Policy CSP3 – Towns and Neighbourhood Areas and the green belt

Object

Representation ID: 13180

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor Pinnegar

No more building on green field sites, plenty of brown field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 13181

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Byrne

Use brownfields!

Comment

Representation ID: 13364

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Margaret and William Potter

Number of people: 2

2. To emphasise that the planned Neighbourhood Areas should be provided with all the relevant services and functions required to support the intended populations of each area. At present the plan portrays each one as a suburban housing estate.
3. To ensure that the design standards are upheld by the developers and that each Neighbourhood Area has a distinctive style. To prevent the newbuilds being identical to every housing development on the outskirts of every town there should be a focus on achieving some character of housing, particularly where the developer has been granted permission to build on virgin Green Field sites, incurring few extra costs.
4. There appear to be significant variations in the housing density of each planned Neighbourhood Area. Is this a reflection of the average house price which is likely to be achieved?
5. Will any land be converted to Green Belt status to balance that being removed and to prevent urban sprawl?
6. The study asks the surrounding areas to provide housing for the Black Country growth but surely this will lead to an increase in car ownership, more commuters, more pollution and more congestion.
7.Will there be any restriction on who can purchase or rent these new homes? Some local authorities have already placed a restriction on the sale of new homes to people who already reside in the area. Otherwise there will be a chain reaction and potential purchasers are likely to appear from areas of the country where housing needs are not so crucial but the lure of the city foreshortens their daily commute.
8. The shortage of 28.000 new homes within the Black Country plan may not be topped up by neighbouring authorities. Will this mean that more green Belt land within the Black Country will be identified for these homes?
9. Two of the planned Neighbourhood Areas are adjacent to the local canal network. Will the design plans make use of this recreational facility and who will be responsible for the maintenance of the canal embankments, which if not repaired, could lead to a risk of severe flooding.
10. To ask what percentage of the new homes will be allocated to Social housing and also to Aspirational housing in each Neighbourhood Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 13483

Received: 18/09/2021

Respondent: [None] Beddard

Save the environment
Taking green belt away

Object

Representation ID: 13511

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beryl Mary Harris

Regarding the other areas that have been proposed in your plan I don't know these well, but if it involves losing green belt land I am against the proposals. An alternative housing plan must be found where green belt is threatened no matter what the extra cost may be. Our environment and our wellbeing are far more important than money.

'Let's say goodbye to hedges, and roads with grassy edges and winding country lanes.
Let all things travel faster, where motor car is master
'till only speed remains
And if there is some scenery, some unpretentious greenery
Surviving anywhere
It does not need protecting, for soon we'll be erecting
A power station there'
- Sir John Betjamin

Comment

Representation ID: 13701

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Haydn Jones

I am writing to comment on the proposed building on green belt land across the Aldridge Brownhills area. These areas of open land are green wedges that separate various communities, and stops one huge urban sprawl. I think that brownfield sites should first be utilised, use existing derelict land for development.
Once these open green spaces are lost, that's it, they have gone forever. Please save our green belt land!

Object

Representation ID: 13732

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Jodie Hannon

Why add to the chaos jus to make a "quick buck" and destroy more of the green belt that we need to preserve!?

Object

Representation ID: 13782

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Lisa Whitehouse

I have read the BCP and I am horrified and depressed by it.
Why are you proposing to build on green land, farms and any land that is not only beautiful to look at and be around but that is the last bit of precious space for midlife to live.
How is this going to be improve lives of the people who live here? The detrimental effect this will have on the environment and a negative impact this will have on peoples lives, health and wellbeing.
This will create more stress on the infrastructure, which is not fit for purpose now. I dread to think how bad our local services roads, education etc will be with a glut of new homes in the area and an influx of people. I personally know how stretched services are now, [Redacted-GDPR]. The BCP is going to add even more pressure on services, local Drs, schools, the services we pay for.
I think it is sad that the council isnt thinking creatively to improve derelict areas, already urban spaces and going for the the easy option of destroying forever the small areas of green land that don't need to be built on. It's a sad future for our children and the environment. I absolutely object to it.

