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

Object

Representation ID: 18548

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Ed Lawrence

Following the release of the draft Black Country Plan I would like to strongly OBJECT to the inclusion of the following sites.

DUH 208 p371 - Holbeache

I object for the following reasons.

The Triangle and Holbeache are the only remaining large areas of green space in our ward and losing them would be devastating. If these sites were to be developed then I feel that it would set a precedent to South Staffordshire District Council to start releasing green belt on our border which would only increase the issues that most of my residents have been raising during this consultation.

These two sites are currently in the green belt and before green belt land is considered the council should be absolutely sure that they have utilised all of the available brownfield land in the borough. Schemes are available to developers to help in the cost of remediation of brownfield land and I am sure more can be done to locate and bring forward sites.
Having just been through a pandemic we have seen how this has expedited the decline of our high streets, the council should now be taking another look at our town centres which will include a large number of disused shops. These centres need to be re purposed to include a mix of entertainment, office space, shops and now a larger residential element. I don’t feel this plan give enough attention to this post covid era in town centres.

The Triangle and Holbeache are used extensively by local residents for exercise and at a time of rising mental health complaints taking away these sites would surely have a detrimental impact on peoples health both physical and mental.
We also have to think about the impact on nature if these two large sites were to be developed, habitats for wildlife would be destroyed and we would loose even more of our declining wildlife. Trees and hedgerows would be destroyed as would the growing of wild flowers which all add to the bio diversity that we so badly need to protect and encourage.

These sites have been listed as important for stopping urban sprawl.

We have no direct access to motorways or rail from Kingswinford. The road network in and around Kingswinford is already struggling with queue’s forming at busy times on all the major routes. If any road in the area is closed or has traffic control’s in place, this causes chaos, in fact when traffic lights were put on the A449 for roadworks it pretty much gridlocked Kingswinford and Wordsley, this show’s to me that we are at capacity and without major investment, which has not been shown, the situation will only get worse.
The NPPF advises that where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport.
We have very poor access to public transport and all but no cycle routes, so how can the previous statement be correct for these sites? People who lived in any houses built on these two sites would have to use a car to get to work or travel anywhere in the borough. Of course with increased traffic come increase pollution, the A491 has the highest air pollution zones in the borough and again adding more vehicles to our roads is only going to make this worse. Hansen rate this area as having the worst commuting score from homes to places of employment.

We already have two large development sites within Dudley Borough minutes away from The Triangle and Holbeache, these are Stallings Lane and Ketley Quarry which include approximately 1358 homes. No infrastructure works have been carried out in regards to these two sites and from what I was told in our scrutiny meeting none are planned. There are also new development sites in South Staffordshire around Wombourne and Himley which will also have an impact on our road network as people travel through the borough to shop, work and visit services etc.

We should only be releasing green belt land if all other options have been exhausted and I don’t believe they have. I and my residents also question the number of houses that are required based on population statistics from 2014? Why have we not got updated figures which include the impact of Covid and Brexit. We cannot loose our precious green belt based on out of date data, this needs to be urgently reviewed.

I appreciate this is a joint plan and the council is working with three other local authorities, Sandwell for example have a huge shortfall of homes and it looks like Dudley Council are including green belt land in Kingswinford North and Wall Heath to compensate for this shortfall. This is not fair on my residents and Dudley Council should fight this in the strongest possible way.

I understand that we need to build houses for future generations, as a father myself I worry how my children will afford a house of their own in the future, but building high value homes on our green belt will not help this issue at all.

Object

Representation ID: 18551

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Peter Miller

I would like to object to the BCP recommendations in Kingswinford Area .

