Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Object

Representation ID: 10576

Received: 18/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen James Pratt

Policy HOU1 proposes 47,837 homes, but this is far short of the identified need (76,076 homes), leaving a shortfall of 28,239 homes to be exported to neighbouring authorities. However, there is no indication as to how this shortfall will be met (see comments on Policy BCP1). It is therefore unsound and not legally compliant with the Duty to Cooperate.

Object

Representation ID: 10686

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Craig McArthur

Ref DUH217, I use this land to walk my dog, loss of this path would be detrimental to my health

Object

Representation ID: 10699

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Oneeb Ul-Haq

It will increase noise pollution, litter pollution, devalue housing around the surrounding areas

Object

Representation ID: 10701

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mr G Chan

Sustainability of housing is important. Please can you explain how these new builds are sustainable. Are any planned homes zero carbon homes?

Object

Representation ID: 10844

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Terry Hartwell

Please accept this email as our
formal objection to the proposed development and loss of green belt land at Worcester Lane Stourbridge.

Despite statements previously made by the West Midlands Mayor that there was no case for the loss of green belt land in the Dudley Borough we are now faced with the
prospect of substantial environmental destruction and a dramatic negative effect upon the wellbeing of local residents in the area the latter becoming even more evident in these current times.

Object

Representation ID: 10865

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Rogers

I object to use of sites DUH-206, DUH-207, DUH-208 and DUH-209 for housing on the grounds that this encroaches unnecessarily on green belt land and the location is unsuitable to fulfil accessibility objectives being on an awkward, narrow site along a busy road away from convenient transport links.

Comment

Representation ID: 10873

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Rogers

I think that brownfield and under utilised sites should be used before any building on green field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 10944

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Kate Stevenson

These areas are used frequently by members of the community. It would be a shame to loose these green areas as they add to the appeal of the local area. Ample housing is already available in the local area - having moved home recently within the area myself, there was plenty of options available already.

Comment

Representation ID: 10994

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Bickmore-Green

Do not destroy our green spaces. Look at other areas. We need to look after the planet before it’s too late . Think ! Please !

Object

Representation ID: 11191

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Morgan Brookes

Develop the existing derelict sites before developing green belt land. Why knock down high rise buildings that housed many to build on countryside and green belt. Nature is already under pressure with habitats removed daily. Let the green belt stay. The Black Country is already full you only need to use the roads to see this.

Comment

Representation ID: 11303

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Usha Kumari-Burns

Using green belt land is an awful idea. There are brown fill sites that should be utilised.

Comment

Representation ID: 11318

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Councillor Ray Burston

Have the population projections been adjusted to account for lower inward migration based on Britain's departure from the European Union and the drive to fill more job vacancies from within the indigenous workforce? This will impact on projected demand for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 11321

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Hedges

Greenfield areas in Dudley should be preserved for the physical and mental wellbeing of the community, for the wildlife that live there and for water management purposes. Brownfield and town regeneration should aim to retain important historical landmarks, features and buildings to reflect our proud heritage. Local people's voices should have equal weighting with large housing developers who have the money and expertise to argue their point. They have the money but we have the passion, and we have to live here not them.

Object

Representation ID: 11369

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Bent

I object to the land off Lazy Hill, Aldridge being built on and any other sites that are green belt. There are bats, foxes, owls, moles, rabbits and all sorts of wildlife that live within the fields allocated for development. It would have a tremendous impact on the local communities many of which are elderly and the surrounding infrastructures. It would also impact on the overall carbon footprint for Walsall and also on the climate which we can ill afford. Jobs are already hard to get and having a higher population would only make the situation worse.

Object

Representation ID: 11379

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Miller

Why do we need 47,837 new houses, the total housing capacity of the Black Country should be explained

Comment

Representation ID: 11398

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Edward Evitt

Find more brownfield sites. Require owners of empty brownfield land to build housing or sell to developers who will. Force owners of persistently empty properties to sell or rent out.