Object

Representation ID: 13786

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to ANY building on green belt in the Dudley Borough area.
In the Council Scrutiny meeting on 6.10.21 your officer admitted that NO bio diversity checks have been made or wildlife impact assessment.
Our roads are already gridlocked, schools over subscribed, GP's over subscribed, huge waiting lists at hospitals.
People need green spaces for mental health and physical fitness. The impact on the environment and climate by building over remaining green land has been
underestimated. An audit of preserved or valuable trees has not been carried out.
The quality of life for existing residents will be greatly diminished, with more traffic, parking issues, nowhere to walk dogs or just take a walk in a green environment.
The plan mentions re-wilding - but where will that be as all available space is gradually eroded and built on. Why not just leave the existing habitat alone.
I do not believe that 'exceptional circumstances' apply in any of the areas listed. I do not believe that all brownfield sites have been identified. I do not believe that all empty Council houses that could be refurbished have been. It is clear that if there is a shortage of land that there should be a preference or flats or maisonettes thereby creating more housing from the same brownfield plot.
A question was also raised in the Scrutiny meeting regarding the data upon which the housing requirement has been calculated. Dudley Council should ask for this to be reviewed particularly post Brexit and post pandemic.
Listed as follows please register my objection
[...]
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH 206 Worcester Lane
DUH 207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH 209 Worcester Lane South
DUH 217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH 210 Viewfield Crescent
[...]
I strongly object to the Conclusions in the draft plan that do not protect our greenbelt and green spaces in Dudley borough, by assessing sites there as suitable for residential or industrial purpose.

Object

Representation ID: 13792

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Sharron Cooley

I object to the BCPlan. We are residents of Shelfield to the side of us is a landfill sites which creates toxic fumes. [Redacted-GDPR]. Our sanctuary is the greenbelt land which allows us to walk from Shelfield to Pelsall without the noise and smelly fumes of traffic pollution. Over the years we have encountered plenty of local wildlife [Redacted-Sensitive information] and plenty of more common creatures. When we moved to our home 11 years ago nature and the greenbelt was a huge consideration. Paying more for the property because of this.
The influx of extra homes and disappearance of the greenbelt, trees and wildlife devalues our homes greatly. Plus so much more traffic pollution, noise due to traffic on the roads. This is a time when encouraging us to be green and actively responsible around environmental issues! Ignore our voices and going ahead with this decision is such a great contradiction.

Object

Representation ID: 13795

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Lewis Edgley

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to ANY building on green belt in the Dudley Borough area.
In the Council Scrutiny meeting on 6.10.21 your officer admitted that NO bio diversity checks have been made or wildlife impact assessment.
Our roads are already gridlocked, schools over subscribed, GP's over subscribed, huge waiting lists at hospitals.
People need green spaces for mental health and physical fitness. The impact on the environment and climate by building over remaining green land has been underestimated. An audit of preserved or valuable trees has not been carried out.
The quality of life for existing residents will be greatly diminished, with more traffic, parking issues, nowhere to walk dogs or just take a walk in a green environment.
The plan mentions re-wilding - but where will that be as all available space is gradually eroded and built on. Why not just leave the existing habitat alone.
I do not believe that 'exceptional circumstances' apply in any of the areas listed. I do not believe that all brownfield sites have been identified. I do not believe that all empty Council houses that could be refurbished have been. It is clear that if there is a shortage of land that there should be a preference or flats or maisonettes thereby creating more housing from the same brownfield plot.
A question was also raised in the Scrutiny meeting regarding the data upon which the housing requirement has been calculated. Dudley Council should ask for this to be reviewed particularly post Brexit and post pandemic.
Listed as follows please register my objection
[...]
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH 206 Worcester Lane
DUH 207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH 209 Worcester Lane South
DUH 217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH 210 Viewfield Crescent
[...]
I strongly object to the Conclusions in the draft plan that do not protect our greenbelt and green spaces in Dudley borough, by assessing sites there as suitable for residential or industrial purpose.

Support

Representation ID: 13837

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Living Space Housing Ltd

Living Space encourage the inclusion of Policy CSP3 as a support to Policy CSP2 and in it’s own right. The Policy recognises the importance of the Urban Edge areas for accommodating growth. These areas are as sustainable and suitable for development, and will create a variety of new homes for the District. Furthermore, releasing greenfield sites from the Green Belt for housing development ensures that there is suitable complementary development to the proposed regeneration of brownfield sites. Greenfield sites often do not have the same viability complications as brownfield sites, meaning they can provide more benefits such as a higher affordable housing provision and higher Section 106 contributions for the Local Community.