I also consider the Holbeache land to again be a very important part of our green heritage

The other main comment is the lack of infrastructure ,roads are full of traffic 7 days a week it is virtually impossible to get to anywhere quickly a 4 mile drive to Stourbridge or 5 mile trip to Dudley can regularly take up to an hour even out of rush hour

The Ketley Quarry Site is what should be the land we should build upon this is a proper brownfield site .The schools ,doctors and other health sites are already stretched due to the amount of people wanting to use them

I moved to Kingswinford [x] years ago and the changes have been tremendous with housing estates being built losing our green sites and maybe Kingswinford is full and we should look elsewhere for brownfield sites of which there are many in DMBC to build

Object

Representation ID: 18554

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Shaz Saleem

Following the release of the draft Black Country Plan I would like to strongly OBJECT to the inclusion of the following sites.

DUH 208 p371 - Holbeache


I object for the following reasons.

The Triangle and Holbeache are the only remaining large areas of green space in our ward and losing them would be devastating. If these sites were to be developed then I feel that it would set a precedent to South Staffordshire District Council to start releasing green belt on our border which would only increase the issues that most of my residents have been raising during this consultation.

These two sites are currently in the green belt and before green belt land is considered the council should be absolutely sure that they have utilised all of the available brownfield land in the borough. Schemes are available to developers to help in the cost of remediation of brownfield land and I am sure more can be done to locate and bring forward sites.
Having just been through a pandemic we have seen how this has expedited the decline of our high streets, the council should now be taking another look at our town centres which will include a large number of disused shops. These centres need to be re purposed to include a mix of entertainment, office space, shops and now a larger residential element. I don’t feel this plan give enough attention to this post covid era in town centres.

The Triangle and Holbeache are used extensively by local residents for exercise and at a time of rising mental health complaints taking away these sites would surely have a detrimental impact on peoples health both physical and mental.
We also have to think about the impact on nature if these two large sites were to be developed, habitats for wildlife would be destroyed and we would loose even more of our declining wildlife. Trees and hedgerows would be destroyed as would the growing of wild flowers which all add to the bio diversity that we so badly need to protect and encourage.

These sites have been listed as important for stopping urban sprawl.

We have no direct access to motorways or rail from Kingswinford. The road network in and around Kingswinford is already struggling with queue’s forming at busy times on all the major routes. If any road in the area is closed or has traffic control’s in place, this causes chaos, in fact when traffic lights were put on the A449 for roadworks it pretty much gridlocked Kingswinford and Wordsley, this show’s to me that we are at capacity and without major investment, which has not been shown, the situation will only get worse.
The NPPF advises that where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously developed and/or is well served by public transport.
We have very poor access to public transport and all but no cycle routes, so how can the previous statement be correct for these sites? People who lived in any houses built on these two sites would have to use a car to get to work or travel anywhere in the borough. Of course with increased traffic come increase pollution, the A491 has the highest air pollution zones in the borough and again adding more vehicles to our roads is only going to make this worse. Hansen rate this area as having the worst commuting score from homes to places of employment.

We already have two large development sites within Dudley Borough minutes away from The Triangle and Holbeache, these are Stallings Lane and Ketley Quarry which include approximately 1358 homes. No infrastructure works have been carried out in regards to these two sites and from what I was told in our scrutiny meeting none are planned. There are also new development sites in South Staffordshire around Wombourne and Himley which will also have an impact on our road network as people travel through the borough to shop, work and visit services etc.

We should only be releasing green belt land if all other options have been exhausted and I don’t believe they have. I and my residents also question the number of houses that are required based on population statistics from 2014? Why have we not got updated figures which include the impact of Covid and Brexit. We cannot loose our precious green belt based on out of date data, this needs to be urgently reviewed.

I appreciate this is a joint plan and the council is working with three other local authorities, Sandwell for example have a huge shortfall of homes and it looks like Dudley Council are including green belt land in Kingswinford North and Wall Heath to compensate for this shortfall. This is not fair on my residents and Dudley Council should fight this in the strongest possible way.

I understand that we need to build houses for future generations, as a father myself I worry how my children will afford a house of their own in the future, but building high value homes on our green belt will not help this issue at all.

