Policy DSA2– Land at Swindon Road, Wall Heath, Kingswinford (The Triangle site) Strategic Allocation

Object

Representation ID: 18148

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Hickman

This development is not needed in the area. It will add extra traffic congestion and air pollution. The wild life will also reduce

Object

Representation ID: 18151

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kaye Shakespeare

The Triangle
1. Wall Heath is a village cut through by the A449. This is a through road & can be used as an alternative to M5 when this is busy
The mini island is the centre is always to the point where there is congestion. With a further 900 houses built in the space of 1 mile needing to use the A449 it would bring the village to a standstill
2. There is always congestion along Lodge Lane with difficulty getting onto A449 passing Summerhill School
3. It would be a great pity to use two greenfield sites, when there are brownfield sites available

Object

Representation ID: 18166

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Faulkner

1. Loss of green belt: better to target brownfield sites. Although this is obviously 'too expensive', 'cheaper to build on our green spaces' and 'profit margins reduced - limiting investment capability'. Local people love and appreciate this green belt area and want it for future generations. The loss of green spaces will impact on the well-being of the local community (which was so important during the C-19 pandemic).
2. Legislation: the 'National Planning Policy Framework (HM Gov. planning policies) says "where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality should be preferred to those of higher quality" which reinforces point #1.
3. Effect on surrounding roads: A449/Swindon Road/Lodge Lane are very busy roads (speeding regularly observed) - significant investment needed to ensure safety, i.e. zebra crossings/traffic lights/street lighting/suitable footpaths on 'The Triangle' side.
4. Depletion of air quality and noise levels: extra vehicles will cause higher CO2 emissions and poorer air quality. Increased traffic will also have a significant impact on noise levels.
5. Increased localised flooding: drainage will require significant upgrading in the area due to increased run off onto lower land areas (i.e. A449 roundabout/Swindon Road etc.) - disruption to road network. Why has a water main been installed along the A449 (The Triangle land) during 2020 - this run leads to nowhere?
6. Effect on local schools: current demand for places is very high - either over capacity or close to. Increasing the population will only make this more problematic leaving children to travel further.
7. Effect on local services (incl. NHS): not enough local doctors and dentists in the area - patients are having to move to further away. Russell's Hall waiting times classed as 'requiring improvement', longer ambulance wait times (longer turnaround times). No suitable/regular bus routes or cycle networks.
8. Strain on local amenities: there is already a lack of parks with good quality equipment for children to play. Youth centre closed in K'ford and no facility in Wall Heath - no local sports centre either.
9. Destruction of local environment: loss of ancient trees, natural habitats and biodiversity. Loss of 'SLINC' hedgerows to create access. Loss of wildlife, impact on the fields/meadows. Loss of wildlife corridors linking green spaces. Contributing to rapid loss of species - moths/butterflies/bees have declined significantly. Replanting schemes do not replace ancient habitats/features.

Object

Representation ID: 18171

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Fowler

Holbeache DUH208 page 371
The Triangle DUH211 page 371

There is already mass housing construction going on in the near area adding to the pressure on services, roads and schools. The roads are badly congested already, any more traffic and the result would be disastrous for the residents and environment!

[Part 2]

In my opinion the surrounding roads of the above planned area are already very congested and adding more traffic to already high levels would be disastrous to all who live and pass through this area,
Schools and medical services are already under severe pressure as there is mass housing under construction already in the Kingswinford area.
This piece of greenbelt land is a great comfort for the wellbeing of existing residents, dog walkers and the wildlife, fauna & flora that grows in these fields is much appreciated by all.

Object

Representation ID: 18175

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Virginia Bates

I strongly object to the plan to build on Summerhill fields and the land around Holbeache Lane.
The Summerhill is a much-loved and easily accessible amenity, which is very we-loved by local dog owners and residents alike.
For many years, and even more so during the recent lockdowns, it has provided a peaceful, safe walking environment for local people, away from the noise, pollution and hazards posed to children and pets by traffic.
Especially for the elderly and those with more nervous dogs, it is an important local walking route, giving a safe, accessible and relatively flat place to take a pleasant walks, eg during lunch bresaola whilst working from home, before and after work and at weekends.
Local people very much respect the land and enjoy the green space provided, which is already in short supply locally.
The number of proposed houses is far too large for the size of this parcel of land and more housing will further exacerbate the already congested traffic conditions at rush hour and increasingly throughout the day. There are regular traffic jams in all directions along Stream Rd, Cot Lane and the A449, as well as Lodge Lane. More housing will inevitably increase this congestion problem and the attendant problems of noise, air pollution and dangers for the large elderly population of Kingswinford, as well as pupils walking to and from Summerhill school and local primary schools.
The fields are a greeen oasis for the village, akin to a village green and must be preserved at all costs.
In recent years, it has been farmed for arable crops- most recently, Maize- this important source of food for human/animal consumption would also be lost, were the fields to be built on- this cannot be sensible at a time of food shortages, increased flooding ( which building on the land would increase) and a burgeoning mental health crisis. It is well documented that time spent exercising outdoors and in nature helps those suffering from stress, anxiety and depression- tbe fields provide an important free, readily accessible means of safe exercise and quiet contemplation. We regularly meet and chat with other walkers whilst visiting the fields, too, which aids social cohesion and relieves loneliness for elderly residents and young mums.
My objections regarding Holbeache are essentially the same. Building on both sites is unecessary when there are so many ex industrial and brownfield sites, other derelict housing and buildings in the area which can be used first a good example being the recent conversion of the old utilities office complex on the border of Kingswinford and Pensnett, now being well-used as an apartment block. Development of these sites will eliminate precious pockets of green oasis in an already over-developed area of urban sprawl, which borders on important green belt and areas of special scientific interest.