Object

Representation ID: 13906

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Claire Rudge

I'm opposed to any and all plans to build on green belt areas, it should not be allowed.

Object

Representation ID: 13909

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Colin Bateman

Number of people: 2

We write to lodge our formal objections to certain aspects of the Draft Black Country Plan released for consultation on 16th August 2021 and to put forward alternative proposals to those particular aspects.
Our concerns centre around:
A. Proposals to utilise Green Belt land in Dudley for residential Development
B. Use of the three specific 'sites' of Green Belt land in Worcester Lane Pedmore for provision of 115 properties.

A.Proposals to utilise Green Belt land for residential development
1.The loss of any green belt land has an immediate and devastating negative impact on :
Animal wildlife; flora and fauna; loss on natural habit for many species
- Resources for local communities to enjoy for walking/cycling/exercise
etc
Health and wellbeing of local people
Air pollution in the area
- Our future children's wellbeing
- Biodiversity
2.The justification to use Green belt land is fundamentally flawed. Whilst the future need for the quantity of properties has to be taken as read - given that it appears to be based on a Government calculation — the assessment carried out to justify the need for Green Belt has — by it's own admission in paragraphs 1.1.1 to 1.1.4 of Fl of the draft plan — only been at a 'baseline' level. This means that for all of the sites put forward in the Call for Sites process only a relatively cursory exercise against the 11 SA objectives has been done. Few

informed local circumstances have been fully considered for each site to enable a true and fair assessment to be made. This has resulted in over 60 of the sites being rejected.
Of these rejections one has no reasons provided (27); others rejected for access issues (e.g. 222 ,114) ; viability (59); employment area 64,186,227);land adjacent to school(109) ; Topography or difficult to develop(109,173,181,182,188,189,191,205). The numbers in brackets are the reference numbers in the SA in the plan documents.
In total these could amount to around 1000 properties.
Whilst we realise some of these may ultimately prove not suitable for development we believe that these ALL need full and detailed appraisal beyond the baseline one the draft plan acknowledges is all that has been carried out BEFORE any Green Belt land is flagged as potential.
Only then can we at least safeguard ALL our Green Belt prior to a full and detailed justification to loose any of it
3.There are also a number of Brownfield sites within the Borough that have been removed from the process due to 'landowners engagement exercise' which we understand means the landowners will not cooperate e.g. 0082;00102;00104;0010500114;00115 (ref to Brownfield sites register). Surely the 15 year life of the plan gives adequate time for some of these to be brought back into negotiation and made use of — this has to be a better strategy than loosing Green belt land on day one of an approved plan. A simple trawl of local estate agents can also identify vacant commercial and industrial sites that have potentially 'fallen through the net' — again effort must be put into identifying and using these within the plan no matter how difficult development may be . We must not allow Green belt to be used simply because it is virgin land and easy and profitable for developers.
4.Once Green Belt sites are in the plan they will be lost on the day it becomes 'live' — with the prime sites on Green Belt put forward developers will immediately start the process. Whereas if some of these other sites (albeit they may appear to have development issues ) were in the plan instead, then time is on the owners and Council's sides to sort out the difficulties and build on those instead. The plan covers 15 years — that gives time enough to work with these other sites to sort the difficulties and thus provide the properties needed. No evidence has been seen that says the shortfall in properties has to be addressed at the start of the plan period — therefore time should be taken to bring these others forward and NOT the Green Belt sites which will be lost on day one of the plan and can never be recovered.
In addition the proposal directly goes against Council Policy CSP3 of Dudley Development Strategy (P37 of Draft BCP) To go against the policy when options exist (above) is wrong.

As detailed above the rejected `call for sites' sites must be re-examined with a detailed rather than baseline assessment and included in the plan rather than the Green Belt ones. Possible future difficulties in development of them should be sorted out and not used as an insurmountable excuse to take the easy route and permanently remove 3% of our Green Belt
In addition all potential brownfield sites — even where owners appear presently reluctant to continue - must be put forward before any Green Belt land. The local authority has the power to pursue these sites and should use that power to ensure its green belt land is protected.