Object

Representation ID: 18569

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Rachel Ellis

DSA1 , (Holbeache, T.
I am objecting to the proposal for Policy DSA1 Land South of Holbeach Lane /Wolverhampton Road, Kingswinford and Policy DSA2– Land at Swindon Road, Wall Heath, Kingswinford (The Triangle site). These proposals are to remove land from the green belt despite pledges from the Prime Minister to protect the green belt. We must not allow the green belt to be eroded further. There are no mitigations offered in the BCP and this is simply not acceptable. The biodiversity impact, impact on historic sites nearby and impact on those already living in Kingswinford and their health and wellbeing would be hugely detrimental.
Infrastructure is already struggling to cope in the area. Doctors surgeries are full and it is difficult for those living in the area to get appointments. The additional pressure on emergency services and Russells Hall would be unacceptable. Furthermore the traffic on the A449 is already horrdendous. It is a dangerous road and adding more traffic to the area would cause significant increase in congestion and pollution. Adding cycling/walking networks will not offset that. The impact on Wall Health and that area of Kingswinford would be horrendous. These proposals must be considered in line conjunction with all of the other proposed housing for the are which when looked in total - it's a huge amount of extra pressure on the local infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 18722

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert McDonald

Draft Black Country Plan
Holbeache
BCP Site Ref DUH 208 pg 371
DSA 1 pages 419-423
The Triangle
BCP Site Ref DUH211 page 371
DSA 2 pages 424-428

I am objecting strongly to the two above proposed sites for the following reasons:-
1. Loss og reen belt. Once destroyed it can never be replaced. During the pandemic it has been a haven for many residents.
2. Many brownfield sites are available and should be the obvious choice.
3. Environment/congestion, The road congestion in Wordsley & Kingswinford is awful as it stands. The pollution in Wordsley High Street is currently the worst and will only deteriorate further! There is no room to improve or expand carriageways!!
4. Pressure on NHS/Education will be intolerable as it is already over-stretched.
5. There is already a vast number of houses built on Himley View, Ridgehill & Plans for Ketley Quarry. The area cannot accommodate anymore.
6. Building to the edge of South Staffs border will then give South Staffs council an opportunity to build further green belt land around Ridgehill Woods.

Object

Representation ID: 18873

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Blooker

Draft BCP
The Triangle DUH211 page 371
Holbeache DUH208 page 371

In this time of the emphasis being put on the environment and nature I think it is completely inappropriate to even think about touching the green belt land which is now more precious than ever to us in built up areas. After years of increased building in the surrounding areas the roads doctors and hospitals are already overstretched. Also there is not a housing shortage in Kingswinford there is a overpopulation problem in the country which should be dealt with first before ruining the quality of life of the people that live in this community.

Object

Representation ID: 18876

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Bradley

Holbeache ref 208 p 371
Triangle ref 211 p 371

I strongly object to the proposed house building ont he 2 plots as mentioned above on the grounds as follows:-

"Infrastructure"
[Redacted-GDPR] Kidderminster Rd I have seen the increase of traffic 1st hand if its not standing traffic as fair as up to Robert's Farm its like a motorway with noise & vibrations & air pollution the road cannot take any more if the idea of opening up or re-visiting (again) "the western orbital route" all you would do is build up to that.
"Education"
This would mean building more schools or increasing class numbers.
"NHS, Doctors, Dentists"
Unable to get treatment now
"Farm Land"
We should be using this land to grow the crops to feed thr growing population and not rely on imports building more affordable housing on brown field sites should be the way forward not PROFIT.