Object

Representation ID: 18181

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Phillip Wade

The Triangle Ref DUH 211 page 371
Holbeache Ref DUH208 page 371

RE Proposal for development of green belt - Holbeache Road, Kingswinford and 'Summerhill Triangle' - Wall Heath Kingswinford

I wish to register my objection to the above proposals for a number of reasons -
(1) The LA must actively resist the 'creeping' boundaries between K-Ford, Wall Heath and South Staffordshire. Space must be protected.
(2) Developers would I suspect prefer Development of Greenfield/belt as it is likely to be more cost effective for them in terms of ground preparation, services laying etc. They should not be given this choice! Brown field must always be developed + maximised as a priority over green belt!
(3) There are significant areas of brown field or areas requiring re-purposing within the Kingswinford and wider Dudley area in lieu of green space.
(4) Fundamentally if these 2x large areas of green belt are developed the road infrastructure cannot support it. Currently A449 (thru' Wall Heath) A461 to K-Ford and Stallings Lane are congested at many times of the day.
To add significant volumes of houses will make a bad situation intolerable. Please assume in any traffic reviews that most houses will have 2 cars! Before including these 2 sites in the development plan a full traffic survey + plan should be carried our and publicly consulted on.

Object

Representation ID: 18188

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Warren Neate

Basically the infrastrure is just not good enough , the amount of traffic in the area is at its limit now. Surely there would be better brown field options instead of the greenbelt.
Greenbelt is far easier and cheaper to develop than brown field. Are the government just selling our local assets to save a quick buck.

Object

Representation ID: 18194

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Schipper

The Black Country Plan Consultation Response
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
DUH 211 p371 - The Triangle
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 me 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.
I understand the need for housing and that as a percentage over the whole Borough our Green space
must seem tiny. But it will book end our village. We would loose as high percentage of green belt land
in our area.
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 prey 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. Our bus services are being cute and
reduced to our area already so this would need to be reversed.
Our roads are already at grid lock most mornings and this would increase with the proposed building
plan.
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.
Where are all the children going to be educated [Redacted-GDPR] at the local secondary school their
site is already at maximum capacity. As are most of the primary schools . If half of these house contain
1 child that is potentially 100's of child coming into our area. Add in Gp services and hospital services.
The waiting lists for hospital treatments are over run. Would the infrastructure grow in line with the
housing. Council services etc. Is there a plan from the council in how they are going to accommodate
all these things. Are they planning to build a school or a Gp practice to accommodate.
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.
Recently the planning permission for a local Quarry was turned down due to the effect it would have a
the local area and objections from local people. That was a temporary request. So how can this be
proposed in the same area and impact t of this would be much greater on our village.
I take people for a walk on our green spaces and ask them to imagine the difference it will make if all
the land you see was built on it's shocking. How do I explain this to my child who is being taught about
green issues and saving our planet?
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 the
residents and Dudley Council should fight this in the strongest possible way.
I understand that we need to build houses for future generations, as mother 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.
I very much hope that these two sites, The Triangle and Holbeache are removed from the plan at the
first opportunity.
Thank you for your time.

Object

Representation ID: 18211

Received: 15/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Byng

Following the release of the draft Black Country Plan, I would like to object to the inclusion of the following sites:
DUH 208 p371 - Holbeache
DUH 211 p371 - The Triangle
I object for the following reasons:
Increase in road noise/ air pollution and Increased light pollution from street lights and the number houses that are proposed to be built on these sites impacting negatively on wildlife and the general/ mental health of all residents within the surrounding areas. Evidence shows that a person’s health improves around green space areas and supports good mental health. The overall impact are more people remaining in employment and education, less sick days and a better impact on the economy of an area.
Traffic Congestion - roads are currently busy around Wall Heath and Kingswinford - Building more houses will further condemn the issue. The current road infrastructure currently cannot cope during peak road use times and when there are roadworks or diversions, resulting in long tail backs of queuing cars. More cars on the road as a direct result of having more homes in the area will make this worse.
Impact on local NHS services. There are real issues now that residents cannot access GP appointments and local services in a timely manner. Increasing the population around this area will further impact on waiting lists and pressure on NHS and local authority services
Education - there will be need to expand education provision to meet the demand of families moving into the area. No reference made to how workforce for new schools or expanded capacity to schools will be met
Need for new roads, highways and services on and off the sites. Major road works around and through the proposed area will be required impacting on the environment alongside having to install service for people to have access to water/ electricity and gas.
Removal of green space between Kingswinford and Wall Health. These areas of land needs to remain to stop urban sprawl and ensure the areas retain their own identity. Removal of these areas will Impact on wildlife and local eco system as tress/ hedgerow and grass will be removed and gone.
There is no evidence that brown sites across the Black Country cannot accommodate the local housing need alongside the many shops/ businesses, impacted by Covid, can be repurposed into suitable housing without having to use green areas to achieve this

