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

Object

Representation ID: 18334

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicholas Dunn

Document: Black Country Site Assessment Report
Dudley appendix A, Page 79 THE TRIANGLE SA-0025-DUD

I object to the proposal of building houses on the green belt near to where I live as I walk regularly around this area and I believe that the impact will be detrimental. There are not many green spaces around here, we need to keep these spaces, having this land built on with be devastating. There will be loss of access to the countryside. I believe that local wildlife will be greatly impacted. The area already has high levels of pollution due to the amount of existing traffic. The amount of traffic on the road is already extremely high,it already takes nearly half an hour to get to the hospital purely down to the amount of cars on the roads, increasing the number of houses will mean more vehicles on these roads. There is poor rail access and a lack of cycle routes and public transport in this area. These housing proposals are not meeting affordable housing targets they will all be expensive properties built on green belt land.
There is no reason to build on this land when we have been told time and time again that there are enough brownfieild sites in the area where houses could be built instead.
Building on this land will only have a negative impact, on wildlife, on traffic, on pollution on residents physical and mental health. I oppose these plans.

Object

Representation ID: 18339

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Baker

The Triangle DUH211

No to building on green belt/green space. No to adding to the already busy conjestion, our infrastructure won't cope.

Object

Representation ID: 18342

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Esther Baker

Holbeache DUH 208
The Triangle DUH 211
I object to the development of the above mentioned green space / green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 18343

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Nick Waterhouse-Brown

DUV 211 p371 (Triangle at Kingswinford)

I want to object to the proposed building of houses on the triangle site at Kingswinford site SA 0025- DUD.

My reasons for the objection are:-

- you are already building a huge number of houses at the back of McDonalds, at the old Ibstock and opposite on Ham Lane which are on top of the houses that have already been built.

- I work in Coventry and it already takes me 20 to 25 minutes to travel the first 2 miles from Kingswinford to Russells Hall at peak time. This is even after the traffic lights have been amended.

- if i wish to travel through Stourbridge to the motorway it takes me at least 30 minutes to get to Hagley which is far too slow.

- the local roads will simply not be able to cope with these additional houses without the builder constructing a relief road which goes from Junction 4 (which misses out Stourbridge) to connect up with Wolverhampton.

- I currently find it very difficult to get an appointment at the doctors. This will become far worse.

- there won't be enough capacity at the local schools and it will be more dangerous for them to walk to and from school.

- the loss of farmland will increase Co2, harming the enviroment, local wildlife and it will change the landscape forever for the negative.


Please take this e-mail as my formal objection.

Object

Representation ID: 18344

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Eve Jackson

The Triangle DUH 211 Page 371
There are no school places now, in 10 years time where will my children go? [Redacted] I often go walking far and wide as it's quiet and there's no light pollution, building on the triangle would cause so much noise, disruption & light pollution as well as the destruction of this beautiful piece of land.

Object

Representation ID: 18355

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Beasley

The Triangle BCP Site Ref DUH211 p 371 (DSA2 pages 424-428)

- Myself, family and other residents do not want the increased congestion, extra air pollution and over crowded public transport, that these proposed sites will bring.
- Our local NHS facilities are struggling NOW.
- Why should our greenbelt be built on when there is so many brownfield sites in the black country that could be built on.

Object

Representation ID: 18364

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Harding

Green Belt Sites -- The Triangle (DUH211) and Holbeache (DUH208)

19. I have signed the bulk objection for these two sites, but wish to make an additional point.

20. Brownfield sites that have been deemed as unviable, in the Key Sites Viability document, have the potential to deliver 2,615 houses. This is roughly three times the number of houses proposed to be built on the Triangle and Holbeache. This does not demonstrate the
exceptional circumstances required to release land from green belt for development.

Object

Representation ID: 18368

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Gary Whitehouse

The building of 533 in Swindon Road and 330 House South of Holbeache Road will be detrimental to the local area small devopement have a more condisered effect but an additional 2000 people when russells Hall, Doctors, Dentists Traffic problems and schools are ill thought out I went to A/E Russells hall 5 hrs. cannot get to see a doctor a month for a consultation no capacity at either secondry for schools in the immediate area meaning children will have to travel making traffic worse and more harmful greenhouses gases

Object

Representation ID: 18372

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Gavin Haywood

I wish to object to the development for housing of the 2 sites known as Holbeache and The Triangle. The extra houses in the two areas would cause excessive traffic problems & pollution in the Kingswinford and Wallheath / Wordsley areas. The loss of the green areas would also push local wildlife to already diminishing green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 18373

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Nock

I object to the new houses being built opposite Summerhill School because it spoils the green space we're lucky to have and why people enjoy living here. It will also add on to what is awful traffic that nobody seems bothered about and it will only get worse not to mention the damage to our health and the climate crisis.

