Policy DSA1 Land South of Holbeach Lane /Wolverhampton Road, Kingswinford

Object

Representation ID: 11421

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel McLaughlin

The plan for Kingswinford and Wall Heath shows the construction of many more houses in the area. It is not clear in the documents provided what, if any, infrastructure will be provided to support this development.

Object

Representation ID: 11429

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs L Prowse

Too many families already here, wallheath will not cope. Not enough infrastructure to cope. Land being taken out of greenbelt is underhanded.

Object

Representation ID: 11449

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Jordan

That there should be no no building on green belt land like 'Holebeache' which is necessary and vital for local residents wellbeing where they walk, talk, cycle, run and enjoy the fresh air, the wildlife, fields tree's and habitat which wouldn't exist if some 330 houses and 700 cars potentially were allowed to be built.

Object

Representation ID: 11494

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Pearson

Destroying this site will mean losing a wide variety of birds/wildlife. The idea that retaining hedgerows and trees in isolation will continue to represent rich habitat shows a lack of understanding of how ecology works. Building right up to a hedgerow and across the hunting ground will have a catastrophic effect on habitat quality. Adjacent green belt will be damaged due to eroding wildlife corridor/buffer zones, increasing noise, vehicles, pollution, and street lighting. Green spaces are more important than ever for our mental health and wellbeing and this one is important to our community.

Object

Representation ID: 11495

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joyce Wright

Unsuitable road infrastructure, increased road traffic, doctors surgeries and hospital unable to cope with additional capacity, building on greenbelt land before brownfield.

Object

Representation ID: 11496

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Diana Glaze

Building on this site will destroy another precious habitat. The idea that keeping a few hedgerows and trees will still represent rich habitat shows a lack of understanding of how ecology works. Building right up to a hedgerow and across the hunting ground will have a huge impact on habitat quality. Adjacent green belt will be damaged due to eroding wildlife corridor/buffer zones, increasing noise, vehicles, pollution, and street lighting. Green spaces are more important than ever for our mental health and wellbeing and this one is important to our community.

Object

Representation ID: 11586

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Willis

The land should not be developed and should remain arable farm land.
Further investigations into the availability of Brownfield sites should be carried out.
Representation should be made to the Minister to change the housing allocation if it cannot be met from Brownfield sites.
Any influence Dudley has over Staffordshire's plans for the local Green Belt will be seriously compromised and could be catastrophic for Kingswinford and Wall Heath residents and their local environment.
NHS services and particularly the level of care provided by doctors surgery's will be reduced.

Object

Representation ID: 11601

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Pearson

Destroying this site will mean losing a wide variety of birds/wildlife. Building right up to a hedgerow and across the hunting ground will have a catastrophic effect on habitat quality. Adjacent green belt will be damaged due to eroding wildlife corridor/buffer zones, increasing noise, vehicles, pollution, and street lighting. There is already a huge traffic problem along this route and no rail links close by. Green spaces are more important than ever for our mental health and wellbeing and this one is important to our community.

Object

Representation ID: 11620

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicky Di Terlizzi

-A wildlife haven for declining species of wildlife.
-Better to use Brownfiled sites only, whilst also identifying/making viable the 5,500 houses in the Dudley borough currently lying empty!
-Quality of life of locals serevly impeded.
-Added to other sites in/around Kingswinford/South Staffs border our already struggling 'village' will be destroyed by excess cars, roads, pollution, lack of schools/doctors/amenities!
-No nearby employment/network.
-CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
-Loss of wildlife corridors.
-Locals strongly oppose!
-The historical significance of the area will be lost.

Object

Representation ID: 11665

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Craig Taylor

These high value homes will appeal to commuters due to the lack of high quality, high wage employment in the area that would be needed to afford such property. This will increase congestion on our roads. The BCP mitigation include cycle paths and a metro link to Wednesbury that is slower than current options to get to Birmingham and Wolverhampton.

Already a large strain on our local roads, schools, and NHS, this will make the problem worse.

We have limited Green Belt land in Dudley already, we must do all we can to protect what little we have left.