Object

Representation ID: 13976

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Millard

I would like to lodge my objection to the allocation of sites for future development in the Draft Black Country Plan. This is part of the public consultation (Reg 18) of the plan. Under pressure from national government, I understand Dudley local authority has had to prepare an order to demonstrate where future development will take place and it has calculated there is insufficient brownfield sites to support the Black Country Plan and ‘exceptional circumstances now exist to justify a review of the green belt’. I understand Dudley has assessed all of its greenbelt for proposed future development and has decided that three sites off Worcester Lane would cause less harm and more benefits than other sites and these are being put forward as an option for removal from the green belt for development.

Worcester Lane is already a very busy, fast road with no safe footpaths or street lighting and it is the major road into West Hagley and on to Kidderminster and Worcester from the Stourbridge direction. One access to the proposed sites is over a railway bridge at the junction of Racecourse Lane and Redlake Road with a weight limit of 7.5 tonnes. The other access is through the busy village of West Hagley in which there are two high schools to which access is by one road only and a primary school, which is on a very busy main road with speed ramps. The two high schools both have students who travel by school bus therefore there are at least six buses in and out of the village twice daily. West Hagley is at the south end of the proposed development and if this land was to be developed the transport needed to deliver materials would have a massive impact on the surrounding areas:
Can they access the sites via the railway bridge due to the weight limit?
Access from any other routes would require using
(i) Bromwich Lane, which is a single lane road and totally inappropriate for HGV’s
(ii) Middlefield Lane, which is a narrow road which joins a very busy dual carriageway
(iii) Park Road, which homes the primary school is ridiculously busy at school times and has speed ramps
(iv) Through the village; this is an already heavily congested village due to current level of traffic and school transport and endures traffic problems when the supermarkets/takeaways receive deliveries.

Everyday traffic would increase substantially if every proposed house had a minimum of two cars. The traffic is already considerable at peak times at the traffic lights at the junction with Redlake Road and Racecourse Lane and this would be increased. This is the same in the direction of West Hagley. The pollution would also increase due to the idling traffic; this then affects the air quality which affects the health of the local residents.

The proposal does not take into account the lack of public transport around the sites. There is currently no public service at all. Therefore, if developed, the extra vehicles would create much more traffic, something which I understood the government was trying to reduce. If public transport was introduced this is a new form of traffic and therefore would also add to the increased negative affect to the air quality and pollution which would have a detrimental effect on the residents currently living in the local area.

Worcester Lane currently has a big problem with flooding in a few areas along the proposed fields when we have heavy rain, how can housing be built on land that floods? The area by DUH206 does not have adequate sewage drainage; local houses have been seriously affected.

Worcester Lane road surface is of a tar and gravel mixture which is considerably noisy. Adding more traffic along it would significantly increase the noise to local residents especially those who have gardens backing on to it. This will have a detrimental effect on the quality of enjoyment in the gardens and therefore mental health. More traffic, of any kind private or public, will affect the air quality which will have an effect on the local residents. This will impact the health of the existing residents and the new residents.

The impact on the local residents during the time of development would be significant, the noise levels, the increased traffic, the dust would be substantial and could have a massive detrimental affect on any person already suffering certain illnesses. Many residents choose their property due to the location and countryside views and losing the green fields would affect their mental health.

The existing area is invaluable to not only local residents but the wider public who walk over the fields. This is excellent for mental health and well-being and has been invaluable during the pandemic. The public would lose the Rights of Way and permissive paths and therefore would not be able to continue to enjoy this area. Many families make use of the area teaching their children the importance of wildlife, identifying with them inspects, birds, vegetation etc and respect for the countryside. Where will they go to do this? Many people use the area for walking dogs, running for pleasure or training for sports; where would they go, how far would they have to travel to have the similar environment to enjoy? This is encouraging local residents to use their vehicles to leave their area to go for exercise; again, increasing the vehicle use and therefore affecting the air pollution. It is devastating to think of the loss of open countryside and the peaceful location on the edge of highly populated areas. This is of substantial importance to the physical and mental wellbeing of the local residents and those who enjoy it.