Object

Representation ID: 18879

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Bury

Draft Black Country Plan
Holbeache DUH208
The Triangle DUh211

Not enough schools, doctors, surgeries or hospitals to cope with any more influx of residents and surely there are brownfield sites to use before the greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 18889

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Croft

Holbeache BCP Site Ref DUH 208 page 371 DSA 1 pages 419-423

1. Traffic
The volume of traffic through Kingswinford is already problematic. At peak times trying to exit from the Valley Fields estate is very difficult. A substantial increase in traffic would be inevitable and unsuitable.
2. Amenity Value
The greenbelt areas are an important facet of the local area. No development of such spaces should be considered. Once lost it is gone for good. Building on the land in the triangle on the A449 will destroy the character of Kingswinford and Wall Heath. Additionally, there are trees on the area already protected by preservation orders. The loss of these would be another act of environmental vandalism.
This amenity must be retained and protected for future generations.
There are alternate sites which must be used before destroying greenbelt sites.

Object

Representation ID: 18898

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Earnshaw

The Triangle DUH211 page 371 + Holbeache, DUH208 page 371

I strongly object to the building of houses on these areas of land because -
(1) Loss of green belt - we are in a 'climate emergency' loss of green open spaces to development will contribute to climate change.
(2) I and my family used the 'the triangle# for exercise during lockdown as it is the closest area of open countryside to our house. We continue to walk there now.
(3) It would destroy these local environments. I don't believe that any compensatory resources would make up for losses.
(4) At 'the triangle' and 'Holbeach' I have seen [Redacted-sensitive information] nesting for many years up to and including this year. These would be lost forever from these sites.

(5) Development would increase traffic and lead to pressure. Increases on local services. This might be addressed by yet further development - bigger roads etc. This would further increase pollution and add to climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 19045

Received: 18/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Greenaway

[Objection to all site proposals in Dudley].

Object

Representation ID: 19209

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ronald Jackson

I object in the strongest possible terms to the use of Greenbelt land for development and hence conurbations in this case the West Midlands, being expanded. Green space is essential for farming, well-being, nature and recreation as well as being a boundary for the present conurbation.
I am very concerned about the ability of the A449 to cope with extra traffic on an already over stretched capacity. Any vehicle breakdown or road accident (breakdown, accident, resurfacing etc) causes massive disruptions as there is not a viable parallel alternative resulting in extra traffic within the conurbation (Kingswinford, Wordsley, Wallheath) or on the rural fringe on roads which are not designed to cope with such traffic (limited to a band bordered by the Staffs/ Worcs canal to the west and the conurbation to the east). Construction traffic would make this worse in the development phase

Object

Representation ID: 19220

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Hyde

Draft Plan Sub Plot B45A Holbeache

Increased traffic volume and pollution. A few years ago mention was made of a Wall Heath by pass traffic bad then, ever since, this will make it even worse. Poor access to A449 (T) trunk road.

Object

Representation ID: 19222

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert John Hill

Holbeache greenbelt BCP site ref DUH 208 page 271 DUH 211DSA 1 pages 419-423

I see the land between Lodge Lane, Swindon Road and the A449 is the subject of this objection/planning application. Do the people wanting to build on this land live int he area. I believe not, if so they would realise that this is not on.
How many houses? 300 I am told. I believe each one would have at least one vehicle, maybe more.
Has a survey been done on traffic problems at the moment? I believe not. If done the futility of the planning application would be seen. At the moment traffic is a problem at place like lodge land, A449, Swindon Rd, Wall Heath, Kingswinford Cross and so on. More vehicles cannot be tolerated. Then schools, doctors etc are overcrowded at the moment, more residents in this area cannot be tolerated. Taking into account that more houses one or may be built on the "Holbeache Area" more vehicles, more residents the local services cannot tolerate this. The houses "planning" to be built on "The Triangle" where will the exits be, wherever - A449 dangerous - Swindon Rd not viable - Lodge Lane - with the school - dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 19243

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Hudson

I oppose building on this site because it is a beautiful green space that I and many others enjoy, for walking and getting out in nature. It is a place I can walk to from home.

