Policy HOU1 – Delivering Sustainable Housing Growth

Object

Representation ID: 11975

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Reynolds

I strongly apologise to the destruction of our green land in Pelsall.

Object

Representation ID: 12173

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Hyden

Green belt land should not be used for new housing. There are plenty of brownfield sites across the uk that can be used without destroying wildlife and our natural surroundings.

Also without new schools, roads and doctors how can small out of town communities support these new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 12198

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Suzanne Bate

With regard to application DUH218, I would like to make the following objection: -

Major housing developments off Stallings Lane have already created about 600-700 new houses. Additional houses will cause more congestion down Guys Lane which is used as a 'cut through' by cars , causing noise pollution.
A demand on local doctors and schools should be taken into consideration. This field is a local green space and landmark which would be detrimental to the area if it was lost. The area has already seen significant development and loss of green spaces. This has to affect the wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 12212

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Tracey Williams

With regard to application DUH218, I would like to object.

Major housing developments in the area, off Stallings Lane, have already created over 600 new houses. Additional houses would cause more strain on the surrounding roads, doctors and schools in the area. The proposed site off Guys Lane is already used as a 'cut through' by cars causing noise and air pollution. This field is a local green space and landmark and would be detrimental to wildlife if destroyed. The area has already seen a significant loss of green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 12250

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Bolger

Object to proposed housing allocation at Brandhall Golf Course - contrary to England Trees Action Plan, Forestry Commission Guidance, Sandwell's Green Space Audit, Sandwell's Urban Tree Policy, National BNG objectives, local biodiversity objectives conatined within the adopted local plan and the Black Country AQMA

Object

Representation ID: 12252

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sandra Whitehouse

Transport - requires complete change to highway infrastructure to cope ensure safety of residents from excessive vehicle use. huge ongoing expense.
Education - no new schools planned to accommodate extra families. SpeciaL schools full therefore Dudley council already having to fund out of borough places.
Health - no new Doctor's surgeries planned, putting the health of residents across the borough at severe risk,
Environment - loss of identity of Wall Heath village. Endangering wildlife and affecting the bio diversity of surrounding area.
Mental health and well being - crowding and lack of resources creating social anxiety.
Devaluation of proprties.

Comment

Representation ID: 12316

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret O'Reilly

I am objecting to the proposed development at:-
*Coronation Road/ Mob Lane Aldridge North and Walsall Wood Area. 30ha land for 763 Homes *

This is greenbelt land. We were promised building only on brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 12378

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Wendy Jarvis

I object to the housing plan for the top of Mucklow hill on the former MEB site. This is on a main road, which is already busy enough by that Island. It is on the edge of Leasowes park and the additional traffic, conjestion and foot fall would make a mockery of the whole purpose of having a green space. The additional traffic, which would only be allowed to enter the site from one direction is a concern as it is very close to the Lapal scount hut and Leasowes school

I also object to the site of the Sandvick works. Again, this is a main dual carriageway. Vehicles entering and exiting any form of housing estate would cause serious danger to other road users. It is within close promixity to Halesowen town centre, the historic value and beauty of which has already been eroded by development.

Object

Representation ID: 12455

Received: 15/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

I wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections I have with regards to the above Black Country Plan WAL242 and the proposed development of Green Belt land.
[Redacted-GDPR] I am of the view the addition of 592 houses on our precious, irreplaceable, green land will cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenities and disrupt the quiet and peaceful character of the area.
My specific objections are as follows:
NON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE. NPPF states that Greenbelt is to be protected and requires 'Very Special Circumstances' to be built on. There is nothing special about plans to build on unspoilt land just to meet current housing targets. I question the use of a computer based algorithm to assess the housing needs which seem totally overinflated. Local Councils rather than the government are surely better equipped to judge housing targets for their particular area.
The projections assume the population of the Black Country will rise at an alarming rate from 2023 - 2039 well above normal growth and does not take into account that this could also decrease as well as increase.
If growth were normal, all future developments and improvements to our infrastructure can be fully accommodated within the urban area. Brownfield First. Surely there is more than enough Brownfield, old Industrial and windfall sites and developments that already have planning permission available to accommodate housing targets without the permanent destruction of Greenbelt.
In 2014 Walsall Council in a refusal decision of planning for 14 houses on the same land said: There is a plentiful supply of available housing land in Walsall without requirement of Green Belt. Sites with planning permission provide capacity to meet the boroughs housing well beyond 15 years including the additional NPPF 5% buffer. The loss of open space as a result of the proposed built development would have a significant detrimental impact to the character of the area which is defined by open countryside which contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlooks the application side.
I would also ask 'has the pandemic changed the housing supply equation'. Working from home and shopping online have hollowed out many urban centres. Walsall in particular is full of offices and shops empty and unused.

