Object

Representation ID: 16958

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kerrie Richards

Can you please post a copy back to me to ensure receipt.
I want to raise the following objection to the Local Plan
I have lived and worked within the Black Country and surrounding area all my life and wish to object to the Black Country Local Plan methodology and process as follows:
1. Local Plans should safeguard areas that have local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity. There are sites selected that are disregarding this policy.
2. Building on green belt takes away high quality accessible natural greenspace which is a necessity to reduce pollution and help in the global fight against climate change. Building on green belt areas should only be considered as a last resort when ALL other sites have been identified. Not all brown sites have been proactively identified in this process, you have used a call for sites and this is not proactive.
3. Local mental and physical needs have not been assessed when selecting sites, these accessible green areas are vital to our communities health and wellbeing.
4. Not all of the designated sites are in areas where employment is increasing or growth is identified. The policy is a “finger in the air” policy that looks at sites put forward and doesn’t assess the economical or growth needs of each individual area. Assis ng other authorities with housing needs because they are not providing the houses is just widening the issue of unnecessary building on green belt.
5. The process of asking for feedback on sites once the preferred options are already identified is not democratic.
6. There should be a study made of all land and buildings that would benefit the communities if they were developed. I.e., brownfield, derelict, businesses looking to close or relocate, buildings that have potential to be re-classified. Only when all of these have been studied should there be any consideration of building on green sites.
7. The housing target numbers are outdated. The empty homes haven’t been taken into consideration, neither has the impact of Brexit or Covid which are key considerations at this current me.
8. The consulta on process is difficult for lay people to understand and therefore gives the developers an unfair advantage. There is not enough opportunity for the non-technical person to object to sites.
9. The current government is calling for a re-working of policy against building on green belt sites. The continuation of the local plan is therefore a “local officer led” initiative not government led, and thus once more is undemocratic.
10. There is no incentive in this process for developers to put forward brown field sites if green belt sides are under consideration.
11. The quality of life of existing residents has not been considered. The stress and worry and reduction in house value of proper es bordering green belt sites.
12. The process encourages land banking.
13. Not enough adequate studies on the infrastructure on land put forward as preferred by neighbouring authorities or within neighbouring authorities.
14. The green belt provides easy access to the countryside for local residents. The plans wording allows for the re-drawing of green belt and doesn’t value for the benefits it provides for current residents.
15. No rail networks will force more commuters to use cars and further gridlock the roads.
16. The doctors and schools are already over subscribed, or will not be able to cope with the planned extra housing - there is no joined up plan to take into account the extra strain on amenities and infrastructure that will be also caused by the South Staffordshire plan that has preferred sites on the Black Country Border. ie Lower Penn.
17. There is already congestion on the roads, which is adding to pollution, however consideration should also be given to the increased risk of accidents with more vehicles being pushed to use local village roads.