Object

Representation ID: 18223

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Tracy Trevis

Black Country Site Assessment Report. Dudley Appendix A, Page 79. The Triangle SA-0025-DUD
I understand completely the need for extra properties, however, what I do not understand is why
when in Kingswinford, Wordsley and Wall Heath already have had new building projects which have
had a significant negative impact on health, education, quality of life thus putting pressure on local
services and facilities, so again I ask why exactly do we need another inappropriate development
losing yet more greenbelt.
I object very, very strongly to these plans especially when are also surrounded by areas which would
beer serve our failing high streets, ie. Brierley Hill, Stourbridge, Lye, Cradley Heath and Halesowen. It
is clear in these areas there are many, many opportunities to redevelop vacant lots, properties and
factories. As a council it is my belief you should strongly be considering redevelopment of areas where
regeneration is required NOT greenbelt areas which will equate to total destruction of the local
environment. This is not conducive with our current government's National Planning Policy
Framework.
Also as an after thought, what exactly is the point of developing executive homes where you have
recently relocated refugees from another country who will have absolutely no positive impact on our
area and therefore, for very little opportunity to buy an executive home!!!
What I would respectfully ask the planning panel is; do the job you are paid to do, incidentally you are
paid by the taxpayer, and look to regenerate areas where that regeneration would beer serve the
surrounding communities.

Object

Representation ID: 18228

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr William Westwood

I would like to raise my objections to the proposed development of 400 houses on 'The Triangle, Lodge Lane/Swindon Road, Kingswinford'
'The Triangle' is much loved by local dog walkers and residents alike. In our age of environmental awareness, where we are encouraged to leave our cars at home and walk / cycle, it is one of the few green spaces within walking distance of my home. Losing this resource will mean having to drive further afield to places such as Highgate Common and Kinver Edge.
[redacted personal details] I have witnessed the continuous development of housing in the area. It seems that every feasible plot of land, however small, is built on and and this makes protecting our remaining green spaces even more important - a fact highlighted by the Covid pandemic where The Triangle was extremely popular with local residents taking their daily exercise. The mental health benefits of outdoor exercise in a natural environment is well documented.
An additional 400 households will inevitably exacerbate the area's existing traffic congestion problems along with increasing pollution. Traffic jams are 'par for the course' along Cot Lane, Lodge Lane,Swindon Road, A449, A491, A4101 during the rush hour and increasingly throughout the day. Similarly there would be increased strain on local services, such as GP surgeries, when it is already difficult to get an appointment.

Object

Representation ID: 18231

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Timothy Price

[Site Refs: DUH211 & 208]

Choice of Green Belt Land for Housing

I cannot believe two large fields in Kingswinford have been earmarked for yet more
Housing Development.
All Brownfield sites have NOT been considered. How can you explain these fields
(necessary for growing crops in an expanding population, as well as a barrier to
climate change), while Daniels Land and Plateau site at Level Street stand
undeveloped. Why is there a boarded up Community building/site standing unused in
Kingswinford High Street. It won’t be used again, build houses there! Same with the
derelict Pub site further up the road. And the old Lawnswood School site in Wordsley
is wasted.
Finally, the Kingswinford to Wordsley to Stourbridge are at a virtual standstill during
many times each day. How will they cope with more traffic? We all know the answer
to that. They won’t.
Yes, more Housing supposedly required (even though Wall Heath through to
Pedmore is ONE BIG HOUSING ESTATE), but Green Fields is DEFINITELY NOT the
answer

Object

Representation ID: 18233

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Terry Hartwell

Number of people: 2

Open leer.
After attending the meeting at Dudley town hall
On 30/09/2021 regarding the Black Country Plan and their proposal to include Greenfield sites.
Listening to all the questions and arguments put forward by the local residents and after due thought
and consideration we were confused as to why any Greenfield site had been included.
Do the planners not realise that once they include Greenfield sites any prospective developer will
ignore any Brownfield site and bid for the lucrative Greenfield sites. Leaving all the brownfield sites
unl the greenfield sites have been developed.
Do they not have the foresight to realise this.
All brownfield sites should be included no matter how difficult it may be to develop, once they have
been used then allow greenfield sites to be put forward.
As it is the council will have no control over the order in which sites are developed.
No matter what reasons and rules they quote our greenfield land will be lost forever this land is the
lungs and recreational areas for the local communities, homes to wildlife, land to provide food and
countryside to enjoy.
All This will all be gone forever.

Object

Representation ID: 18244

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carol Clulow

I strongly object to the plans to build housing on the greenbelt land in Kingswinford and Wall Heath. There is already to much traffic on the roads in this area and more people means more cars, which will add to the conjestion and pollution in the area.
Also, the schools and doctors, which are already up to full capacity, will be unable to cope with the influx of more people.
I understnd the need for more housing, but there are more sustainable land to build on, without having to build on the greenbelt areas. Wildlife had been severley affected, never have I seen deer on the A449, that have been killed by motorists, because there habitat has been destroyed in the name of progress.
Dudley MBC need to find other sites, that are more sustainable to build these houses

Object

Representation ID: 18249

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Davies

[Holbeache site DUH208
The Triangle DUH211]

I object to both proposed sites being built on for the following reasons:-

We have any recently moved into Wall Heath and have always used both green field sites to walk our dog. It would be awful to lost such lovely greenery to yet more houses. Also it would destroy lots of wildlife habitats.