Object

Representation ID: 12756

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane Wingfield

I am shocked that you plan to place another 1000 houses into the area that is already now far too busy.

Comment

Representation ID: 13033

Received: 21/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Leanne Marlow

My household and I would like to oppose the proposed planning of ‘new housing land’ on Reedswood Park / Golf Course / surrounding areas.
We are fast running out of green areas within the Walsall Borough and this would be a direct contridiction to the Walsall Green Space Strategy.
Whilst this may be considered a ‘cheaper’ or ‘easier’ option than THE VAST amount of brown sites, increasing deralict buildings and countless unsightly wastelands within the area which would benefit from council funding and regeneration, at what cost would this be to the natural biodiversity, the health and wellbeing of locals and the wider air and water conditions of the Borough? This backwards thinking is fundementally going against what the Council is arguably fighting for as part of Agenda 21.
The council specifically set out to ‘work with others to acheive a safer, clearner, greener and healthier environement for everyone in Walsall now and in the future’. Despite this, these plans are a direct contradiction of almost all of the outlined key policies; creating more traffic, increasing water, land and air polution, being instrumental in the adverse impact on the environment and taking away the limited safe areas and acceciblity for local residents to use for leisure and health related pursuits in green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 13054

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Richard Gregory

Hello, I'm very angry that you are planning, to build houses on the limited green areas in the area, have you considered the elderly people, if they can't walk very far, and rely on the green space by them to exercise there pets, do you expect them to walk to, Kingswinford park or Brockmoor nature reserve, your priorities are wrong.

Object

Representation ID: 13061

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Neil McLeod

The proposed plan to develop prized greenfield sites in the Dudley Borough is completely unacceptable.

The councils must prioritise the development of brownfield sites in preference to the development of greenfield sites. This is absolutely essential for the protection of the environment, the protection of the green belt and for the wellbeing of local residents.

The infrastructure is not in place to support such developments which would be fully highlighted in Section 106 matters.

The prime concerns are as follows. This is NOT an exhaustive list.

Loss of green belt and impact on the environment.

Wellbeing of local residents

Road safety and infrastructure (including junctions and significantly increased traffic volume)

Pollution and air quality

Schools

NHS

Financial concerns

Object

Representation ID: 13062

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mitchell Round

BCP SITE REFERENCE DUH222 (BUILDING ON GREEN SPACE)
I strongly wish to register my objection to the building of houses on Severn Drive, Brierley Hill.
1. More housing will overcrowd the area, overcrowding leads to increase in spread of disease! Particularly relevant given the recent COVID pandemic.
2. Invaluable green sites / play areas / open spaces will be lost forever to the local community.
3. There will be a drastic increased demand in already overstretched Emergency services
4. Increased demand in already overfilled schools, doctors, dentists, hospital services
5. Increased accident risk, particularly at Bryce Road, but also at Corbyns Hall road which is already a risk as people double park or park inconsiderately.
6. We have an active bat population on Severn Drive
7. Loss of green spaces will mean there is nowhere local for neighbouring housing estates to bring children to play.
8. Loss of space for community events
9. Increased demand in sewage pipes which have already struggled to cope in previous years.
10. Tree preservation orders on existing trees, what will happen to those trees?
11. This proposal is already affecting this community's mental health; being invaluable especially for exercise during time restricted exercise through COVID, our community are anxious and upset about the possibility of losing this space.
12. We should not have to fight to retain already sparce green space!
13. Increased pollution locally from all the extra traffic.
14. Extra traffic on already full roads! The new road junction on High Street is already unfit for purpose. Traffic delays are already worse than before and would only increase further.
15. The landscape of Severn Drive would be Dramatically Changed, this has always been a quite highly sought after cul de sac.
16. We currently have the pleasure of a highly reputable local businessman who trains his dogs to enter the world renown Crufts competition - it is a sight to behold where would he go??
17. We regularly see whole families who use this green space to play and have fun.
18. Loss of dog walking green space would mean an increase in dog fouling on the footpaths!
19. An increase in houses will mean and increase in noise! and increased community conflicts.
20. A loss of our beautiful view and importantly of light, which also is detrimental to mental health issues.