Object

Representation ID: 19251

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Bailey

The Triangle SA-0025-DUD & DUH 203 Holbeach
1. Loss of green belt
More brownfield sites need to be considered. This is more environmentally friendly and repurposes old derelict, unsafe locations.
The land is useful agricultural and graded 3 and above.
2. Quality of life
Developing green belt means loss of access to the countryside, when its gone its gone!
Higher noise levels impacting adjoining residents and wildlife
Increased noise and air pollution
3. Impact on traffic and transport
Already congested roads made even worse
Lack of public transport and cycle routes. Hansen rate our area as having the worst commuting score from homes to places of employment
4. Pressure on local facilities
Doctors surgeries, hospitals, schools are already oversubscribed, this would only make things worse.
Road infrastructure is already struggling to cope with traffic levels

Object

Representation ID: 19253

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Cook

Local schools full
Doctors full
Roads a nighmare already
OK people have to live somewhere but brownfields sites ok but not farmland
More people less food grown, never mind the pleasure of green open spaces
How about 19-20 years time, global warming or increased world population, food shortage. Those who send its food will keep it for themselves (why not) our farmland gone. Can't dig for victory then

Object

Representation ID: 19256

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Hartshorne

I have concerns regarding extra strain on infrastructure:- roads, doctor surgeries, hospitals, schools. The areas cannot support such a lot of development without significant investment by local government to bolster services which will be placed under stress (more so than they already are) with the creation of vast swathes of new housing on what should be protected green belt sites.

Object

Representation ID: 19261

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Ruth Watton

I'm writing to OBJECT to all of the proposed greenbelt or green land sites but especially DUH 217 (The Horses Field in Wollaston), DUH 211 (The Triangle) and DUH 208, (Holbeache). My objections are multifaceted but the first point is in relation to the environment. Please could I draw your attention to the climate crisis, the imminent destruction of the planet, the loss of bees and other wildlife species. We should be planting trees and
encouraging wildlife not wilfully destroying it. Waste land,
disused factories or office sites should be used for development before any greenbelt is sacrificed. In fact greenbelt should always be protected even if that means us building higher buildings in existing towns. Andy Street (The Mayor) says that there is enough brownfield site land to use to spare the greenbelt sacrifice, so why do Dudley Council say otherwise. I found it particularly concerning to discover that there is actually brownfield sites within the Dudley Borough and wider Black County that have been deemed to be not profitable enough to warrant the money needed spending on them to make them attractive to developers. What cost is too much to save the planet.
Secondly, Greenbelt is vital to everyone's wellbeing, not one person, be that children, teenagers, young people, families, dog walkers, walkers, runners or cyclists had anything supportive to say about greenbelt development when I spoke to them.
They all wholeheartedly objected to destruction of the greenbelt and in fact they were horrified at the prospect of losing their green spaces.

Thirdly, if Dudley build on their green belt (which is already very minimal percentage of the total land in the borough), there will be no argument to prevent South
Staffordshire from building on Dudley’s borders. In this case any increased population will pay council tax to Staffordshire but use Dudley's health, social care, education and infrastructure which is already overstretched to the brink. Urban sprawl will go
unchecked.

Fourthly, building around the Stour River would be catastrophic. Following on from the recent unprecedented floods in Europe, one can only begin to imagine how that
kind of flooding would unfold here on our streets and towns.

Fifthly, anyone who uses the roads locally knows that they are already over full capacity. More roads are not a solution, we must try to reduce road pollution, more
cars mean more pollution - further increasing the argument for town centre housing development. There are poor rail and tram links in the area. Other new estates locally have been built or are currently being built and there has been no corresponding improvement in transport or any other facilities. Air pollution in Wordsley is already the worst in the Borough, this is unacceptable - increased traffic through Wordsley would further exacerbate this problem. As well as roads and other means of transport, infrastructure to include Schools and Health and Social Care is already stretched beyond any reasonable limit. More facilities can be built, but can they be staffed, there are staffing shortages across all of these sectors already.

