Object

Representation ID: 13115

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Mac & Mary Hodgkiss

Number of people: 2

COMMENTS BELOW REFER TO TWO SITES — HOLBEACH AND THE KINGSWINFORD TRIANGLE
Firstly, we would like to comment on the lack of information made available about the proposals — we heard of the proposal from a neighbour, who had seen something on a lamp post whilst walking their dog! We were assured at the meeting we attended on the 27th September that literature was with Royal Mail and would be delivered to houses during that week — it is now the 6th October and we still have not received any literature via Royal Mail. An article was published in the Express & Star a few days before the meeting on the 27th September— a little late we feel!
However, here are our comments and they refer to the two sites mentioned above.
Do we need more homes in Kingswinford — No. We have already seen the results of extensive house building at the top of Stallings Lane — traffic congestion in Stallings Lane is dreadful whatever time of day you use the road. To add to this already awful situation there is a further site which is due to be built at the top of Stallings Lane, which we have been told will be in excess of 300 dwellings. Regarding roads in the area, there is no room to widen any of the existing roads —we sincerely hope that planners in their supposed wisdom don’t go down the route of a by-pass around the area—this was explored and squashed a few years ago. We would suggest that planners look at towns where either a ring road or by-pass has been built — in some cases they have helped to kill trade to the town centres — look at Stourbridge and Wolverhampton.
Apart from the traffic problems we are encountering we understand that there are no plans to provide extra supporting services — doctors’ surgeries, schools, dental practices, and this is without mentioning the local hospitals which are having great difficulties in coping with the current situation. It is a well known fact that people are living longer, which surely means that as the population gets older they will possibly need extra support from hospitals, and GP’s. At the meeting on the 27th September when the above point was made there was a comment made that if the need arose that extra services may be considered — we think a bit late when people are struggling to get the support they need now let alone after the building of extra dwellings. Plans for extra services should surely be addressed before all the extra houses are built.
Green belt areas are very important. particularly in helping the control of climate change so why should these areas be released for building when there are still plenty of ‘brown field’ sites available? It has also been shown during ‘lock downs’ that such areas are very important to the mental health of people, particularly those who don’t have access to a garden.
A further question —why should the Dudley area be asked to give up ‘green field’ sites to help other areas, who may then be able to keep their ‘green field’ sites?
We hope that the above comments demonstrate the main areas for our objection to such actions even being considered.