My comments refer to Holbeach (DUH208) Triangle (DUH211)

Object

Representation ID: 18375

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Zoe Vale

Number of people: 4

I am a resident of Dudley North and have grave concerns about the proposal in the draft plan for building in the Black Country.

Whilst I disagree with any building on green belt my main objections are in relation to the Holbeach site DUH 208 page 371 and The Triangle Duh 211 page 371

I disagree with plans to build on green belt on both of these sites!

Firstly there is a great need to support the green belt for the sake of the local wildlife, not to mention health and well being of the local residents who rely so much on these areas for their mental health and well being. I
[Redacted-GDPR] feel that this is essential never more so recognized following many lockdowns and the pandemic, removal of these sites would mean no green spaces in the surrounding areas in walking distance.

As residents we struggle with hospital appointments [Redacted-GDPR] what would this be with a massive influx of residents to here and other proposed sites in the surrounding area? This really could be life or death!

There are many reasons but I will end with congestion, it can take me an hour to travel from wall heath to Brierley Hill (3 miles) in a morning, why? Congestion!!!

There is no way we can cope with any more traffic in our village, not to mention accidents [Redacted-GDPR] on the A449, animals and children knocked over.

I object to these plans!!!

Object

Representation ID: 18380

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Perrins

First and foremost I object to the proposed development of our local Greenbelt when there are brownfield sites more suitable/ fit for purpose, untouched in our region.
The land on site references DUH208 and 211 is very good agricultural land where crops are grown. The greenspace is so important for peoples health + well being, nobody wants to see it go. We hear a lot about how important it is to protect the environment and the green belt is supposed to be sacrosanct. This will also have a devastating impact on local wildlife species that call the land home.
The proposed development will have negative impacts on traffic, pollution, road traffic safety, education. Schools in the area are already at capacity and unable to accommodate a number of children who live a 'stones throw' away. We need to preserve our greenbelt!! Once it is gone, it is gone forever. The Tax paying residents of Wall Heath are entitled to have their say + deserve to be listened to!

Object

Representation ID: 18387

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Stokes

Apart from the council being told by central government to build houses -> there is no positive reason for building on green belt in the area
Dudley borough is made up of large areas of industrial and built up areas, and the council should cherish small towns/villages on the western border (Stourbridge, Wall Heath, Kford etc). You seem to be determined to wreck them.
Many law abiding and decent residents of Kingswinford will be considering their future in the village if these proposals go ahead -> me included
Finally the councillors should try and drive from Kford to Stourbridge during the day (anytime) and the stupidly of the idea will become evident

Object

Representation ID: 18401

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Barnett

THE TRIANGLE DUH 211
HOLBEACHE DUH 208

I have a strong objection for the proposed properties to be built on The Triangle DUH211 and Holbeache DUH 208 as the traffic congestion will increase, the schools, hospitals and definitely the doctors surgeries cannot cope with any more residents. We pride ourselves for being a stones throw away from our beautiful countryside and do not want this taken away. It will affect all the property prices in the area greatly. Totally do not wish these developments to go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 18404

Received: 17/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Chapman

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

I object to the housing development on the 2 proposed sites listed above. the destruction of the local environment + green belt; loss of ancient trees, natural habitats + biodiversity. The great outdoors has proven [invaluable] in recent months for local people's mental health + lockdowns - losing could create extra strain on NHS.

Object

Representation ID: 18416

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Reece Brown

Triangle Ref DUH211 pg 371
I am a new driver and the roads around where I live are used as a cut through to avoid the congested traffic in the high street it makes me nervous to go in my car. Adding several hundred cars to this area will cause chaos on our local roads.

Object

Representation ID: 18422

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Oliver

Black Country Site Assessment Report
Dudley Appendix A Page 79
The Triangle SA0025-DUD

The whole of the planned development is surrounded by three very busy roads, already very conjested another 2,000 people and their vehicles, trying to access these roads, would be even more chaotic and dangerous, no one would be able to exit Kingswinford, would be gridlocked.

No new schools or doctors practices have been built in the last fifty years or so, both are now heavily over-subscribed. Where would children go to school and how would present surgeries cater for the community's health?

I'm told that there is a natural flood plain that runs from Ryefield Way to the Kingfisher and Lodge Lane used to regularly flood. The builder's Taylor Wimpy, is reported to have said, they wouldn't ever attempt to develop that plot. If this is true then what could be the outcome, with 800 or so houses sitting on it?

Once that field is gone, its forever and the urban sprawl will continue at a pace.

Object

Representation ID: 18434

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Brown

Holbeche DUH208 Triangle DUH211
Traffic is the issue for me. I commute to Stourbridge daily and the roads cannot cope with the existing traffic. Adding another 500+ cars would destroy this village.
I regularly take my dog for a walk near Summerhill School and the areas to do this are gradually being pushed further away.
My youngest child attends [Redacted-GDPR] School and I worry for his safety using Lodge Lane daily with the increased traffic these houses will create.