Comment

Representation ID: 13068

Received: 18/09/2021

Respondent: Mark Cooper

Hello,

Black Country Plan 2021

It's good that the plan has the facility for residents to have a say as to what happens to our area in the future, what it really means to the plan can only be guessed at due to the way the

plan has already been constructed and the outcome already formulated giving the planners having already made up their mind. This allows the planners and decision makers to comment

' that we have allowed a public consultation and will carry on regardless with the plan despite the outcome. You only have to see the way both Dudley and Wolverhampton have addressed

the Hippodrome and Civic Halls fiasco, to begin to understand that local authorities should have nothing to do with the subject, because all they do is get a grant and spend it unwisely,

requiring another grant to complete or not as the case may be.

You only have to look at both towns to realise that there is absolutely nothing to come into either , unless you are forced to visit a bank or building society , as there is no

attraction in either place. It is painfully obvious too that it will cost you to visit ( in both you have to pay for parking your car - so what is the reason or incentive to visit )

In Dudley it has trashed the only place of entertainment that could bring in money , the Hippodrome and Wolverhampton, the Civic Halls project has been miss managed to such

an extent by the 60 Councillors and their backup teams, that the overspend through mismanagement it will never survive, and the loss of revenue from events is eyewatering you could not

make it up, yet it manages to spend £10 million on redundancy packages. If it was in business, it would soon be out of business.

Now, it is considering building houses on green belt ( the lung we breath our air from ) on the Seven Cornfields where we traditionally grow our food. How daft is that idea then.

When the existing residents can't get a doctor's appointment, or a dentists for that matter, and the demand for school places is backing up, so why add more houses to the problem? Has

anyone asked that question of the plan. Even Gavin Williams could not solve that one considering he has been let go. So, with over 60 councillors and 3 MP's i and a deficit also eyewatering, itt has

generally speaking, not made a good fist of the job so far. Unfortunately, it cannot blame the otherside because it has been in power for over 20 years. What happened to the 'Cafe' Culture' that

was supposed to kick start the economy, or the Grand Theatre? The number of businesses that have closed due to the restrictions and revenue streams drying up is enormous and there is no

plan in place to improve the situation as far as I can see, Beattties, closed, others to follow, housing shortages, jobs not many, things not selling other than food, can no one see the answer,

yet Council Tax rises adnfinitum , 25% of which goes toward council employees benefits.

Surely, we can do better than this, can't we?

Comment

Representation ID: 13733

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Cottrell

So many objections but it is clear that we do need to build. In the process we really need to conserve as many green areas as possible so building on ex-industrial sites and other brown spaces should be a priority. We know contractors like it easy so to overcome objections to brown sites we need to subsidise the initial clearances through public monies

Object

Representation ID: 14004

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Furness

I would also challenge the housing number requirements outlined in the plan, with Dudley contributing the most over the period of the plan, when it is widely accepted that there is no housing deficit in Dudley.

Object

Representation ID: 14204

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: 14519

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bill Hawkins

The Government has set unrealistic targets for the number of houses they say are required. These targets should be challenged or ignored. The problem is not shortage of houses but too many people, but governments are reluctant or afraid to address this.

