.

Attachments:

Comment

Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Representation ID: 100

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Ann Kimbley

Representation Summary:

Kingswinford town centre, has no post office to serve the local community, many elderly residents utilise such a facility on a daily basis. The concept of a banking hub works in other locations where banks/ post office and local council service representatives occupy a single 'retail' space, supporting the local community and promoting community welfare of all ages.

Attachments:

Comment

Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Representation ID: 114

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Davison

Representation Summary:

These centres need public toilets. Such infrastructure needs to be a stated requirement. Its provision can be a planning requirement and or funded by community fee, rate reduction for a responsible business etc

Comment

Part One: Spatial Strategy and Policies (Regulation 18)

Representation ID: 143

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Tom Clarke MRTPI

Representation Summary:

Edit policy to ensure greater conformity with paragraph 97 of the NPPF (2023) and to ensure the policy is robust and effective.


We recommend that part 5 of this policy should be revised and strengthened to adequately guard against unnecessary loss in line with paragraph 97 of the NPPF (2023). The policy should make clear that it applies to cultural uses to ensure consistency with the NPPF definitions. Currently we do not consider that the policy is effective because it affords too much scope for the policy intention to be undermined. The evidence requirement set out is too weak. We suggest the policy would be enhanced by requiring demonstration not just that the use is no longer viable but also that there is no longer need for the facility. The marketing period should be extended to at least a period of 12 months; for example, a six month period may be insufficient for a community group to organise a bid for a property. It must also be ensured that commercial viability is not the only test as uses that are deemed not commercially viable could be successfully operated under alternative models.