This proposal will destroy 100’s of years of growth of hedgerows, greenery and trees. These give the life to the insects which are the bottom of the eco system. Where will we be when we have developed all of our green fields? Some of the trees along the proposed site have TPO’s – will this be taken into consideration? One of the fields is currently being used for agricultural land – where is the farmer expected to move to? Why are we removing existing hedgerows and then realising we need to replant elsewhere? Our Prime Minister only recently has said we need to build on brownfield sites to preserve our greenbelt and I feel this plan is not inline with government views. We need to protect what little greenbelt we have to preserve all natural habitat and wildlife. Once this has gone it will never recover.

There are insufficient existing local services to cope. Local schools, primary and secondary, are oversubscribed and the two closest secondary schools are, as the crow flies, in another local authority so therefore residents are highly unlikely to be given places. The closet secondary school within Dudley borough is an approximate half an hour walk, not really suitable for young adults to walk on unkempt pavements with no street lighting. There are insufficient primary places now. The closest GP practice is in another local authority and there are constant complaints regarding the waiting lists and difficulty in getting appointments. The GP surgery within the Dudley borough and with whom local residents are registered is often on the local news regarding the difficulty getting appointments/telephone consultations. The local leisure centre is not within walking distance. The nearest few shops are one mile away and in a different authority. There are no safe footpaths or street lighting so this is dangerous. I feel this is penalising people with disabilities or who are less able. This again will increase traffic as it is encouraging people to use vehicles due to the lack of public transport and again is increasing the air pollution thus affecting peoples physical and mental health. Developing new housing in this area will not address the needs of the local people and it will affect existing commuters who already use the roadway.

The area is of importance for its history. The right of way leading into Quarry Park Road is thought to be part of an ancient path; the earliest map showing this is the Pedmore Tithe Plan of 1846. There has been limited archaeological investigation into the area and therefore it is not implausible that more archaeology remains there.

The proposed removal of this greenbelt not only will affect the local people now but will adversely affect generations to come. Once removed greenbelt cannot be replaced and the wildlife and natural habitat will never return. The decision to remove green spaces is extremely serious and should be addressed accordingly. Green spaces are more important than ever as we are aiming for a carbon neutral society. It is absolutely imperative that we keep our greenbelt for the future enjoyment of everyone

Object

Representation ID: 14205

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Alan Darby

I object to CSP3 1) b) i. as manifested in Walsall (HOU1 Table 4). Mass housing is best and most sustain- ably provided, once all 'brownfield' sites are used, in new freestanding compact settlements where all homes are near rural areas and key services (including mass transit to larger employment, cultural and retail centres) are within walking or cycling distance. HOU1 Table 4 implies intra-regional migration, so the urban extensions' residents will tend not to have work or cultural/family links close to home. The urban extensions will therefore tend to function as further 'dormitories' with heavy daily traffic outflows, mirroring adjoining car- dominated suburbs (even the Sustainability Appraisal (3.3.5) does not seem to expect any other outcme: ".. could potentially help to reduce ...") and exacerbating the conurbation's congestion, long commutes and lack of access to rural/quiet places. As the Black Country Plan area lacks space for new settlements, I suggest further –wider – housing 'exporting' than is envisaged in the favoured Housing Option 5. The 'strategic' housing distribution seems to result from applying regional targets as if the Black Country (an arbitrary, recent administrative construct) were an homogeneous urban unit within which housing can be placed wherever land can be found. But it – especially Walsall – is not: whereas mainly the Black Country is almost fully developed within tightly-drawn boundaries, much of Walsall remains as rural as adjoining Staffordshire districts (C.4 refers). Walsall's green legacy of earlier amalgamation of physically separate boroughs is key to its character; disproportionately to urbanise it just because land cannot be found else- where within an (aggregate) council boundary is to change the area's character and place homes where land is administratively available rather than where best and most sustainable. It will be no comfort to residents that, in aggregate, most development is in existing urban areas (objective CSP1 2) a)) if in their area it is mainly on the former Green Belt. Objective CSP1 2) a) must be applied in a more 'granular' way, with a more nuanced housing allocation process recognising north-eastern Walsall (with parts of southern Staffordshire) as a peri-urban zone whose unique character deserves as much protection from overspill from the urban area to its southwest as does that of similar areas beyond the conurbation's administrative boundary. Walsall has many more homes than jobs, congested roads and relatively poor public transport. Where urban extens- ion cannot be avoided, to prevent inexorable suburban car-dependency housing must be balanced locally with jobs and public transport investment to make travel other than by car possible and attractive. [ENDS]

Object

Representation ID: 14231

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Adrian Burns

We cannot keep building on green belt land. Enough is enough. Where will our children play when you have taken all the fields and woodlands away? Continual growth cannot work in a limited envoriment. PLease stop and consider what you are doing, once this land is gone it is gone for good.