Not to mention adding more congestion onto the A449, which is already very busy. The amount of pressure put onto local schools, doctors and dentists etc. would increase.

It would not be good for the environment, getting rid of trees, animals habitats and food source and maybe more importantly would cause more pollution from the increased traffic and increased car load.

We just dont want to lose our greenbelt!

Object

Representation ID: 18252

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Reynolds

There are many brownfield sites that could be used across Kingswinford. Green belt areas should be protected, they provide vital habitats for animals. Through the destruction of these habitats, animals lose their homes, directly contributing to the endangerment of species and reflected in the declining population of endangered species.

Another cause for concern is the risk of flooding that the Holbeache development imposes on the already established Charterfields estate. The land on the Holbeache has varying elevations and if this is developed upon drainage may create flooding for residents. The land at its natural state is permeable so flooding is less of a risk, but construction materials such as tarmac and concrete hinders the drainage of groundwater. this could therefore cause flooding that will impact residents financially, potentially pushing up home insurance prices.

Object

Representation ID: 18265

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Rachel Harris

DUH208 p371 Holbeache
DUH211 p371 Triangle

Re: Black Country site assessment report; Dudley appendix A, page 79 (in respect of Holbeache and The Triangle).

I wish to register my objections to development of the above named green belt sites in the strongest terms, especially having read with interest Andy Street's correspondence proclaiming successes protecting green belt land.
I have lived in Kingswinford north all my life - as a resident, service user, investor in local economy and tax payer. My objections are based on the additional strain on local ervices and infrastructure as well as environmental concerns and safeguarding for future generations.
Services: having seen a number of developments expand Kingswinford and Wall Heath without seeing any additional schools. Access to Wall Heath services is already under considerable strain - residents/patients regularly unable to get appointments - leaving bad personal experience of this adversely impacting health

Cont...

Infrastructure/pollution: equally pressing is the capacity of roads in the area (particularly DY6) to deal with additional vehicles. Quite aside from continuous increases to journey times (I invite you to drive through Kingswinford from 7:30am and after 4pm) - is the issue of pollution. A report exists citing parts of Kingswinford street as amongst the worst for pollution levels in the region. Not to mention this worsening through loss of green space.
In spite of the strength objection, sadly feel the decision to develop green belt sites will come down to financial considerations for the few and will override concern for quality of life and access to health care and schools - services residents have worked and paid for.
Responses to the Black Country Plan may appear emotional and I confess it deeply saddens me. However, the concerns raised are rational and practical and, to date, no reasonable response/solutions have been presented.
I await the outcome keenly and assure all involved that should these developments go ahead this will not be forgotten, particularly at local election time.

Object

Representation ID: 18270

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma - Jane Haden

Opposing the development of:
Promoted sites DUH031 majors Paddock, The Straits, DUH218 Guys Lane Paddock, DUH 330 South of Holbeache Lane, DUH 533 Triangle Swindon Road.

Dear sir / madam
I am writing to oppose development regarding all the sites listed.

After reading documentation regarding this proposal I strongly oppose these plans based on the following reasons:
1. Impact on local wildlife - All the proposed sites are rich habitats to many different creatures including owls, bats (Protected species schedule 2 Conservation Regulations 1994), hedgehogs, muntjac deer, and many birds. Some of proposed green belt sites all have mature and ancient woodland and hedgerows which are essential in preserving the British wildlife. RSPB surveys indicate a sharp decline in many birds through loss of habitat. Future development of this land would effectively wipe out the habitats of all these creatures. British wildlife is declining and every effort should be made to protect it not destroy it. There are many national initiatives profiling at the moment regarding the protection of wildlife and the planting of trees. Adults and children are being encouraged to look after nature in their environment not to terminate it which is what will inevitably happen in all areas where green belt land has been downgraded. Removal of trees and earth and covering land with housing and tarmac would inevitably increase this flooding.

2. Village identity and community - People choose to live in affected areas as they enjoy the semi-rural location and close community. Also, people have paid a premium to live here. This small community feel will be extinguished with at future development. These villages would lose their identity as well as losing their open space which is crucial for healthy wellbeing. It is also vital that the mentioned sites maintain a countryside border to continue their unique character.

3. Nature of the Green Belt - Greenbelt land is to prevent urban sprawl. Downgrading which then leads to land being developed would link up all surrounding areas adding to urban sprawl and doubling the size of all the associated sites.

4. Impact on local infrastructure - the proposed documents indicate local Dudley services and facilities. Gornal and Sedgley and Wallheath are relatively small villages. Himley is also graded at tier 4 by South Stafford Council. Indicating it does not have the amenities to support any future large development. The roads running through are narrow and often congested. Local primary schools and nurseries are already accommodating children from a widespread area and are oversubscribed as is the local Secondary school. Services such as Doctors, hospitals fire, police, and ambulance are already at breaking point - if land is downgraded and then developed into housing this will only add to this causing yet more pressure as it is unlikely services from Staffordshire will be accessed.

