Object

Representation ID: 11101

Received: 11/09/2021

Respondent: Claire Evans

[The Triangle]

I would like to add my vice to the objections raised against the inclusion of or development of the above areas

I consider that the need to develop Brownfield sites is now more relevant than ever before. Our town centres are in need of regeneration and a global pandemic has demonstrated that many people can now work from home. Loss of green belt should always be a genuine and absolute last resort. Brownfield development would breathe new life into town and city centres, keep them bustling and populated and more desirable.

Greenbelt land should continue to be highly prized - no matter what current government policy might be. It benefits all of us and all of our children. The land in question is useful Agricultural land graded 3 and above. The quality of life for people already living in these areas would be diminished should green belt land be developed, in terms of character and visual amenity. the area of green belt land in question provides a valuable barrier, preventing urban sprawl on the western boundary of the Black Country. If the proposed A449 Kidderminster Road forms the amended Green Belt boundary, then all the Greenfield sites encompassed by that on the boundary and currently vulnerable from the South Staffs Local Plan would be at risk from development, as a precedent would be set for a new boundary. I personally would not want to live in my current location should this be permitted.

It seems to me a very short sighted approach to sacrifice greenbelt. Developing green belt means loss of access to precious countryside which is slowly but surely being eroded. Aside from the obvious air, noise and light pollution in an already heavily populated area, once it's gone and I feel that future generations will not thank us for such decisions. We, as a society are now fully aware of the benefits of the countryside to our physical and mental wellbeing and this cannot be underestimated. Poor air quality is linked to certain types of dementia, asthma etc and council run parks do not offer the same benefits as open countryside in terms of beauty, tranquillity, clean air and places to exercise and enjoy nature and its associated wildlife. Areas of natural beauty should be prized highly and enhance our environment. If this is sacrificed, the area becomes a less desirable place to live.

Any development of this area will also noticeably increase numbers of vehicles on the roads in the Black Country, with all the polluting and road safety resulting consequences. Road traffic congestion in the area is already high. Work was recently undertaken on the high street in nearby Wordsley to try and east traffic flow on a highly polluted thoroughfare. It has made little difference. Even the A449 and A491 passing through the area of green belt are gridlocked in a morning. This will be compounded by further housing in the area.

Nor do we want more roads carving up our green belt. As indicated above, I believe that the future will include greater flexibility of working and that more people will elect to work from home. Sacrificing green belt land for roads could risk easing a problem that in a few years' time may no longer exist - particularly with investments being made in public transport. This is desperately needed, along with cycle routes for example. Hansen rate this area as having the worst commuting score from homes to places of employment. In addition, there is also poor rail access. A more creative approach is needed - creative housing, one eye on the future and looking to how other countries and urban areas have successfully managed the needs of their population in a greener way.

Add to the equation 2 further development sites locally at Stallings Lane in Kingswinford and Ketley Quarry (within 2 miles) with no proposed infrastructure improvements and we are in a dire situation.

It is clear to me that the Black Country would bear the brunt of any proposed developments on these sites. The area feels saturated and our community feels very strongly that there are other ways which are not being explored. Brownfield sites might offer additional complications to developers, but they should be encouraged to utilise these properties before any land is destroyed. Taking the easier option will change our environment forever and have a detrimental impact on this and future generations.