Object

Representation ID: 14713

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Morris

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

Object

Representation ID: 14761

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Gemma Starkey

I fear in the future we will have less and less places to visit in nature due to green spaces being built upon. We will have less trees to purify our air and more traffic to pollute it! Also, even more housing estates will put tremendous extra strain on our already stretched services and roads.
Please listen to what the people need, and I can hazard a guess, it’s not more housing in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 15548

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Summersby

To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my objection to the building of houses on the green belt as outlined in the Blackcountry Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 15605

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Tony Edginton

I am writing to confirm my total rejection of the above plan together with any proposals to develop any sites designated as green belt!
The documents which you have based your assumptions on are based on spurious projections & estimates up to 2039.
Currently you make no allowances for more brownfield sites coming on stream, no allowances for the conversion of vacated commercial office blocks becoming available for conversion!
Your current & previous rationale has always been that if there is green belt land available then it should be developed because it is easier, cheaper & faster to develop.
The COVID pandemic proved irrefutably that humans benefit greatly from being able access peaceful
countryside, if this plan is approved it will undoubtedly result in large swathes of our beautiful countryside being destroyed.
I reiterate once more that this plan is & always has been a document full of spurious assumptions, discredited figures, wild assessments of future immigration & population numbers!

Object

Representation ID: 16530

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Mersey

Houses not required - the number of houses required has been vastly overestimated. These properties will be luxury developments not affordable homes. The sites are purely down for maximising profit of developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 16551

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Friends of the Earth Stourbridge

Housing: (BCP pg. 87-119):
Greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global temperature rises and we already
know we must reduce them to avoid 1.5°C of warming. 42% of greenhouse gas
emissions in Dudley Borough come from housing.
Sustainable homes are vital to protect the most vulnerable people from climate
breakdown. In Dudley Borough only 31% of homes are well insulated and
13% of households are in fuel poverty. Poor insulation contributes to this
problem. The Council should develop a heating and energy efficient strategy by 2025
for the borough. Action plans must include improved regulations regarding new
builds in the private and rented sectors as well as schemes to carry out retro fit in
both council stock and private homes. Planning permission should require all homes
built in Dudley Borough to be extremely energy efficient, using the Passivhaus
standards.
• We want Dudley MBC to ensure 100% of homes are well insulated to
minimum EPC C level, eradicate fuel poverty as fast as possible.
• Retro fitting and upgrading the insulation of 9,513 homes per annum
within the Dudley area will ensure all homes are properly insulated by
2030, lifting as many people as possible out of fuel poverty.
• Only 22 existing eco heating systems have been fitted in the Borough to date.
Dudley’s official government target is 25,383 but the FoE Target for Dudley
is to fit 55100 heat pumps by 2030.
The Borough has 64 neighbourhoods with high social flood risk for surface
flooding (Nov. 2019) taking account a range of vulnerability factors.
Trees and green biodiverse community spaces clean up air pollution as well as
mitigating against both flood risk and heat islands in residential or built-up areas
with no green space or shade. All housing developments and refurbishments should
ensure that community green space and tree planting are a priority for all future
development as well as a reduction in the density of houses and roads to reduce
flood risk.
Spatial Strategy and Infra Structure: (BC Plan pg.20 – 70) and Black Country
Centres (BCP pg. 140 – 173)
Economic, housing, leisure and cultural development need to be reviewed holistically
as part of the spatial development strategy. An innovative regeneration of our town
centres should take into account people’s changing work patterns, reduced need for
office space and retail space, working from home, health, well-being, encouraging
people to shop locally, provide educational, leisure and cultural opportunities near to
people’s homes supporting both community and family life.
Friends of the Earth Stourbridge: 11.10.21:
4
Town centre buildings should be re-purposed to provide a mixed economy of use but
building on what is already there rather than demolishing good functioning
businesses. At the time of writing a row of thriving local businesses are proposed for
demolition at no. DUH008 14 Colley Gate for housing development; whilst a row of
abandoned buildings are left standing next to the proposed development. This
appears to make little sense and a waste of resources and good businesses.
We would like to see town centres including Tiers 1,2 and 3 with more pedestrian
and cycle friendly. For example, Stourbridge High Street is currently congested with
traffic and has poor air quality from the High Street and also the Ring Road. We
would like to see the High Street pedestrianised with limited traffic flow for deliveries
and greening of the streets as in other of Dudley’s towns. We would like to see the
ring road have better traffic calming measures and more accessible crossings. The
subways are dingy and dangerous after dark and should be removed.
Pedestrianisation and greening should be extended further in the other town centres
and greening of the streets with trees and planters to increase bio-diversity as well
as shade. This will improve local environments for community interaction, increased
health well-being in open social green spaces.
On residential streets we would also like to see more limits on traffic flow for
example the Street Play initiative uses existing council powers to close a street to
traffic for several hours, allowing children to play together in the street. This is a
brilliant initiative for building community and is particularly beneficial for
disadvantaged communities with no gardens and limited access to parks. Play
streets today could be accompanied by an initiative to green the street with trees
and planters, and some of the closures could even be made permanent.
As well as supporting retro-fit for people working from home the Council could
encourage the development of shared working spaces or hubs, in the town centres
of Tiers 1, 2 and 3. This would enable people to use of good quality, accessible and
well-equipped spaces close to home as well as to meeting spaces for formal and
informal interaction. Free wi-fi should be a feature. If these spaces were no more
than 10 minutes walking distance of people’s home then it may well reduce
commuter traffic and improve air quality. Libraries provide some of these facilities
but there are not enough in the borough.
Creating good quality jobs near to where people live will also ease road congestion
in the am/pm commute and improve air quality. Town centre development in Tiers
1,2 and 3 should be included in this and developments made alongside leisure,
cultural, social and retail facilities (not just food retail) included. Green space and
green corridors should also be a feature of exciting and innovative plans so that no
urban area is too far in walking distance from open green space.