5. Council tax - Council tax from proposed plan will not be paid to Dudley yet it is services provided by Dudley council that will be accessed and put under excessive pressure. Development at suggested sites would impact South Staffordshire Council at a very minimal level yet the chargeable council tax would be clearly benefit south Staffordshire Council yet at the detriment of Dudley's local services. Council tax at would also be at a higher band due to the location. Maybe this is a reason as to why these sites have been suggested?

6. Impact on traffic - The Himley Road is notorious for accidents. Including a number of fatalities. The consideration of access points to many of these sites is potentially life threatening. Even with a buffer zone this remains highly dangerous. Traffic on all roads close to promoted sites, is heavily congested particularly at peak tiems. Additional housing could potentially put an extra 1600 cars minimum in this area. Surrounding areas of Gornal, Wallheath, Kingswinford and Sedgley Villages are already gridlocked throughout the day not just at peak times. Increased traffic from proposed sites through the existing estate will increase drastically. Additional traffic leads to a higher risk of accident and increased noise, air and light pollution. Extra traffic will also be cutting through estates, making side roads busier and increasing noise and pollution levels. all of these factors impact the health and wellbeing of local residents.

7. Policies on protection of green belt - NPP 2018 states that "Green belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified". Core policy 1 identifies that the protection of the green belt is fundamental and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. What are the exceptional circumstances that would / are leading the proposed land to be downgraded? This would mean that every single other option has been exhausted. Including the use of all [underlined and in bold] brown field sites, those that are available now and those that will potentially become available over the next 20 years. Have all these options been fully utilised? Has the council addressed the empty homes issue? Recent figures have been released regarding empty properties in the borough and Express and Star reported that more than 10,000 homes are empty in Staffordshire (March 2018) the use of empty properties would reduce the need to build more homes. South Staffordshire Council also identify Wolverhampton and Walsall as areas being in need of additional housing [text in bold from Wolverhampton] Not Dudley. Dudley is identified as having over its necessary amount. (sstaff.gov.uk Policy Constraints and Issues appendix 5 [text in bold from Policy]). Therefore, there is no valid reason to down grade any land on any of the mentioned sites so why make land developable if it is not in an identified housing need area? Unless it is to "piggy back" infrastructure of neighbouring councils. To downgrade and develop noted sites would be inappropriate. There are no exceptional circumstances [text in bold from no] to justify this.

I understand that there is a need for land to be used for additional affordable housing where there is an unmet housing need but I reiterate: the use of all brownfield sites first and use information provide by south Staffordshire to identify appropriate locations where the need for housing is unmet [text in bold from the use]. Some of the sites mentioned are in high value areas or are promoting executive house so it will not be affordable housing.

I await your response.

Yours sincerely
Emma Haden

Flooding across High Arcal Road November 2019 [picture on scanned copy]
Flooding at properties adjacent to proposed sites. House on The Straits. [picture on scanned copy]
Wildlife at proposed sites. Barn owl, heron. [picture on scanned copy]
Collisions at proposed site entrances. [picture on scanned copy]
View over proposed sites from residents [picture on scanned copy]

Object

Representation ID: 18282

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Judy Walker

I consider that this proposed increase in housing will have serious negative impact on local services.

NHS - Currently I have difficulty getting to see a GP locally, my surgery, Moss Grove is already stretched to capacity and waiting times at A & E and to see consultants at Russell's Hall will only increase with the additional burden of more residents in the local population which will no doubt not be able to provide an adequate service to its locality. Patients at the surgery have to travel to Kinver to see a GP when there is no availability at Kingswinford. This extra car use will increase pollution.

Roads in Wall Heath and Kingswinford are already very busy due to locality of the A449 which is already a very noisy traffic area. More residents will surely increase Higher CO2 emissions, poor air quality (with added complications for NHS with associated health conditions), traffic will be forced to try and use local roads to avoid the resulting traffic queues on main routes. There are already queues at peak times through these areas which will only extend with additional housing. There is a 40 mph limit currently by the triangle, where will cars from this estate exit onto this busy road, potentially leading to more traffic accidents?

Schools in the locality are near capacity - will schools have to build on existing playing fields etc to support increase in numbers - therefore further reducing green space? Local amenities - the small amount of existing parks will not support such an increase in the population. There is no youth centre in Wall Heath and a very poor quality of equipment in existing parks. No local sports centre exists.

Loss of Green Belt and impact on local wildlife and the environment - all brownfield sites should be used first before considering using green belt. Holbeach and the Triangle are used, for agriculture. Grade 2 land is part of the 25 year plan in place to protect land of this quality and to ensure it is used in a sustainable way. Any building here will mean loss of wildlife, bees and butterflies and biodiversity which should be protected due to declining numbers. Part of the character of Wall Heath are the trees and daffodils these should be retained where possible - any building will involve significant losses at the detriment to the environment.

Local green spaces are very important for mental health and well being. Light pollution would increase - again impacting on wildlife and the environment.

Students at Summerhill/local walkers accessing Summerhill woods have been using the footpaths across the 'Triangle' for many years . Have these now become protected?

