Object

Representation ID: 46079

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Morris

DUH217

1/ I am very concerned that the assumptions and forecasts on which the whole Black Country plan is based are already out of date, thereby making the housing targets invalid before we start.
Recent figures show that birth rate in the UK is now only 1.5 /woman, life expectancy has dropped and the Government insist that ‘the days of unfettered immigration are over’. There also appear to be many EU citizens who have not registered to remain in UK, and these at some point will be leaving. So the population will either be static or even decline – so we don’t need 76000 houses built in the borough, and the 41000 planned on brownfield sites will be more than adequate. So we don’t need to select DUH217 for building.
2/ Everyone (population generally, Government, more specifically the West Mids Mayor Andy Street and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, insist building should not be on green belt until all Brownfield sites are built on – so the ONLY way to make this happen is to simply not approve any greenfield sites until all the brownfield is used. Once greenfield sites are allocated for building, as they are cheaper and more profitable to build on, they will be used first not last, and the brownfield sites will remain empty eyesores. There are figures which show developers prefer greenfield sites as they make 5 times the profit. Our greenbelt must not disappear for monetary reasons. DUH217 should not be even considered for selection for building until all brownfield sites are actually built on.
3/ This is even more relevant to the so called ‘unviable’ brownfield sites, which will only be built on when all the other brownfield sites have gone. If we want to see these eyesore and polluted sites treated and developed, then we have to firmly resist calls to build on any green sites. Science and industry will then have the incentive to find a way to treat the ‘unviable’ sites, removing the pollution for the greater benefit of the whole population. It is wrong to build on, or select for building, DUH217 until all brownfield sites are fully developed.
4/ Once we have built on greenfield sites we have lost the amenity forever. So we must not make any greenfield sites available for building at all, including DUH217, until all brownfield sites are used up.
5/ During Covid this site was a godsend. Its use as a recreation and exercise site increased dramatically. We are being told that we will have to learn to live with covid, so it seems further lockdowns etc will be inevitable, and we will need this site for taking exercise and breathing clean air in the future.
6/ This sites location is crucial, as it gives the local residents access to the countryside, very near their homes (by virtue of its location, built up on 3 sides). Once into site DUH217, the residents are ‘in the country’. Otherwise they will have to walk an extra half mile or more to reach the country side. This will be a disincentive to many, and a problem for others with mobility problems. This site is not just a green corridor for wildlife, it’s a green corridor for residents too. Plus its used to graze horses, which not only will have nowhere else to go if its built on (so may be ‘put down’), but which the local residents love to see as they demonstrate clearly that once into site DUH217, you are ‘in the country’. DUH217s location, built up on 3 sides, is a virtue, and makes it more even valuable as a green space near homes and people, which needs to be preserved. Not a feature which should be used to select it for building.
7/ We have a right to access green open spaces like these, and this site is vital to my wellbeing and that of other locals. This site gives locals a green space to exercise reducing risk of diabetes, obesity etc., and for socialising in the fresh air, reducing spread of Covid. After the recent pressure put on the nhs by covid, giving us the green sites the experts say is crucial to our health and wellbeing will lessen the future pressure on the nhs.
8/ The loss of DUH217 would be detrimental to my health.
9/ There is a bridleway, which will be lost. It’s a pleasant grass/earth bridle way, and a definitive path. Whilst it would be retained as a right of way if built on, this would no doubt be simply as a path down a road, through an estate. This is not so good for walkers or cyclists, but especially for horse riders and particularly young/inexperienced horse riders who are much safer on a bridleway such as presently exists than on a tarmacked road. Yet a further reason to refuse to consider this site for building.
10/ There is no existing road access into DUH217 making it an ‘unviable’ site. From Hyperion Rd, the access is currently only via a stretch of private road, and I am assured that the residents will not
allow any further access. From Kingsway, there is only a narrow track. To create access here would mean demolishing 2 houses at the very least (as the nearest house is a semi). This alone should make it a site to refuse to consider for building.
11/ Further to point 10, once access to DUH217 is created, this opens adjacent greenfield sites to prospective development, which is clearly one of the reasons green belt was created following WW2 in the first place - to restrict urban spread and ribbon development. Allowing building on DUH217 would open up still further green spaces to building, giving a further reason to not select DUH 217 for building.
12/ The extra traffic on Kingsway would cause severe problems, its currently a bus route, with very steep gradients and is heavily parked on, causing obstruction at even the existing traffic levels, more traffic would place even more burden on the road. There is a school on Kingsway and it’s particularly congested in the whole vicinity at certain times of day. The extra traffic would be an increased hazard to the children. The bus route is not served by many buses and if DUH217 is built on, there would not be enough capacity on the buses. Similar problems would be caused by access through
Hyperion Rd. The only entrance to which is just across the Staffordshire border and already a dangerous junction on a blind bend. There was a serious crash there recently. With more traffic turning in and out it would be even more dangerous.
13/ The local health infrastructure already fails to cope. The only local GP practice is Lion Health centre, which currently seems to have a poor reputation, and does not seem to cope with its existing patient numbers. I understand the local MP gets lots of complaints about this heath centre.
14/ The local school, St James C of E primary school, is already oversubscribed. So could not take extra children.
15/ There are already local traffic jams at every major junction in the vicinity, which would get worse.
16/ These infrastructure and access issues are not solvable, demonstrating that building on DUH217 is not viable.
17/ This site DUH217 is an important wildlife corridor (not a piece of low grade land), and also an important wild life habitat. It houses [redacted] many more species. This wildlife habitat needs preserving not building on.
18/ There are trees and bushes, cleaning the air we breathe. New housing will simply increase pollution whilst removing this cleaning facility. We are supposed to be embracing a green lifestyle – building on DUH217 will negate this.
19/ The local children need to be able to see and play in the countryside, close to their homes. Building on DUH217 prevents this for existing local children.
20/ There is a high pressure sewerage pipe beneath the field which the water companies will not want built over, as they may need access. This will make development difficult too, as it will restrict the layout of the housing, making DUH217 even less viable.