Comment

Representation ID: 16552

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Friends of the Earth Stourbridge

Housing: (BCP pg. 87-119):
Greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global temperature rises and we already
know we must reduce them to avoid 1.5°C of warming. 42% of greenhouse gas
emissions in Dudley Borough come from housing.
Sustainable homes are vital to protect the most vulnerable people from climate
breakdown. In Dudley Borough only 31% of homes are well insulated and
13% of households are in fuel poverty. Poor insulation contributes to this
problem. The Council should develop a heating and energy efficient strategy by 2025
for the borough. Action plans must include improved regulations regarding new
builds in the private and rented sectors as well as schemes to carry out retro fit in
both council stock and private homes. Planning permission should require all homes
built in Dudley Borough to be extremely energy efficient, using the Passivhaus
standards.
• We want Dudley MBC to ensure 100% of homes are well insulated to
minimum EPC C level, eradicate fuel poverty as fast as possible.
• Retro fitting and upgrading the insulation of 9,513 homes per annum
within the Dudley area will ensure all homes are properly insulated by
2030, lifting as many people as possible out of fuel poverty.
• Only 22 existing eco heating systems have been fitted in the Borough to date.
Dudley’s official government target is 25,383 but the FoE Target for Dudley
is to fit 55100 heat pumps by 2030.
The Borough has 64 neighbourhoods with high social flood risk for surface
flooding (Nov. 2019) taking account a range of vulnerability factors.
Trees and green biodiverse community spaces clean up air pollution as well as
mitigating against both flood risk and heat islands in residential or built-up areas
with no green space or shade. All housing developments and refurbishments should
ensure that community green space and tree planting are a priority for all future
development as well as a reduction in the density of houses and roads to reduce
flood risk.
Spatial Strategy and Infra Structure: (BC Plan pg.20 – 70) and Black Country
Centres (BCP pg. 140 – 173)
Economic, housing, leisure and cultural development need to be reviewed holistically
as part of the spatial development strategy. An innovative regeneration of our town
centres should take into account people’s changing work patterns, reduced need for
office space and retail space, working from home, health, well-being, encouraging
people to shop locally, provide educational, leisure and cultural opportunities near to
people’s homes supporting both community and family life.
Friends of the Earth Stourbridge: 11.10.21:
4
Town centre buildings should be re-purposed to provide a mixed economy of use but
building on what is already there rather than demolishing good functioning
businesses. At the time of writing a row of thriving local businesses are proposed for
demolition at no. DUH008 14 Colley Gate for housing development; whilst a row of
abandoned buildings are left standing next to the proposed development. This
appears to make little sense and a waste of resources and good businesses.
We would like to see town centres including Tiers 1,2 and 3 with more pedestrian
and cycle friendly. For example, Stourbridge High Street is currently congested with
traffic and has poor air quality from the High Street and also the Ring Road. We
would like to see the High Street pedestrianised with limited traffic flow for deliveries
and greening of the streets as in other of Dudley’s towns. We would like to see the
ring road have better traffic calming measures and more accessible crossings. The
subways are dingy and dangerous after dark and should be removed.
Pedestrianisation and greening should be extended further in the other town centres
and greening of the streets with trees and planters to increase bio-diversity as well
as shade. This will improve local environments for community interaction, increased
health well-being in open social green spaces.
On residential streets we would also like to see more limits on traffic flow for
example the Street Play initiative uses existing council powers to close a street to