Object

Representation ID: 11452

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Charmaine Stint

it is not clear how the additional housing allocations will be made sustainable. How will surrounding infrastructure also be improved according to the number of new houses being built within each specified area? With such high increases of housing numbers new schools, health centres and transport need to be increased in order to make the new housing estates sustainable in the longer term. Also it is not evident what percentage of new housing supply will be social housing on each new development site.

Object

Representation ID: 11475

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ditchfield

Too many greenfield sites being planned to be used to build the new houses.
The same greenfield sites we were all encouraged to use to keep fit during covid you are now looking to build houses on.
Local facilites doctors, schools and roads will not cope with the increased number of residents in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 11488

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Woodsetton Charitable Trust

It is not clear to the Trust what housing need cannot be met in the Black Country and more particularly Dudley and what if any of the needs are to be met and if so where and how.It seems to the Trust that answere to these questions need to be provided to assess their implications for the Black Country and its constituent parts such as North Dudley.If some of the provision is to be made in Wombourne this will clearly have an impact on the Woodsetton area and Sedgley.

Comment

Representation ID: 11500

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sally Andrews

I can understand and appreciate need for more housing. Will this be affordable /social housing with homes owned by Local Authority/local housing associations rather than by huge profit making developers?

Object

Representation ID: 11507

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Annabel Ridsdale

I object to the site DUH217 being used for housing.
- It's an important through-passage to access green space
- It's important for my physical and mental health. I jog and walk here.
- The hedge is ancient
- It's an important corridor for animal movement between green spaces

Object

Representation ID: 11545

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Linda Stone

The plan proposes building on every green space in my area of Pensnett. This leaves children with no where to play and dog walkers with no where to exercise their dogs (or any combination of the two). During lockdown I have seen both fields in the proposal used for picnics, football matches (with varying number of participants), dog training by stressed owners, children learning to walk or ride tricycles. Where will people go if the green spaces are given over to building projects? I have a dog and I use both fields.

Object

Representation ID: 11547

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: mrs alison bate

Do not build sprawling large estates in greenfield areas. The road infrastructure cannot deal with the traffic, and planning on greenfield sites should be protected through your own policies. This is poor planning. Use alternative brownfield sites to ensure that wall heath has some green space, as we have no local or national nature reserves or premium parks with investment in facilities, unlike other areas of the borough which had Healthy Towns parks investment.

Comment

Representation ID: 11562

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Kathy Ripley

There are many properties that are derelict,why not renovate those ?

Object

Representation ID: 11621

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Walsall MBC

The importance of Green belt policy should remain sacrosanct to the people living in urban areas, the importance of access to green spaces is so critical to the health and wellbeing of people living in highly urban and industrialised areas. It is important in the levelling up debate to consider where areas of health deprivation exist and to target housing outside those areas.

Object

Representation ID: 11821

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kamila Roguszczak

I object to building of houses on greenbelt land especially the triangle on Worcester Lane Stourbridge. Our prime minister has in the last week pledged no building of houses on green belt land.
This area of land is currently farm land and I feel we need to conserve if not increase the amount of land used for farming to help the UK become more self sufficient in supplying its own food rather than relying on foreign imports.
Also as shown in the pandemic/ lockdowns green space is essential to the mental health of everyone.

Object

Representation ID: 11840

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Knight

The use of the town centre does not appear to have been included in the review of available land available for housing. Given the number of vacant shops within Walsall town centre this is an obvious omission.

Comment

Representation ID: 11957

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma Bayliss

I currently live in Streetly. Due to the already full to capacity schooling situation, we couldn’t get my daughter into a Streetly primary school. We now face the situation of not being in the catchment for the secondary school where all my daughters friends will go & have no chance of getting her into Streetly Senior School as the places will have gone to pupils in Streetly Primary Schools. This is now forcing us to look at moving house to save my daughter being offered a place at any school with space. We need more schools not more houses.

Object

Representation ID: 11970

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leanne Reynolds

I strongly disagree with the recommendations to use the green land in Pelsall to build houses.

Object

Representation ID: 11971

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Leanne Reynolds

see rep ID 11970 - no text included in this rep