Interim Report

Conversation update: Shaping South Staffordshire

What we're hearing so far
Created on 22nd April 2026

This stage closes at midnight 4th May

What we're hearing so far

This update shares what people in South Staffordshire want for their area by 2045. We created this update mid-way through the first stage of the public engagement. We are listening to your views to help shape the district’s future Local Plan.

This report reflects what you as residents are actually saying. We are sharing your words back to you to provide an honest and transparent update on what we’re hearing. The council can't commit to making all of your thoughts and ideas happen. Where we can’t, we will explain why.

So far, based on over 21,000 votes from 420 participants, we can see what the community agrees on and where opinions differ.

Areas of agreement: Almost all participants want to protect the countryside and the unique character of our villages. There is strong support for building new homes on old industrial sites (brownfield) first, rather than on greenbelt land. Most agree that new housing must come with better roads, schools, and green spaces.

Where opinions differ: While everyone wants a better future, people are divided on how to get there. The engagement platform identifies two main opinion groups. One group is very cautious, concerned that new development will ruin the countryside and overwhelm our roads. Another group is more open to new homes, but only if it brings clear improvements to local services like hospitals and transport.

What happens next: This report helps us understand these different views. When this part of the engagement is finished in early May it will guide the next steps. A residents panel will come together and look at evidence including the final report of this engagement. They will discuss how to create a Local Plan that provides the homes we need while keeping South Staffordshire the place people love to live.

The analysis and summaries of this report are generated by secure, privacy-first Lumo AI. All data is processed with full GDPR compliance and zero-access encryption.

How do people get involved?

Anyone who lives in, works in or visits South Staffordshire can vote on what other people are saying and share their own thoughts. Click here to join the conversation.

425

Participants have taken part

22,036

Votes cast

318

Statements submitted

51.85

Votes per participants on average

2

Opinion groups were identified

So far, there is a great deal of agreement across the conversation, particularly on infrastructure, environmental protection, and community character.

There is strong overall support for:

  • Rural character protection: South Staffordshire's rural character is exactly what makes it desirable, and it must be protected.
  • Brownfield first: New housing developments should be built on brownfield sites first. Green belt sites should be a last resort, with local consent after full consultation.
  • Infrastructure first: New developments should only be allowed with suitable infrastructure including schools, shops, public transport, and parking.
  • Listening to locals: The views of the community nearby any development must be taken into account.
  • Green spaces: Everyone should have access to nature and green spaces.
  • Safety: New homes should not be built on flood zones, and our roads need fixing to stop potholes and accidents.
Examples of statements of where there is agreement
#1
conversation starter
Local village centres should have a good mix of independent shops and services.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#2
conversation starter
A key priority is making sure everyone in the community has access to nature and green spaces.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#3
conversation starter
New housing should be affordable giving young people from the district the chance to get on the housing ladder, rather than having to find homes outside of South Staffordshire.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#4
I believe that new housing developments should be built on brownfield sites first. Green belt sites should be Avery last resort, and only with the consent of local people after full consultation with them.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#5
conversation starter
New housing should be built in such a way that modifications can be made to enhance the quality of life for people as they age, or for those with additional needs or disabilities.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted

The platform groups people anonymously based on how they voted. This helps us see the range of opinions. So far, after 2 weeks of participation the platform has identified 2 distinctive opinion clusters.

The main difference we’re seeing are about how fast we build, where we build, and how much we protect the greenbelt.

  • Green belt: One group is concerned about any change to greenbelt land ("grey belt"), while the other is more open to reviewing it if it helps ease the housing crisis.
  • Location: One group wants to keep villages as villages and build only around large towns. The other is more flexible if it brings improvements to infrastructure.
  • Timing: One group says "no new homes until roads and schools are fixed." The other says "we can accept new homes, but we have to make sure we get the improvements at the same time."
Group A (158 participants): "Supportive of growth where it improves local infrastructure"

This group is more willing to accept new development if it brings clear benefits.

  • Is more willing to accept new development if tied to infrastructure improvements.
  • Is open to reassessing green belt in the context of housing needs.
  • Favours development that brings funding for schools, health services, and transport.
Statements and voting that reveal Group A's distinct views:
#1
conversation starter
I would welcome new housing in my areas if it meant improvements to road infrastructure to accommodate it.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#2
conversation starter
I would support new development in our area if it meant more funding or improvements to local health services and schools.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#3
conversation starter
I would welcome new housing in my area if it improved public transport.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#4
conversation starter
I would be happy to see more development in my area if it meant we had access to more places where local people could socialise and hold events.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#5
conversation starter
I would welcome new development in my area if it meant it helped to reduce flooding.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
Group B (138 participants): "Protection first"

This group is very cautious about new building.

  • They are strongly against changing greenbelt land.
  • They want to keep villages as villages and stop expansion into the countryside.
  • They believe we should not build new homes until existing roads and infrastructure are fixed.
Statements and voting that reveal Group B's distinct views:
#1
NO NEW BUILDS WHERE GREENBELT IS ROBBED, ERODED AWAY
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#2
conversation starter
I would welcome new housing in my areas if it meant improvements to road infrastructure to accommodate it.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#3
conversation starter
I would support new development in our area if it meant more funding or improvements to local health services and schools.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#4
conversation starter
I would welcome new housing in my area if it improved public transport.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted
#5
conversation starter
I would welcome new development in my area if it meant it helped to reduce flooding.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted

Hover over or click on a dot to see the statement and the voting it has received so far.

consensus statement divisive statement
Councils should take advantage of powers to impose parking restrictions and enforce fines on people who people whose inconsiderate parking adversely effects people who live there. e.g. a cul-de-sac too narrow to have two cars pass each other should not be overrun by parents on the school run, preventing residents from exiting or accessing their drive.
OVERALL
Group A
Group B
Legend
%Agreed
%Disagreed
%Passed
%Not voted