traffic for several hours, allowing children to play together in the street. This is a
brilliant initiative for building community and is particularly beneficial for
disadvantaged communities with no gardens and limited access to parks. Play
streets today could be accompanied by an initiative to green the street with trees
and planters, and some of the closures could even be made permanent.
As well as supporting retro-fit for people working from home the Council could
encourage the development of shared working spaces or hubs, in the town centres
of Tiers 1, 2 and 3. This would enable people to use of good quality, accessible and
well-equipped spaces close to home as well as to meeting spaces for formal and
informal interaction. Free wi-fi should be a feature. If these spaces were no more
than 10 minutes walking distance of people’s home then it may well reduce
commuter traffic and improve air quality. Libraries provide some of these facilities
but there are not enough in the borough.
Creating good quality jobs near to where people live will also ease road congestion
in the am/pm commute and improve air quality. Town centre development in Tiers
1,2 and 3 should be included in this and developments made alongside leisure,
cultural, social and retail facilities (not just food retail) included. Green space and
green corridors should also be a feature of exciting and innovative plans so that no
urban area is too far in walking distance from open green space.

Comment

Representation ID: 16738

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Christophers

Dear Black Country consultation
My main comment on the plan is that all new homes should be built to net zero carbon standards now.
The policy should include operational carbon emissions but also embodied carbon emissions. For a new home, the embodied carbon emissions from construction can be as much as half the carbon footprint measured over its 60-year design life (RICS, 2017).
There is a considerable evidence base for much stronger local standards, a there is no agreed national standard, “Future Homes standard” still be some years away and subject to consultation.
The statutory Climate Change Committee have repeatedly made clear that national policies for new homes are not yet driving change at the required pace (CCC, 2019).
The United Nations, IPCC, and other commentators consider 2050 targets will be too late to prevent irreversible climate change, missing the Paris target to limit global warming to 1.5degC (UNCC, 2021), (IPCC, 2021).
The Good Homes Alliance (GHA) Vanguard Network unites many local authorities who want to “Build Net Zero Now”, rather than waiting for 2025 or 2030 (GHA, 2020).
There is clear evidence that new homes built merely to minimum Building Regulations standards - ie not built to zero carbon standards - would be five times more expensive to retrofit a decade later (Currie & Brown, 2019).
Construction is clearly the best point at which to make a home both energy efficient and low carbon.
I am happy to amplify/discuss any of these points further if you wish.
References
RICS (2017) Royal Instute of Chartered Surveyors. Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment. Available at: https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-website/media/news/whole-lifecarbon-assessment-for-the--built-environment-november-2017.pdf [Accessed 16 July 2021]
CCC (2019) Climate Change Commttiee. UK Housing: fit for the future? Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/uk-housing-fit-for-the-future/ [Accessed 16 July 2021]
UNCC (2021) United Nations Climate Change. NDS Synthesis report. Available at:
https://unfccc.int/news/climate-commitments-not-on-track-to-meet-paris-agreement-goals-as-ndc-synthesis-report-is-published [Accessed 16 July 2021]
IPCC (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf [Accessed 10 Aug 2021]
GHA (2020) Good Homes Alliance. Build Net Zero Now. Campaign initiative Available at:
https://goodhomes.org.uk/campaign/build-net-zero-now [Accessed 12 Jan 2021]
Currie & Brown (2019) The costs and benefits of tighter standards for new buildings: A Report for the Committee on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-costs-and-benefits-of-tighter-standards-for-new-buildings-currie-brown-and-aecom/ [Accessed 12 February 2021]