Object

Representation ID: 14238

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Adam Gibson

Firstly, the use of greenbelt site seems largely incongruous with ongoing promises and reassurances made by the current government and Prime Minster (addressed as recently as last week at the party conference) with our current PM stating in June this year that "What we want is sensible plans to allow development on brownfield sites. We're not going to build on greenbelt sites...". This is particularly frustrating, and dare I say lazy, given the amount of unused and vacant property in and around Walsall itself, which could be redeveloped to provide significant boosts to housing potential without encroaching on greenbelt sites. It is distressing and disappointing that so little effort seems to have been put into finding more suitable means of addressing the housing shortage.

Comment

Representation ID: 14244

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Abigail Dunn

I live in [address diclosed] in Streetly, on the proposal there is a new housing estate to be built at the back on some green belt land. Why??? Of all the brown fill sites in walsall and the black country this is completely unnecessary. The infrastructure, public services, GP, dentists and schools just cannot accommodate another 92 families at the back of us alone without the consideration for all Of the other sites in Streetly.

Why destroy what was a lovely little
Village, it’s already being over developed and Loosing any character. Look at the brown fill sites, abandoned areas that need regeneration
Rather than some Landowners looking to quickly profit from selling the land to the council. This was one of the better areas of walsall council tax payers and The plans in this will just destroy it completely. We cannot accommodate the extra traffic and people on our roads it’s already gridlocked in
The mornings, crawling
Out of Streetly trying to get into the towns or onto The motorway network is incredibly difficult, please do Not make This any worse.

We have owls and bats locally and foxes all in the area proposed for development in Wood Lane. The Sutton park rangers are working hard to increase the local bat population by taking this green land it will only be harmful forthe local population of wildlife, we have to have thee green spaces. I appreciate that there is a Need for new housing but there are so many brown sites in the Black Country that would benefit massively from regeneration it doesn’t make any sense to ruin nice green spaces already in residential areas first and it certainly doesn’t without a plan that is widely communicated with those people that it directly affects.


This is Madness!

Object

Representation ID: 14296

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Alun Richards

I am writing, on behalf of myself and my family, to object to any plans to develop any of the greenbelt land on Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road, Streetly.

The development would not only lower the quality of life for surrounding residents but also increase traffic and pollution. I'm not convinced that the road and public transport infrastructure will be able to accommodate the development of close to 1000 additional houses. I am also concerned that the local schools and health services will struggle to cope with the increase in population that 1000 additional houses will bring.

Wildlife habitats will be destroyed devastating populations of birds, rabbits, foxes and hedgehogs.

There are few enough green spaces as it is and there must be plenty of brown field sites that can be used before destroying a very valued area of green belt. To avoid a lower quality of life and impoverished environment for everyone, including those in the proposed new homes, this development should not be permitted.

Object

Representation ID: 14574

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Caroline Day Bailey

2. Allocation of 19% of new homes to green sites could be accommodated on brownfield sites and remodelling and regeneration of areas with poor accommodation. The green areas around the Black Country provide employment (much of which requires specialist skills and experience); the areas contribute to our personal and national heritage, support our physical and mental wellbeing (as residents and as commuters journeying to/from the concrete constraints of the built environment).
3. How can residents trust their leaders that “the new Black Country green belt boundaries are intended to be permanent …..future” ? The original Green Belt was designed to be permanent!!
4. The Green Belt was created in the 20th century to restrict urban sprawl and thereby prevent loss of agricultural land and natural heritage. In the 21st century this may be re-interpreted as defending food security and the bio-geo environment.
The loss of 6% of the Green Belt cannot be justified when there is an availability of derelict and other urban land that could be recycled. Use of such sites would assist in local regeneration as well as supporting the climate change agenda by using sustainable materials, improved insulation, novel low/no carbon heating systems (on a community as well as household basis), domestic rain water harvesting etc. The locality could be a beacon for “building back better”