The daily negative impact of building work on locals, for several years, will be high in terms of noise, traffic, and pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 18286

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Rachel Whitehouse

The Triangle DUH 211 page 371
Holbeache DUH208 page 371

(1) Highways - impact on residents with traffic & transport issues.
- the current highways structure cannot sustain with the proposals for both 'The Triangle' and 'Holbeache'
- HIGH road congestion currently. The A449, A491 and A4101 are areas that get 'gridlocked' in morning and afternoons/evening peak. Regularly, the traffic lights (cross roads at Lodge Lane, Cot Lane, Swindon Road & Summerhill) cause massive delays. There is no possible way of widening/expanding these roads to improve them, due to how Wall Heath and Kingswinford are built.
- Road safety consequences - 900+ homes are proposed - 1000+ new residents with the average of 1-2 cars per household where are the car going to go if Wall Heath and Kingswinford already have transport issues.
- Very poor transport links from Wall Heath - poor rail access, nearest stations are Stourbridge junction (7 miles), Cradley Heath (6 miles), Wolverhampton (8 miles) to travel to by car/bus. We also have more limited bus routes i.e. no direct buses from Wall Heath to Russells Hall Hospital).
(2) Quality of Life - pollution (air, light & noises)
- Poorer air quality due to roads not being able to support the football of car or traffic. Increase in NO2 pollution is harmful and deadly. The neighbouring town of Wordsley has one of the highest levels of air pollution in the Dudley Borough L50ug IM3 - Wordsley High St).

Continued.

- Higher noise levels - impacting residents and wildlife
- Loss of open spaces with green belt - once it's gone it's gone
(3) Flood Risk
- currently, 'the triangle' land absorbs rain/ground water. It is a steep gradient of land. Once built on, it becomes concrete, less water being absorbed, so becomes a flood risk. This could potentially result in A449 at Heathbrock Farm Estate and lower end of Valley Fields estate (Maidendale Road) being flooded.
(4) Pressure on local facilities
- Not enough schools - only 2 primary schools in Wall Heath and both oversubscribed (already has potential to affect education)
- No nearby employment sites or networks - this means an increased in road traffic which Wall Heath and Kingswinford road infrastructure cannot cope with
- Not enough GPs, dentists, shops and emergency services - more houses means more people, in turn results in services put under strain.
(5) DESTRUCTION OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
- loss of wildlife corridors linking green spaces
- Areas of site of local importance for nature conservation (SLINC) - Ashwood Haye Fields (some of these perimeters including hedgerow are within proposals). Hedgerows all around Holbeache also part of SLINC.
- Historic area of Prestwood - locally designated Historic Landscape area.
- Loss of wildlife - [Redacted-sensitive information] in addition of loss of bees and butterflies.
- tree preservation orders are in place in these areas
- Holbeache House (Grade II listed) has high historic value to the area. There will be a major visual impact on the landscape surrounding it is built upon
- Proposals at 'The Triangle' border onto the important woodland 'Ridgehill Woods' that would be highly impacted.
- During lockdown, many locals used these areas to safely meet family and friends at a social distance. These green space areas help with mental health.

Object

Representation ID: 18290

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Julia Emms

The Triangle BCP Site Ref DUH 211 page 371, DSA 2 pages 424-428 & HOLBEACHE BCP Site Ref DUH 208 page 371 DSA 2 pages 424-428.
We strongly object to these proposals.
Why are you proposing to build on these green belt sites? What exceptional circumstance is there that could allow this when there are still undeveloped brownfield sites in the borough?
Quoting from the Black Country Plan – ‘The BCP will ensure that the borough's network of open spaces will be protected and enhanced to support its natural assets and can continue to provide opportunities to improve health and well-being …..’
How is building on green belt protecting open spaces and enhancing and supporting natural assets?
How is taking away this green belt land which is used by many for exercise and recreation improving health and well being?
But the issue of equally serious concern is the impact on the local highways. Cars from 330 houses accessing the Holbeache site via the existing roundabout on the A449/A491 where traffic already backs up in all 3 existing directions? And the vehicles from 533 houses exiting from 3 potential points on the Triangle to try to get to work? The roads round here are almost gridlocked in rush hour as it is. We are no where near a mainline station or any existing or proposed parts of the metro so why build here? You need to build close to transport links. Building on these sites will compound the already horrendous problems of trying to commute from this area.
Yes, the plan says 'Housing growth in this part of the borough will be supported by a strengthened local infrastructure, including local highway improvements…’ but how can Summerhill be improved or widened to accommodate more traffic? What can be done at The Cross at Kingswinford? Dudley Road in Wall Heath and the A449 going through Wall Heath have properties on both sides of the road so what widening or improvements can be done to allow for so many additional local residents on the roads.
The plan also says pedestrian crossing improvements would be required on the A449 - yes that would be essential but would only delay traffic even more.
Extending the schools to cope? At what cost? The playing fields? More green space lost!
How will the local doctors and hospital cope - the situation is far from ideal already without the additional residents from 863 houses being brought into the mix.
Please remove these sites from this proposal - or is it too late? Pipework has already been put in at the Triangle and the houses at Holbeache are beong advertised - is this consulatation just lip service?