Sixthly, I feel that the developments would cause inconceivable damage to our heritage. The White Cone in Wordsley is to house the most significant glass museum
in Europe and the Red Cone is one of the few of these furnaces remaining. These historical sites are situated on the canal at the junction where are industrial heritage
meets our beautiful English countryside – this is a tourist attraction and a jewel in Dudley Borough’s crown. The Stourbridge Canal is renowned for its beauty and to
jeopardize this by building on the Wollaston site or Wall Heath's sites and potentially opening up roads that could be used by South Staffordshire to develop along the
canal, such as Friar's Gorse, would be criminal and unforgivable for generations to come.

What are the solutions - looking at any perceived housing shortage, can I point out that successive Governments for the past twenty years have refused to let property
prices fall. What about a yearly windfall tax on all second homes, holiday homes and buy to let properties (2% of their value) and stopping artificially inflating house prices
with low interest rates and schemes for first time buyers and stamp duty breaks etc. This would be a means to create affordable housing far more effectively than building executive homes on the greenbelt. The general public would not look kindly on a Government who sacrificed our greenbelt to line the pockets of wealthy property developers. Also looking at population growth, have you factored in Covid deaths and any increase to those deaths this winter if there is another peak or maybe a peak every winter for the foreseeable. Additionally, what about looking at immigration, population growth over the past ten years has been by about 80% as a result of immigration, is this sustainable in the long term and has this percentage been significantly reduced already as a result of Brexit. Furthermore, with the change to working practice since the Pandemic to favour homeworking, won’t more office space become available for development over the next twenty years. None of us really know what housing needs will be in twenty years’ time so second guessing that and concreting over greenbelt seems short sighted. As a closing point I would like to say that I found the future plans for building offices and shops on Wall Health greenbelt to be astounding. Presently, there are one million unfilled job vacancies in the UK and there are also countless unused shops and offices. How could anyone in their right mind think it a good idea to concrete over countryside to build more vacant work spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 19266

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ryan Parkes

Objections to Holbeache and the Triangle development.
1. Roads will be congested due to the huge increase in traffic
2. Side roads and estate roads will be used to avoid congestion on main roads
3. Increase in poor air quality - due to volume of traffic - carbon monoxide and CO2 emissions so impacts on health for community
4. Safety concerns for road users, pedestrians and cyclists
5. Large number of houses already being built in the local area
6. Inadequate public transport system - further delays due to congestion
7. Congestion on roads due to parking while accessing local schools and amenities - it's already bad enough
8. Lack of school places
9. Extending schools will alter the nature of the locality. Over-stretched resources (i.e staff) already
10. Lack of access to GP surgeries, dentists, hospitals - if new ones are built, where are the staff coming from?
11. Loss of green spaces will impact on mental and physical health of the community
12. Loss of wildlife, eco-systems and habitat
13. Increased likelihood of flooding due to run-off
14. No affordable housing for local people
15. Other brownfield sites are available

Object

Representation ID: 19281

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Wood

Draft Black Country Plan
Holbeache Site Ref DUH 208 p371
DSA 1 pages 419-423
The Triangle BCP Site Ref DUH211 p371
DSA 2 pages 424-428

I have three objections to these two sites.
The main one the extra traffic congestion which will result by building a large number of houses in these two sites. There is already heavy congestion on the A449 and A491 through Wall Heath and Kingswinford.
Where will the occupiers of there properties go for medical problems. As far as I am aware there are only two medical practices in Kingswinford and one in Wall Heath.
The upheaval caused by the installation of new infrastructure water sewer gas and electric where will the additional sewage go?

