Comment

Representation ID: 11125

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sukninder Manik

Dear Planners

KEEP PEDMORE GREEN (PLANNING REQUEST TO BUILD ON PEDMORE GREEN BELT)
I am writing to you with some concerns relating to the proposed development (DUH206 and DUH207 and DUH209) on Worcester Lane, Pedmore Stourbridge.
I understand and appreciate that councils are under pressure from central government to provide more housing. However, I do believe the above proposals if approved would have a negative impact for the following reasons and urge you to help us with refusing permission for the destruction of our greenbelt;
Infrastructure – Worcester Lane is a single lane road and already quite busy and noisy. A development of the size proposed, inevitably will have residents who are car owners, and possibly two cars per household. The traffic will have no other entrance in and out of these new estates but on to Worcester Lane. This will increase the number of vehicles using the road immensely. This will impact on the air quality and hence public health. I find it very hard to comprehend on one hand city centres are introducing congestion charges, yet on the other increasing traffic in semi-rural areas. Residents from Worcester Lane, Bell Meadow, and Green Meadow are not the only people to be affected by this proposed development. Bromwich Lane, Redlake Drive through to Middlefield Lane and Worcester Road in Hagley will all be equally affected, in terms of increased traffic, pollution, a strain on existing services such as schools, medical centres, dentists. Patients to Pedmore surgeries have already been impacted with the changes to medical centres in Wollescote and Norton.
As Worcester Lane and surrounding roads gets busier, pedestrians are at an increased risk too from cars who already use this stretch as a speed track because speed cameras’ do not feature along here and hence there is no deterrent for these law breakers. The area is used for walks by varying age ranges, including older people who already find the road a challenge at times to cross.
This side of Pedmore and Hagley have a limited bus service and have for years. The bus service demand is not there as residents are car owners in the main and this is the most convenient way to get about. Stourbridge being a commuter town has a population with a work base which is not concentrated to Stourbridge town centre but all around the West Midlands and beyond so improving the bus routes is not an option for reducing traffic in this area. Social housing as per you plan talks about providing employment in the local area, the town is small and there is very little opportunities for residents who currently live here. Increasing the population with no work to offer would not be wise.
Internet speed is currently as low as 10mbps. The agencies providing the service have declined to link the area to super broadband despite the infrastructure being in place. When we inquired about Super broadband with BT we were told we could have it at a cost of approximately £20K, which would have to be paid for by the residents of Bell Meadow, Green Meadow and Worcester Lane. This was declined by most residents on the grounds of affordability. A year on residents have now been advised this is coming (coincidentally shortly before the development was proposed).
Existing Doctors surgeries, Dentists surgeries, school services will not cope. These provisions are already stretched and getting an appointment is not easy since Cala homes and other developments were approved over the last few years. The appeal of Hagley and Pedmore is its semi-rural location. I do feel this is slowly being eradicated, and its beauty is being destroyed. This part of the city brings visitors from nearby Birmingham and it would be a shame for the West Midlands area as a county to become so built up that its residents have no greenery at home to enjoy.
Pedmore has over the past three decades or so, seen a fair amount of green belt used for housing, we will have very little left to enjoy. This is land used for walks by residents of Pedmore, Norton, Iverley Hagley, Old Swindford and more, including by residents of a local special needs’ unit.
Social housing/affordable housing is a myth the smaller houses on these developments still attract a premium which still makes them out of reach for most first-time buyers. The number of homes built of this description are so minimal to have real impact anyway which then beckons the question ‘who really gains from building on greenbelt as opposed to brownfields and inner-city regeneration projects?
I appreciate Bell Meadow, Green Meadow and the Redlake Drive area is on greenbelt land. I therefore feel this area has played a big part already in permitted developments on greenbelt Wildlife has already had it's habitat reduced, and therefore it is important to preserve these last few fields so they still have a home. It also means Pedmore maintains some attractive landscapes and views something the area is renowned for.
Regeneration of inner-cities and brownfield land have the infrastructure already in place, it makes more sense and has the least impact on the environment to use these areas for such developments. Clean air is important to us all and this development will compromise this for the residents in Pedmore, Hagley, Norton and more. I can only assume developers cannot maximise their own personal wealth from regeneration as they can from untouched green belt and therefore making greenbelt far more favourable.
Noise & Pollution - Residents with gardens backing onto Worcester Lane will find their gardens will be even noisier and impossible to enjoy. The road surface is a tar and gravel mixture. When cars travel on this surface the noise from rolling tyres has been recorded to be between 90 to over 100 decibels by a local neighbour. This was recorded using a sound App on an Apple phone. I am fearful the proposed development will result in traffic noise getting louder, air pollution getting worse, thus impacting health of residents and sale ability of some of the existing houses for those who may need to move for health reasons.
Health - Asthma sufferers and those residents with mental health issues are not being considered. Its’ sad that health and well-being of residents does not appear to be a consideration. Will the developer be expected to contribute to the local hospice annually as health of residents deteriorates and more cases are referred to the hospice? Poor air quality jeopardises health and is linked to some cancers and asthma both of which can be killers.
Will local schools be expanded to deal with the increase for pupil places. If this is the case this will inevitably take a way children from other schools which would reduce rolls, therefore budgets, resulting in redundancies, and deficits and possible school closures. Can local schools accommodate the building of more classrooms without jeopardising the outdoor facilities for sport and recreation for its pupils?
Wildlife - A housing development of around 115 extra houses will destroy habitats for local wildlife which has already been pushed out once for the already developed areas since the 80’s and 90’s. Since covid lockdowns local wildlife activity has improved and this will once again be destroyed. This proposal wouldn’t just destroy wildlife habitats but also the enjoyment of green spaces by the residents within several areas surrounding the greenbelt of which there will be very little left.
Archaeological Site - it is believed the sites proposed for development may have historical value and they should be preserved for archaeological investigation making it a more exciting space than it already is for walkers from the area and visitors beyond.
As a resident who has family members who suffer from asthma I would ask that along with all my points within this letter the council consider these matters and refuse giving such a development the go ahead. Dudley could be a great place again if only those areas that desperately need regenerating are prioritised and given an attractive face lift making it more fashionable, attracting those who require social housing as well as the more established resident who are treading on the first rung of the housing ladder and beyond.
Kind Regards
Mr & Mrs Surjit Manik,