Object

Representation ID: 18291

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Eric Bant

BLACK COUTNRY SITE - ASSESSMENT REPORT
DUDLEY APPENDIX 'A' PAGE 79
THE TRIANGLE SA0025 DUD
533 houses will ultimately result in a minimum of 1000+ extra cars, increasing air / noise pollution. We live adjacent to Swindon Road, pollution from car fumes is already affecting breathing, any increase would be intolerable.
Doctors and Schools and Dentists will be overwhelmed.
Russel Halls hospital can hardly cope now, how many extra children?
"Basically a mad move"

Object

Representation ID: 18297

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Julian Chambers

Back ground
It is stated that the plan has to be supported by robust evidence which will look at sustainability access to jobs and services and many other issues. Working with the NHS, Education Service and others in order to look at infrastructure needbefore we decide on sites. We will look to allocate sites for developement that are in the most sustainable locations in terms of transport and access to exisitng or new infrastructure.
We will look at infrastructure needs and opportunites before we decide on sites to ensure our road networks have capacity to accommodate development growth . We will look to ensure that sites are located in sustainable locations,with access to public transport links to reduce rerlaince on car usage.

With reference to New housing future green belt developmentparcels DUH 208 Holbeache and DUH 211 The Triangle.
As a general item the Black Country Plan has not been developed with regard to The current National Planning Policy Framework 20 July 2021.

I do not believe these sites are sustainable development.
Regarding transport The sites are not close to dual carriageway road network. The natural boundary of the A449 a main road link betweeen Kidderminster and through to `Wolverhampton . The road network inot Dudley Borough is also single carriageway A4101. This is also the main route to Russellls Hall Hospital. The main hospital serving the region . The route is heavily trafficked and emergency vehicles are severely hampered by this. Demands made greater since the closure of the maternity unit at Wordsley. Ths closure means additional services have to be provided outside the region at Worcester , New Cross and Queeen Elizabeth. A 45 minute journey at best.
In addition recent second tier developement in South Staffs at Kinver and Wombourne has further increased demand on roads to access retail , work , schools and health facilties.
Dudley as a whole suffers from a lack of suitable roads . The lack of comprehensive rail and bus routes also hinders sustainable developement.
Local neighbourhood shopping is limited with villages such as Wall Heath, Kingswinford and towns such as Stourbridge , Brierley Hill and Dudley having few options.These areas are not seved by the Metro route.
I do not believe NHS and Education services are sufficient to serve this developement.
I do not believe the plan has made sufficient consideration to infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, security , wasste management, water supply,waste water or floodc risk assessment.(still to be evaluated).

Object

Representation ID: 18298

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Thacker

Objection to site "the triangle" Dudley council.

I would like to object to the proposed plans specifically at "the triangle" on swindon road, kingswinford. I feel a development of such scale would have a significant negative impact on the local community and the fact it would be on green belt land would be disasterous to the natural environment. I feel this would be an unnecessary and irreversible tragedy robbing future generations of local families a sense of wellbeing that this countryside locality brings. There are other locations where development would be more suitable without losing our precious green belt.

Currently, roads, local schools, nhs facilities and emergency services are very busy; local housing development on the scale being proposed would have a detrimental effect on quality of life for all.

Object

Representation ID: 18306

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Julie Robinson

Triangle in Swindon Road (DUH 211 p371) and land off Holbeach Lane, Wallheath (DUH 208 p371)

Do not want to lose countryside - there are plenty of brownfill sites - the greenbelt must be protected
There are no jobs in either locality - everyone will be required to commute
There will be a massive impact on the amount of traffic - it can already take 30-40 minutes to travel a 4 mile journey
Great concern about the capacity of Secondary and Primary Care Services. It is not just the matter of funding - there is already a shortage of medical staff. GP services are already receiving a battering from the media and patients regarding access to services - the proposal will just increase the problem
There will be pressure on local services
Additional polution - C02 emissions, noise polution - all impact on health and well-being
Road safety
Pressure on the education system

These will not be affordable homes

Object

Representation ID: 18308

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Julie Whitehouse

Objection to: The Triangle – DUH 211 & Holbeach – DUH 208

I am extremely disappointed and frustrated that these particular areas of green belt have been selected as part of the Black Country Plan and I have to express my absolute outcry at the possibility of these areas being destroyed to make way for 863 new houses which we neither want or need in Wall Heath.

This village is beautiful, simple as. I am never one to stand in the way of change or understanding that we need to be progressive. Indeed, I had no objection to the recent housing developments of Himley View, Himley Meadows, the old brickworks, and the Stallings Lane quarry site. However, I do not believe that the 'easy option' of selecting green field as opposed to brown field sites is something that can be justified, especially when the infrastructure of Wall Heath is already close to breaking point, including highways, health, education and other services.

My specific reasons for my objection are:

Roads
The busy road network, particularly the A449 that passes through our village is a specific 'pinch point' where heavy congestion can be seen daily and this has a knock-on effect into other local roads e.g. Moss Grove, The Kingswinford Cross, High Street Kingswinford, Stallings Lane etc. The extra vehicles created by 863 new houses on these already congested roads, which are of course also taking traffic from the other newly-built housing estates I have referred to above, mean that the village will be nothing short of grid-lock for many hours in the day. Due to the nature of these roads and established housing, no additional road widening schemes could be considered, which in any event would only move the congestion problem on in a similar way to the road scheme at High Oak, Pensnett.

