Object

Representation ID: 15987

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Stewart Monk

Regarding the proposal to earmark 'Greenfield' land for development off Severn Drive in Pensnett, I wish to object in the strongest possible terms. I am therefore registering my initial opposition to this proposal, but not precluding that, during the consultation period, I may wish to raise further observations and objections.
My reasons are manifold and underlie the importance of this green space within our local community. Similarly other 'Greenfield' spaces' and 'Greenbelt' land nearby have also been identified in the Black Country Plan. It is also important to remember therefore that as a largely industrial community, activities within this area already impinge to a higher degree on the existing infrastructure. The plan takes no account of how this infrastructure would be able to cope with such a considerable increase in housing and industrial expansion. The plan is both ill thought through and will place catastrophic pressures on the environment in the future.
The plan to develop land off Severn Drive more specifically, will lead to a crowded network of estates and roads, which take away the benefits which realistically support our community at present.
The 'Green' spaces (both north and south of Butterfield Road) are regularly enjoyed by walkers, dog walkers, children and for social purposes. The Land Trust states: 'Our green spaces are more than just places for recreation or to help wildlife thrive -they also provide important functions to society which have an economic value.' This is a very important point and echoes the governments statement in its National Planning Policy Framework which also states that it is crucial to: ''protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy." It is also government policy to encourage ALL generations to become more active outside. How can this possibly be achieved if all green spaces are removed? The nearest parks and recreation areas will entail in most instances, additional car journeys resulting in further congestion and pollution. We cannot possibly achieve any of these goals with plans to remove 'Greenfield' spaces in Pensnett and its surrounding area, let alone the plans to build on local 'Greenbelt' sites.
The knock on effect of the council's proposals will push masses of additional vehicles onto local roads. Congestion, pollution levels and the risk of accidents are already high but Dudley's proposals will see these levels soar. This cannot be good for the people of the Dudley area and certainly would be grossly unfair on the residents of Severn Drive and other nearby sites marked for development. As a user of 'active travel' I implicitly understand the relationship between domestic traffic, commercial vehicles and a diminishing network of thoroughfare routes. The danger to 'active travel' users is obvious, but Dudley has no policy to deal with this effectively. The infrastructure is already chaotic and residents are constantly looking for ways to reduce if not eliminate their journeys. In reality however we know that this is not possible and the lack of an effective public transport system simply adds Insult to injury. If, up to 30 properties were built on the Severn Drive site then there is a chance that local traffic could increase by around 60 -90 vehicles (assuming 2 -3 car households). The access roads that serve this area simply could not. cope with these increased volumes of traffic. Multiply the potential number of new homes projected with possible numbers of cars and you will have thousands of extra vehicles on the streets of Pensnett. Forcing development would make for an unpleasant and harmful outcome, both in terms of the Health & Safety of residents, congestion and pollution. Many people would want to move away from the area.
Recreation sites will be lost forever. Safe havens for children to play without being knocked down by rushing motor vehicles would become a thing of the past. Is this something that any council can seriously believe is an acceptable trade off for a few extra council tax donations? Who will ultimately benefit from the building of all these homes? The fact is that if people are stifled in ever­-crowded environments, their health will suffer and the knock on effect will be felt throughout our society. It is easy to see that where provision is less, problems are greater.
Education services will suffer terribly as the massive increase in domestic dwellings will create pressure on local schools (not helped by the closure and demolition of Pensnett School) who will not be able to make sufficient spaces for each new intake. This will inevitably result in proposals to build new schools within the community in the near future. There will however be little if any land left to achieve this!
Similarly with health care. In an already stretched service, GP practices cannot cope with the patients they already have and will collapse under the strain if further demands are imposed through additional families requiring access to medical treatment. Pensnett has lost its local GP service to a larger practice in Brierley Hill. Pensnett residents are already drawing the 'short straw' and the local councils plan to extensively develop our green spaces will further impoverish this facility.
Pollution studies in this area haven't been undertaken in several years. When they were, it was noted that we were, in many places (both in and around Pensnett), in excess of nationally agreed acceptable levels. With the present increase in industry and their desire for around the clock working, plus, the proposals to develop more homes on 'Greenfield' and 'Greenbelt' sites, the future for the health and mental well being of local residents is seriously being put at risk. It is well known and properly documented that green spaces have a beneficial effect on the individual particularly in towns and cities. The National History Museum website states: "Simply having access to green spaces in cities can do wonders for our stress levels and concentration at work". Surely it is these ideals, which should drive society, NOT to capitalise on easy build land and rob smaller communities of this amenity.
Brownfields sites are more prevalent than people would imagine and none more so than in Pensnett. There are many unoccupied or derelict properties, which can either be reused, upgraded or redeveloped to meet the needs of additional housing. It is this latter point however, which causes a real difficulty for many. Without real tangible facts to demonstrate the actual need for housing, (and in many cases you would expect the majority to be affordable homes), a 'broad brush' approach in dealing with the communities needs seems to have been taken. The developments on 'Greenbelt' and 'Greenfield' sites will in the main be expensive family homes, offering local and national developers a good return on their investment. What it will not do however is solve any real housing crisis which arises from an increased need, but will inevitably be hindered by families who have an inability to fund such expensive properties. These are likely to command a £400,000+ sum! This scenario has been seen to the south of midlands area and even within our own conurbation over recent years.
Unless there is a definable and appropriate use of brownfield sites, green spaces and our countryside will be lost forever and the same people will still be crying out for affordable housing!
I stand in opposition to building on all 'Greenfield' and 'Greenbelt' land.