Object

Representation ID: 11738

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Timmins

(Holbeache ref 208, Triangle ref 211)

I object most strongly to building on the green belt. The areas under threat are a valuable amenity to residents in this already over crowded area. Comprising rich agricultural land, ancient woodland, and vistas, along with much needed fresh air to lift the most jaded spirits.
It is also home to varied wild life and birds, including frogs, hedgehogs, bats and other small mammals. At night we hear owls, by day we glimpse herons, and sometimes even a stork on a neighbours roof. Roads here are already grid locked at peak times. Doctors surgeries and schools will be over whelmed. Building 'posh' houses will do nothing to help the average families to get a home.
On this estate, we will be in the worst situation, in a pincer between new housing developments in Stallings lane and Ketley fields, and these proposed houses! ENOUGH!!

Object

Representation ID: 11773

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Hicklin

SA-0017-DUD- 330 houses are set to be built on the land south of Holbeache Lane, I strongly oppose for the following reasons; increase in air and traffic pollution (particularly as I live on the Maidensbridge estate directly opposite), increased use of my estate as a 'cut through' to try and avoid the already heavy traffic on the A449, lack of new educational infrastructure being provided- no new local schools included in the plan despite over 500 houses planned just for Wall Heath/Kingswinford and The Wordsley School was the only local secondary school with places for year 7 this September.

Object

Representation ID: 11778

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Faye Lowe

I object due to the impact on the road system, local healthcare, education, wildlife and amenities. I feel that it is fundamentally wrong to develop greenbelt land when brownfield sites are available and more appropriate for use. I feel that the development will have a substantial detrimental impact on the local area, residents and safety of the people currently in the area. The road infrastructure is barely fit for purpose as it currently stands, increased pressure will have a huge impact on the lives of people already living in the area due to congested roads and poor public transport links.

Object

Representation ID: 11868

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Needham

The roads and traffic in the local area, particularly through Wall Heath is already awful, gridlocked a lot of the time, adding more houses will make this much worse. There are local schools which see children walking through the areas morning and afternoon, more traffic will mean more accidents. Our schools are stretched enough without more housing and more pupils adding to those loads where staff are already stretched to their limits with little support. Drs and hospitals are also stretched beyond their means meaning locals aren’t getting seen/treated without adding more.

Object

Representation ID: 11936

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms L Wise

I strongly object to the building of houses on the Holbeache (green belt) BCP site ref DUH 208 Page 371

Object

Representation ID: 11984

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Wheatley

I fully object to the proposals due to the negative impact on local infrastructures and services. The A449 is already struggling with traffic. Commuting would be intolerable and access from Maidensbridge estate impossible. The impact on GPs, schools, traffic, pollution, wildlife and mental health would be detrimental. In addition to South Staffs plans, Wall Heath would no longer be a village. Brownfield development has not been fully utilised. We should be protecting our greenbelt, not building on it so excessively. The A449 simply cannot cope with the additional traffic and impact of building works on local residents would be detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 11988

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Wheatley

I fully object to the proposals due to the negative impact on local infrastructures and services. The A449 is already struggling with traffic. Commuting would be intolerable and access from Maidensbridge estate impossible. The impact on GPs, schools, traffic, pollution, wildlife and mental health would be detrimental. In addition to South Staffs plans, Wall Heath would no longer be a village. Brownfield development has not been fully utilised. We should be protecting our greenbelt, not building on it so excessively. The A449 simply cannot cope with the additional traffic and impact of building works on local residents would be detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 12049

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Mabe

This land should be retained as green belt, for the benefit of the physical and mental health of local people. The local need for housing has been exaggerated. Any housing on this site will impose an intolerable burden on local services and infrastructure, to the detriment of all residents

Object

Representation ID: 12068

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Leslie Whitehouse

A disaster for the environment, public health and services and education.

Object

Representation ID: 12082

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Carter

This is an area much used by locals, there is diverse nature. This is a valued green belt area and development would add to local traffic congestion, pollution, stretching further existing services such as schools, doctors and Russell’s Hall hospital. How can this be sustainable when combined with other planned sites for residential development? I am vehemently against developing this plot.