Object

Representation ID: 19303

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Rosie Cardall

DUH216 Bryce Road
DUH222 Severn Drive
DUH211 Summerhill Triangle
DUH208 Holbeache
DUH213 Lapwood Avenue
DUH221 Standhills
DUH218 Guys Lane
DSA3 Ketley Quarry
I object to all of the above sites selected to be used for the Black Country Plan. I am very concerned about the amount of new houses being built in the area. I feel that the area already struggles with huge amounts of traffic. With the addition of new housing this will only get a lot worse including the increase of air pollution. I am also concerned about the local wildlife. If houses are to be built on the greenspaces where will the wildlife live? I have noticed that their is a number of derelict houses which the council should have the right to buy/ obtain due to the owners lack of interest or care. These derelict houses should be redeveloped then sold on or used as council houses rather than building on our green spaces. If our green spaces are built on this will have disastrous affect on everyones well being, mental health and wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 19319

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Stacey & Josh Coward & Price

Number of people: 2

Black Country Plan Consultation on Draft Black Country Plan: Dudley Sub Area Section, Site Allocations

Objection to Black Country Plan
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 [redacted] 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
DUH208 Holbeache
DUH211 Summerhill Triangle
DUH216 Bryce Road
DUH222 Severn Drive
DUH213 Lapwood Avenue
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
DUH 206 Worcester Lane
DUH 207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH 209 Worcester Lane South
DUH 217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH 210 Viewfield Crescent
DUH 041 Two Gates Lane Cradley
DUH 212 Lewis Road Lye
DUH 214 Seymour Road Wollescote
DUH 215 Bent Street Brierley Hill
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.
Don’t be the problem, be the positive change. Climate change is happening and by destroying a large mass of land will not only affect wildlife (which in itself adds to the affect of climate change) but people’s mental health too.

Object

Representation ID: 19329

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hamblett

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
DUH208 Holbeache
DUH211 Summerhill Triangle
DUH216 Bryce Road
DUH222 Severn Drive
DUH213 Lapwood Avenue
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
DUH 206 Worcester Lane
DUH 207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH 209 Worcester Lane South
DUH 217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH 210 Viewfield Crescent
DUH 041 Two Gates Lane Cradley
DUH 212 Lewis Road Lye
DUH 214 Seymour Road Wollescote
DUH 215 Bent Street Brierley Hill
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: 19408

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Zak Hopson

Objection to Black Country Plan

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 [Redacted-sensitive information] 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

DUH208 Holbeache

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: 19708

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Thomas

DUH208 p371 Holbeache
DUH211 pp371 Triangle

Reason for objection as follows

1. methodology for population/demand. Where is the evidence that the housing is needed? Is the methodology for calculating the demand accurate and 'fit for purpose'?
2. Where is the evidence that all brownfield sites have been exhausted?
3. The proposals for the sites earmarked for development are in such close proximity that their impact collectively will be greater then predicted.
The burden should be spread across the region.
4. Any considerations as to the flooding at the junction of A449/Swindow Rd, which the Triangle acts as a soakaway?
5. Infrastructure locally is stretched. School places, doctors, the road network is very conjested, parking etc
6. Deterioration of air quality with increased traffic, construction, removing natures natural air pollution systems!!

Object

Representation ID: 19711

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr George Fellows

The Triangle BCP Site Ref DUH 211 page 371 DSA2 pages 424 - 428
Holbeache BCP Site Ref DUH 208 page 370 DSA 1 pages 419 423
I object to using the greenbelt for any purpose such as building houses, building industrial centres / shopping malls.

The effect on local services will be catastrophic, the NHS, Russells Hall hospital and local GPs are already unable to cope with the demands of the current population. Roads and transport are already gridlocked. High volumes of traffic are already encountered. Causing stress, noise and air pollution. Traffic already uses the local estate roads as shorts cuts and unfortunately this will result in a fatality. The speed at which motorists use Dubarry Avenue, (right outside the school is shocking).
Education facilities are already full to bursting point. Local amenities are stretched or non existent, eg Parks, youth and community facilities, sports facilities. Loss of green belt will affect the physical and mental well being of residents and the community. There will be a reduction in biodiversity, grazing land, agricultural land as well as reducing the wildlife corridor even further.