Object

Representation ID: 18442

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Downton

Number of people: 2

Dear Sirs,
We have read with total dismay at the plan to build so many houses on our local green spaces. Green spaces are necessary for the wellbeing of the community. They provide social interaction for all local people, to talk and walk and just generally enjoy them. Please rethink this black country plan and find brownfield sites of which I am sure there are many, and probably are an eyesore ... [unreadable]... are derelict factories. We are totally opposed to this plan of building on the green spaces in Kingswinford and Wall Heath.

Object

Representation ID: 18481

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Smith

Holbeache Lane/ Triangle Objections - Dudley MBC
(1) Road Infrastructure: local road already cannot cope with the volume of traffic at times Wall Heath and the A449. It will definitely cause mayhem if the houses are built. People already cut through the Mainsbridge estate which is a potential accident as these cars often do not slow down. If traffic increases this in turn will have an effect on the air quality causing health problems especially those with respiratory issues.
(2) Local services: there is already a strain on the local services with difficulties accessing the GP some patients having been directed to the Kinver surgery. Access to local hospital will be disrupted, with waiting times increasing.
(3) Schools: places are already unavailable to local residents. Further housing will add to this becoming more difficult with residents having to travel, this in turn causing more congestion within the area and in increase to poorer air quality.
(4) Local amenities: already poor quality parks in the area (Wall Heath), ditto youth centre ate Wall Heath, ditto sports centres or facilities
(5) Loss of the green belt and have an impact to the wildlife / environment. Brownfield sites should be used first before green belt. The Government committed to a 25 year plan to protect land of this quality and use the soil in a sustainable way. Building here would lead to a loss of wildlife. The world leaders and wildlife groups want us to protect our wildlife and their environment to prevent their decline or even loss of the wildlife. Dudley should be seen to working to help save our wildlife, not help in their extinction!

Object

Representation ID: 18487

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Wood

Holbeache Greenbelt BCP site ref DUH208 and DUH211 page 371 and DS41 pages 419-423
New proposed housing development opposite Lodge Lane and Swindon Lane Kingswinford known as Kingswinford Triangle.
I object to this proposal because of the following points:
- The roads in this area are already highly congested with traffic throughout the day and evening.
There will not be enough amenities to support the extra residents for example schools and doctors.
- Stripping the green belt will affect wildlife, destroying trees upsetting the environment we live in.
- There are many brownfield sites which are left uninhabited and derelict which could be used for housing

Object

Representation ID: 18540

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Phil Atkins

Site References:
DUH 211 p371 - The Triangle

I strongly object to the above sites being included as part of the draft Black Country plan. This objection takes the form of multiple points.

1) Loss of the Greenbelt
- This is useful agricultural land which is graded 3 or above
- The visual character of the sites would change dramatically and forever
- Both sites act as a natural barrier preventing urban sprawl along the western edge of the borough.

2) Impact on Traffic and Transport
- These developments would add huge traffic burdens on already busy single lane'd roads
- There is currently only very limited public transport access and this is only available by road, no train or tram network exists in this part of the borough. the closest is well over 30mins drive away impacting again on the local road network.

3) Impact on Local Facilities & Infrastructure
- No local secondary schools have been earmarked for expansion, the closest that has is Crestwood located in Wordsley, how are students on the edge of wall heath supposed to access this school?
- No nearby employment hubs or areas of large scale employment.
- Primary schools are further than 15mins away from proposed sites
- Health Services like Primary Care and A&E are already under pressure with staff shortages, while funds may be put aside to build facilities how are the CCG going to staff them with the current nursing and doctor shortage.

4) Destruction of Local Environment
- Many Historical ancient Roman campsites occupy the green fields in the area, these could be forever destroyed should houses and foundations sit atop them.
- Loss of ancient trees, natural habitats and biodiversity
- Huge impact on climate and pollution with no way to provide additional clean travel means from this end of the borough.
- Reduced natural draining and increased flood risk from concreting over two large green sites.

5) Impact on residents health and well being
- Unwanted loss of outdoor recreational space for walking, playing and exploring
- the importance of outside spaces have been so hugely highlighted and it would be a travesty to destroy this.

Object

Representation ID: 18549

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 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 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: 18550

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Peter Miller

I would like to object to the BCP recommendations in Kingswinford Area .
The Lodge Lane triangle borders my ward in Kingswinford South it is a beautiful area of greenland on entering DMBC from the A449,it gives a feeling of being in the country It is a long-established part of Kingswinford which has always been green and considered a focal point of the area

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: 18555

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 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 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: 18723

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: 18864

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Faulkner

My objections re: DUH211 (The Triangle) are based on the following:
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: 18874

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: 18877

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: 18880

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.