Object

Representation ID: 16975

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Nicholas

Black Country Plan (PCP Policy HOU1) DUH210, Viewfield Crescent

As a local resident I object to the green belt land off Viewfield Crescent being considered for the building of 24 homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 17874

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Hepworth

Given the climate crisis all plans should incorporate the following requirements:
2) All new homes to be well-insulated and heated by renewable sources.

Object

Representation ID: 18189

Received: 14/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Taylor

1. The BCP green belt assessment summary states that the study excludes areas of green belt which have significant planning constraints on them from further assessment - e.g. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation or land at a high risk of flooding?
I believe that this land relates to both of these Gateway Constraints and therefore should have been EXCLUDED IMMEDIATELY from the BCP.
2. It adjoins a local nature reserve and any development is likely to have a negative impact on the LNR.
3. It is within an Area of High Historical Landscape Value as determined by the Evidence base published as part of the Black Country Plan.
4. The site remains highly sensitive as it falls within a designated Wildlife Consultation Area and there are currently numerous Deer's, fox Setts and also other protected species including Great Crested Newt (images of existing Wildlife on land attached) (*See attached PDF’s for images*)
5. There's a major concern of parking congestion on the corner of Viewfield Crescent (outside the entrance to the proposed site) due to a number of existing 1 bedroomed flats in such a small area with only off-road parking available causing already a major issue on the bend of the street, which emergency services and especially the refuse collection vehicles struggle to access, there are 14 house/flats on that corner with many residents having 2 vehicles and with the additional visitors/carers attending it can be un-accessible at times and I personally struggle to get out of my own driveway (images of parking issues attached)
6. Why consider this site with so many obstacles? i.e. mains pressured gas main running directly through the site, mains sewage, , Pinnacle point of Cotwell End Nature Reserve & Conservation Area, the shear drop in level of ground conditions? Tree Preservation Orders? And all this just to squeeze approximately 24 houses on!! To take away such a small precious piece of land but with such a massive Local Importance would be catastrophic.

7. Why was the land of the proposed site assessed and photos taken from the bottom of Maden Hill (not suitable for vehicles!!) looking up at a small existing housing development instead of taking the images from the proposed access point of Viewfield Crescent? Was this done intentionally to block out the panoramic views on offer overlooking and being At the heart and pinnacle of the Cotwell End Valley and also avoid showing the shear slope of the land from above?
8. I must say on a personal note myself and my wife are absolutely heartbroken at the moment with this potential development as we live adjacent to this land, we have worked hard all our life for what we have and just the thought of a developer smothering us in a housing development on green belt is devastating especially as we love the active wildlife around us, mentally its pushing me to my limits and I really don't want to go in a state of depression.

Summary
strongly believe that this site as not been assessed in the right manner and with the above issues and Gateway Constraints taken into account this site needs to be re-assessed and removed from the Black Country Plan as it clearly states in your Green belt assessment that "sites with these significant planning constraints on them will be excluded ! ! "

Please see attached photos of existing land of proposed site
*See attached PDF’s for images*

Site reference: DUH210 Viewfield Crescent
*See attached PDF’s for images*