Object

Representation ID: 14649

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Colin Turley

There are many and varied reasons why I oppose these developments on our precious green belt land and I list them below:
1 Highways – our road infrastructure is already at capacity with long delays to journey times at pinch points along our high streets including, Kingswinford Sedgley, Wallheath and Wordsley to name a few. Building even more homes will severely add to this problem of congestion whilst increasing pollution and hence global warming as well as adding to the stress levels of commuters and also pedestrians.
2 Infrastructure – Schools, Hospitals, Dentists, Doctors GP surgeries are all creaking under the demands of the existing population. Adding thousands more homes will make the demands for those services rocket even higher!
3 Mental wellbeing – these precious Green areas help to give local people solace from the stresses and demands of our crowded and pressured lives. One adverse example is the proposal to build 24 homes on land off Viewfield Crescent Sedgley, means that on rare occasions of snowfall local children (and Adults) will be deprived of one of the few places they can use sledges due to the severe slope of the land.
4 Local wildlife, flora and fauna – we are being urged to plant more trees to help battle global warming, thses plans will result in the loss of hundreds of trees which will never be replaced!
Every attempt must be made to stop the ever increasing population explosion in our country nationally and locally, otherwise Britains “green and pleasant land” is doomed. As our representatives you must do everything in your power to protect every square inch of our precious Green Belt areas.

Object

Representation ID: 14652

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Tenant of Guys Lane grazing sites

I have been this grazing site for in excess of 15 years and find it very disturbing to hear of these plans to develop this site. It has an abundance of wildlife [redacted] and no end of wild birds [redacted] that nest each year in a stable. The site was visited a while ago by an official from the coal board, he pin pointed three deep shafts and I’m about to get back in touch them as other areas of this ground are showing signs of undulation!! The site provides a glimpse of the country side to all the local residents that come to my gate not only to say hello to horses , but to see the wild rabbits etc This would be a devastating blow to all the local people that pass by and take a moment to either clear their heads with the stresses of life or bring children to learn about our wildlife. Please consider your actions ,before another green space is lost forever in what is becoming a very built area very quickly. It will also mean more traffic, more pollution and another drain on our local schools and doctors Surely WE DO NOT NEED to lose this and the many more sites you are proposing

Object

Representation ID: 14711

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Morris

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.

Object

Representation ID: 14836

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Alison Wilkes

Policy CSP3
1bi and 1d
Object: It should be clear both that the term 'Neighbourhood Growth Areas' refers to large-scale development on greenfield sites and that these sites are predominantly in the greenbelt.

1g
Comment: The green belt should be defensible. The term 'where possible' should not be used here as it negates the declaration that the green belt is valued.

Justification
3.48
Comment: Green and blue infrastructure are key to wildlife and people, as well as built infrastructure and reference should be made to this.

Object

Representation ID: 14937

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Anthony Boden

I object to Kingswinford and Wall Heath being designated as new Neighbourhood Growth Areas and to the building of high value houses on the Kingswinford Triangle (533 houses) and at the Holbeach site (330 houses). Green belt land should not be released for development whilst brownfiled areas are available. Hasn't the West Midlands just won £33million for "building homes & creating new communities on brownfield land" and for "creating new jobs whilst protecting our greenbelt!" (Andy Street on facebook 6/10/2021)

Indeed, residential growth of this magnitude in Kingswinford and Wall Heath will cause permanent and irreversible damage to the environment. This green belt land prevents the spread of the West Midlands conurbation into the countryside. If developemnt occurs, the visual amenity and character of the local area will change forever, and for the worse, including:

1) Increased traffic congestion
2) Higher noise levels
3) Poorer air quality
4) Strain on resources (doctors, schools, care homes etc)
5) Permanent damage to wildlife and biodiversity.