I also have serious concerns regarding the impact this increased congestion will have on accessibility for our emergency vehicles through the village, as well as:

1) Enhanced safety concerns particularly around local schools situated close to main roads e.g. Summerhill, Church of Ascension, The Glynne, St Marks etc;
2) Increased nuisance noise levels from traffic;
3) Increased levels of pollution from the additional vehicle numbers and standing/crawling traffic;
4) Drivers taking short cuts through surrounding estates to avoid congestion therefore spreading these potential negative issues across the wider community.

Public Transportation Services
There is not a suitable network of public transport within the immediate locality to alleviate the potential for increased traffic congestion and negative impact on the highways network which means that residents will be forced into their cars due to:

1) No rail or metro networks in the immediate vicinity;
2) Limited bus services;
3) No cycle networks.

Health Services
The village is already under pressure in terms of health services – we have seen Moss Grove Surgery already really struggle with appointment slots. This pressure will only increase by 863 new families (plus those from the other previously mentioned new developments). This includes:

1. Russells Hall hospital and its Accident & Emergency department which is already significantly stretched;
2. local GP practices where it is already difficult to obtain appointments (Moss Grove is already shipping patients and certain services, e.g. flu vaccinations, to Kinver practice);
3. Local dental practices, especially those offering NHS services. My children and my husband have for several years used a dentist in another town due to lack of availability;
4. Impact on ambulance waiting times;
5. Delays to hospital treatment / operations;
6. Delays to the already stretched mental health services which are so necessary, especially as we are now only starting to see the impact of COVID on some many people's mental health; services which are likely to be needed for a long time to come.

Education
I am very concerned that 863 new houses (and therefore families) will cause so much pressure on our local education services that local residents may no longer be able to get their children into their first-choice schools. We, as local residents and parents, should not have to settle for anything less than the school that our children want to go to and that are our nearest and therefore most convenient, both in terms of secondary & primary schools. Currently Wall Heath and Kingswinford schools are already at or nearing capacity (these solid-performing schools are one of the main 'draws' to our area).

Impact on other services
1) Public transport network (my daughter already struggles to get on overcrowded buses to get to college);
2) Insufficient local amenities for such a proposed increase in population e.g. parks, playgrounds, youth clubs, sports centres etc.

Environmental concerns
There is an obvious significant impact on the environment of developing two such well-established areas of green belt land with no obvious alternatives available in the immediate locality:
1) Loss of a significant number of trees and hedgerows in the area that offer shelter to our local wildlife;
2) Without the trees, hedgerows and natural foraging that Holbeach and the Triangle offer, we will undoubtedly see a significant impact on insects, birds, bats, foxes & butterflies to name a few. It is well known that larks frequent the Triangle for example;
3) Loss of flora & fauna with a negative impact on pollination cycles;
4) Increased CO2 production into the atmosphere;
5) General impact on mental well-being that these landscapes have always offered.

I therefore request that all aspects of my objection are given full and proper consideration with the sensible and logical conclusion being that these two areas are removed from any plans for future development.

Object

Representation ID: 18311

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ralph Homer

Draft BCP DUH208 pg 371 and DUH211 pg 371

Black Country Site Assessment Report Dudley Appendix A page 119 The Triangle SA 00225 DUD

I took part in the first petition objecting to this proposed development more than 50 years ago.
The reasons to object are even more pertinent today
(1) Loss of greenbelt, this should need no further discussion
(2) There is not the infrastructure in place to support this. Local roads are already gridlocked at peak times, trying to access the A491 road.
(3) Local GP surgeries are already very full
(4) In addition to the above, the severe impact of other local plan proposals adjacent to Dudley would be catastrophic with the potential for hundreds more houses.

Object

Representation ID: 18313

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Eric Horwill

The continuing expansion of the Black Country is causing more and more pollution and loss of amenities. Loss of more trees and green areas means more Carbon Dioxide and less oxygen for healthy living. Bricks and concrete do not allow photosynthesis to take place!

Object

Representation ID: 18315

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Errol John Smith

The Triangle
I would like to put forward my objection to the plan to increase the heavy load on the village of Kingswinford. I feel this small area of the borough is already taking too large a load of conjestion. It is getting very difficult to manoever throughout the area. Much additional population has put too much traffic to cope with.
The loss of bio diversity is very apparent already and Green Belt is so important to this. I strongly OBJECT!!! REJECT !!!

Object

Representation ID: 18321

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ray Clarke

DUH 208 pg 371
DUH 211 pg 371

The Triangle & Holbeach

Effect on schools there is already s shortage of places for pupils in the area. Greater number of children can only make it worse.
Effect on local doctor services and hospitals.
again these are already overloaded a greater population will make it worse.
Generally these plans always promise better facilities or new premises but they NEVER deliver and it ends up with everything the same as before.
Effect on road infrastructure.
Roads around Kingswinford and Wall Heath are congested and more people and cars can only MAKE THINGS WORSE.
EFFECT ON CAR PARKING
Car parking in local villages is bad now and will only get worse if this plan goes ahead. Plus parking around local schools when picking up or dropping off will become impossible to achieve or create chaos in the area.