Once the greenbelt is gone it will be gone forever. future generations will not have a choice. DO NOT BUILD ON THE GREEN BELT.

Object

Representation ID: 19873

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Keeley Mundy

1. Impact on Services.
An already over congested being increased by over 800 people impacting on doctor's surgeries which are already oversubscribed, waiting times at Russells Hall hospital and delayed in all services.
2. Transport.
Roads are hugely congested as we are aware living on the A491. Traffic frequently backs up to our doorway. Bus routes are frequently delayed and CO2 emissions are likely to increase. Safety for cyclist continues to be a major concern and more congested roads will continue to exacerbate this problem.
3. School Provision.
Primary and secondary schools in the area are all approaching capacity and in some cases significantly oversubscribed. The great choices of schools recommend by the Keepmoat homes' brochure is a fallacy. In 2021, all Wall Heath primary school Reception class places were filled and only one Kingswinford school has places.
4. Loss of the Green Belt.
Lock down found everybody walking in the local area and taking advantage of all green spaces. These limited spaces must not be reduced and all brownfield sites must be developed first. The government's 25 year plan was meant to commit to maintaining the agricultural land. Biodiversity was also very evident during lockdown and reducing hedgerows and fields would reduce the habitat for many species of wildlife.
5. Strain on Local Amenities.
There are already a lack of local parks and play facilities are limited. Green spaces are a great alternative way of using outside areas.
6.Cost.
House prices continue to increase in the area and the proposed builds will not provide affordable housing for first time buyers. Consequently, this will not meet the Government's affordable housing targets

Object

Representation ID: 20020

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Jones

The Triangle Ref DUH 211 page 371
Holbeach Ref DUH 208 page 371
We have lived at this address for thirty years nearly. One of the main reasons for living here was having the field at the bottom of our garden. I suffer with asthma, as do two of my children, so having the green belt so close and therefore, breathing fresher air has been a plus point all these years.
I don't want more houses built as this will undoubtedly cause more air pollution with the extra traffic on the roads, which are pretty full to capacity already in the day. My husband has to leave for work in Willenhall far earlier in the morning then he should need to, in order to get to work on time because of the hold ups from the sheer volume of traffic. I fear more houses along this route will cause chaos, traffic congestion, further delays and air pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 20029

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Helen Loxton

Holbeache Greenbelt BCP Site Ref DUH 208 page 371 DSA1 pages 419-423
The Dudley Council say they are wanting to build on 6% of Greenbelt for affordable housing. When they have plenty of brown site land that is being ignored. for example sites of land along Duncan Edwards Way. The area near roundabout at Black Acre Road has been under dispute for years. Why not concentrate on improving ugly unused areas where crime is high to build housing. There are schools , good roads and near motorways.
The area they are planning to build on around Wall Heath and Kingswinford does not have the road system in place to support his amount of housing. They are proposing 863 new houses within an area of aprox 2 square miles. With two to three people in each house that is between 1726-2589 people with the average use of two cars per household that is another 1726 more cars. The road systems get busy now they would not be able to cope.
The government talk about global warming, floods, increase of pollution. Then take easy way out and move into greenbelt instead of using brown sites.
1, Greenbelt is natures way of flood defences. Rain soaks away.
2, Greenbelt is good for mental health - brown sites unused ugly run down areas are the opposite.
3, Historical area Holbeach house for the Gun Powder plot, Roman ruins, the unused railway line.
4, nature, deer, buzzards, Kites, rare birds, wild flowers.
Dudley Council you are taking the easy way out. Why not concentrate on improving the areas near the town centre. Where there are already shops, schools and roads.
Dudley Council and all the councils you are the ones destroying our countryside, responsible for increased pollution and flooding. The world needs Green spaces to help fight global warming not ugly unused brown sites.