The open fields of the Triangle and Holbeache contain valuable trees, hedgerows and wildlife corridors that link green spaces. Equally, local green spaces are extremely important for mental and physical health, as well as help giving people pride in where they choose to live. There is absolutely no responsible justification let alone ‘exceptional circumstances’ for releasing green belt land known as the Triangle and Holbeache for development. Please remove them from the Draft Black Country Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 15174

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Horn

Being a first-time buyer and trying to attempt to get onto the housing ladder is such a challenge these days. With increasing housing demand and lack of supply, this is causing a surge in house prices, whilst wages remain flat.


My concern is that new build development is virtually non-existent in the Dudley Borough, and I do not believe there is enough surplus vacant brownfield land to meet present and future demand. It is all very well stating that goverment have a “brownfield first” policy, however the reality is that there is not enough brownfield land to meet demand. Any homes that seem to be built on brownfield sites tend to be developed by housing associations or partnerships providing social and affordable rent accommodation. Furthermore, any homes that are built take a considerable amount of time just to get full planning permission consent and a spade in the ground. It is important that the planning process gets out of 1st gear and into 6th, as the shortage of homes is at breaking point!


There is a general lack of 2 and 3 bed private sale homes being developed for first time buyers and I would like to know how Dudley Borough Council aims to supply more new homes?, so that young people can stay and work local. Where are all these vacant “brownfield sites” coming from, that will provide thousands of new homes to meet present and future demand for housing at affordable prices?


The reality is that greenbelt will need to be used to meet present and future housing stock needs. It is simply not enough to keep saying brownfield first, because there is simply not enough of it, no matter how policy dictates. Along with an ever-growing population it is not a sustainable method to rely on brownfield and will only put more pressure on housing supply. Other regions are using greenfield sites and gaining consent to meet demand, so why is the Dudley Borough lagging behind and not taking the same actions. 300,000 new homes per annum will never be met just solely relying on brownfield land.

Local residents keep saying that there will be no green space left for future generations, however the truth of the matter is that if we don’t get ahead of the game and deliver more homes locally, then future generations will move elsewhere. We need to look beyond the boundaries of the Dudley Borough and realise that we are still very lucky in the fact we are only a few minutes away from endless countryside and that we not confined as residents to venture out into different regions for outdoor activity and nature at its best.

Object

Representation ID: 15459

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Turley

I have read and studied the Black Country Plan and I object to the proposals to build hundreds of homes on green belt land as part of the Black Country Plan.
There are many and varied reasons why I oppose these developments on our precious green belt land and I list them below:<br>
1 Highways – our road infrastructure is already at capacity with long delays to journey times at pinch points along our high streets including, Kingswinford Sedgley, Wallheath and Wordsley to name a few. Building even more homes will severely add to this problem of congestion whilst increasing pollution and hence global warming as well as adding to the stress levels of commuters and also pedestrians. Dudley council cannot cope with it's horrendous pothole problem without flooding these overstretched roads with even more vehicles
2 Infrastructure – Schools, Hospitals, Dentists, Doctors GP surgeries are all creaking under the demands of the existing population. Adding thousands more homes will make the demands for those services rocket even higher!
3 Local wildlife, flora and fauna – we are being urged to plant more trees to help battle global warming, these plans will result in the loss of hundreds of trees which will never be replaced!
4 Mental wellbeing – these precious Green areas help to give local people solace from the stresses and demands of our crowded and pressured lives. One adverse example is the proposal to build 24 homes on land off Viewfield Crescent Sedgley, means that on rare occasions of snowfall local children (and Adults) will be deprived of one of the few places they can use sledges due to the severe slope of the land.
Every attempt must be made to stop the ever increasing population explosion in our country nationally and locally, otherwise our “green and pleasant land” is doomed. As our representatives you must do everything in your power to protect every square inch of our precious Green Belt areas.

Object

Representation ID: 15816

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Colin Evans

The idea of building on so much green space and green belt land in Walsall, Dudley and the other boroughs covered by the plan is totally crazy when we are dealing with a biodiversity crisis.
My understanding of green belt was that it was there to prevent expansion of urban areas into the country side. These areas should still be protected and should be managed to encourage our struggling wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 16789

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Jenny Matthews

I wish to lodge my OBJECTION to the Draft Black Country Plan.
I can understand, to a point, the need for more houses to be built, but the way in which it is done is critical.
We should first and foremost re-use existing brownfield sites particularly former industrial zones which will then improve those area for those who live there.