Object

Representation ID: 12095

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Carter

This is an area much used by locals, there is diverse nature including bats, buzzards, owls, [other] This is a valued green belt area and development would add to local traffic congestion, pollution, stretching further existing services such as schools, doctors and Russell’s Hall hospital. How can this be sustainable when combined with other planned sites for residential development? I am vehemently against developing this plot.

Object

Representation ID: 12126

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr William Winfield

I think the plan should utilise brownfield sites, the council should ask residents for help if there are funding issues as the effects of building on this site, and other sites within the ward would have a devastating impact on the area for the reasons mentioned above. In addition to this, it will cause political turmoil as many residents will feel betrayed by their representatives and voting will be very confusing and no longer transparent in the area in my opinion.

Object

Representation ID: 12132

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Le Cras

DUH 208 page 371
DUH 211 page 371

Concerns within the plan detail itself, do not give full consideration of the impact on the local area of Kingswinford/Wordley/Wall Health in terms of infrastructure such as demand on medical access/support, demand on the road network for already congested areas, increasing demand on schooling. Not to mention the loss of wildlife habitats and access to commonly used local green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 12133

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Winfield

I have lived on the A449 for the past 30 years, it has become v ery congested with traffic jams outside our homes in holbeache road, both ways, the noise and pollution is dreadfull it should be monitored by someone, and yet you want to build more
homes in a deadly polluted and gridlocked area, It makes me wonder who is behind all this. it is a big money plan?.

There is also a thriving population of animals which would lose their habitats overnight as a consequence of development.

Object

Representation ID: 12169

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Jones

I object due to concerns regarding:
Loss of green belt
Increase in pollution
Impact on traffic as my kids attend summerhill
Impact on local nhs services and schools
Poor links to the motorway and rail

Object

Representation ID: 12245

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Brown

It is unnecessary to build on green belt land when there is suitable brown fill sites to build on. This would have a detrimental impact upon nature and the animals in that area. The traffic in that area get very congested, this will exacerbate this. It would also have an impact on doctors, schools and leisure facilities which are already under pressure.

Object

Representation ID: 12267

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Abby Russell

(DUH208) The new builds will be very close to the traveller site. leave them alone. Too much traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 12271

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ainsley Taylor

(DUH211, DUH208)
Effect on environment (air quality/ wildlife) of installation of utilities.
Upheaval of upgrading utilities (gas/electricity/water/sewage) - Laying of pipelines etc.
Strain and negative impact on efficiency of emergency services - especially ambulance / police
Increased risk of flooding
Bruden of extra homes on GP services and schools. which already seem to be overwhelmed.
Effect of road congestion on area.

Object

Representation ID: 12276

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Laura and Aaron Harbach

Number of people: 2

We would like to lodge our objection to the housing development on this land. Kingswinford & Wall Heath have already had heavy development with three new housing estates being built off Stallings lane & a fourth to be built at Kettley Fields. This already puts a strain on our local services with the NHS having long waiting times unable to cope with the volume of people in the area. GP surgery are also unable to cope. The local schools are already full which will only increase with more people/families, and there is strain on local amenities with no investment in our parks, youth centres or sports facilities. The roads are also incredible busy already. A journey which should take minutes will take half an hour, the road simple cant cope, with the volume of traffic not to mention the increase in air pollution.
You have said Brownfield sites would be used not greenfield, the loss of this land would be devastating to our local wildlife and their use as prime agricultural land to grow our crops. It is also used by many ourselves included as a place to wait to help escape and improve our mental health. This land needs protecting or our future generations and we wholly oppose this site being built on.

Object

Representation ID: 12280

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Abigail Wilkins

objection to the planning in Kingswinford (Wall Heath)
1) Effect on infrastructure
2) Effect on road safety
3) Air quality - tyres, exhaust fumes , increased congestion
4) School Places - We are already gridlocked in a morning, noon & night
5) car parking for schools
6) Killing Wildlife
7) Destroying trees & fields & bushes - increasing CO2
8) Pollution from construction
9) use brownfield first - All in all boroughs - You have until 2039 to find more
10) We don't want to be a growth area.