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

Object

Representation ID: 18900

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Earnshaw

The Triangle DUH211 page 371 + Holbeache, DUH208 page 371

I strongly object to the building of houses on these areas of land because -
(1) Loss of green belt - we are in a 'climate emergency' loss of green open spaces to development will contribute to climate change.
(2) I and my family used the 'the triangle# for exercise during lockdown as it is the closest area of open countryside to our house. We continue to walk there now.
(3) It would destroy these local environments. I don't believe that any compensatory resources would make up for losses.
(4) At 'the triangle' and 'Holbeach' I have seen [Redacted-sensitive information] nesting for many years up to and including this year. These would be lost forever from these sites. I have seen a [Redacted-sensitive information] hinting over the 'the triangle'.
(5) Development would increase traffic and lead to pressure. Increases on local services. This might be addressed by yet further development - bigger roads etc. This would further increase pollution and add to climate change.
(6) 'The Triangle' is culturally important to the local area. Often known as the Poppy Fields, because of the amazing display of these flowers in some years.

Object

Representation ID: 19046

Received: 18/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Greenaway

[Objection to all site proposals in Dudley].

Object

Representation ID: 19055

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ronald Blythe

I am most concerned at the thought that our lovely GREEN BELT could be interfered with.
Sureley, we must all agree that there should not be such need; any need for extra houses for people first because they are wealthy enough to purchase super properties where they are not part of the local community.
Can we wonder - what is behind all this.

Object

Representation ID: 19065

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Wilson Prudhoe

I object 100% against the development of the green belt triangle BCP site ref DUH211:
1. 533 houses as proposed = over 1,000 residents which = over 500 children. Existing schools in the area are all full together with a shortage of teachers. No new schools or additions are proposed.
2. 1,000 residents = approx 2,000 cars. Traffic on local roads is already heavy with many delays. Travel from Russell Hall can take 30 minutes plus.
3. Traffic on the A449 can exceed 1,000 cars per hour at certain times.
4. Local car parks cannot accommodate extra cars. No additional car parking in the local area.
5. No doctors, dentists, opticians proposed. Existing = full.
6. Loss of nature - birds, field mouse, fox, squirrel + rabbit + more.
7. Winds usually from W + SW. So CO2 and other gases blown towards Summerhill and Kingswinford - much of this is absorbed by the vegetation on the triangle and by the ground where fallow. At least 70% of this absorbtion would be lost.
8. The total area of hard surfacing will exceed 70% of site. Roof area of houses, drives, patios, garden paths, road and pavement will be non-absorbant - resulting in ill-health.

Object

Representation ID: 19210

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ronald Jackson

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

Object

Representation ID: 19223

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert John Hill

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 19244

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Hudson

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

Object

Representation ID: 19252

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Bailey

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

Object

Representation ID: 19254

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Cook

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

Object

Representation ID: 19257

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Hartshorne

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

Object

Representation ID: 19262

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Ruth Watton

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 19267

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ryan Parkes

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

Object

Representation ID: 19273

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roy Davies

Objecting to Black Country Site Assessment Report
Dudley Appendix A, Page 79. The Triangle SA-0025-DUD

1. Loss of green belt
• It is better to use old factory sites (Brownfield) and re­
develop inner cities to revive town centres.
• This is useful Agricultural land graded 3 and above.
• The Visual Amenity and Character of the Area would
dramatically change.
• This is an important and strategic tract of Green Belt
preventing urban sprawl along the Western Edge of the
Black Country. If the proposed A449 Kidderminster Road
forms the amended Green Belt boundary then all the
Greenfield sites encompassed by that on the boundary and currently vulnerable from the South Staffs Local Plan would be at risk from development as a precedent would be set for a new boundary.

2. Quality of life
• Developing green belt means loss of access to
countryside, once it's gone, it's gone.
• Higher noise levels impact of adjoining residents and
wildlife.
• Increase in light pollution in a much needed area of
tranquility.
• Poorer air quality impact of adjoining residents and wider area, particularly from increase in traffic.
• Impact of building from construction noise and traffic.

3. Impact on traffic and transport
• Increasing numbers of vehicles will mean increased
pollution, road safety consequences.
• Road traffic congestion in the area is already high. A449 and A491 gridlocked in a morning. Nor do we want more roads eg 'Western Strategic (Orbital) Route' destroying more green belt.
• Lack of public transport or cycle routes. Hansen rate this area as having the worst commuting score from homes to places of employment.
• Poor rail access. Time taken to reach the rail network to
Wolverhampton/Birmingham is much longer than 30 minutes.
• There are also at least two other major development sites at Stallings Lane and Ketley Quarry(within 2 miles) which do not have any infrastructure improvements either.

4. Pressure on local facilities
• There are not enough doctors surgeries, schools, shops, emergency services in Dudley to serve the area. The proposal to build 533 new houses on the triangle would increase the local population by 1279 (Office of National statistics average occupation rates are 2.4 people per household)
• Local Health Services are already over subscribed and un­sustainable.
• Primary Schools over 15 minutes walk away.
• Road Infrastructure already struggling to cope at present with high traffic levels. Impact on the wider road
network particularly Kingswinford and Wallheath junctions.
• No suitable or regular bus routes or cycle network.
• No nearby employment sites or network.
• Providing more 'High Value' housing does not solve the
problem of lack of affordable or social housing, which would also need a sustainable infrastructure of health facilities, education, mass transit and employment centres.

5. Destruction of the local environment
• Loss of ancient trees, natural habitats, biodiversity.
• Loss of SLINC (Site of Local Importance for Nature
Conservation) hedgerows to create access.
• This will contribute to climate change .
• Loss of wildlife, impact on the fields and meadows.
• Loss of wildlife corridors linking green spaces.
• Flood risk affecting drainage of the area and ground water.
• Contributing to rapid loss of species in Britain in recent
decades eg moths, butterflies, bees have declined significantly.
• Replanting schemes do not replace ancient habitats and features.

6. Important locally
• Local people love and appreciate this green belt area, and want it for future generations
• Important local green space, valuable trees, hedgerows and open fields. Many trees have Tree Preservation Orders
• Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) -'Ashwood Haye Fields' - hedgerow around the perimeter of the site and some within the site
• It contains Important local green space, valuable trees,
hedgerows and open fields.
• There is an important network of footpaths (rights of way) across the area including links to Monarchs Way, Staffordshire Way, linking to Cheshire Gritstone Trail, the Heart of England Way and the North Worcestershire Path.
• It is next to an important woodland Ridgehill Woods, which will be hugely impacted. Disrupting the wildlife corridors and surrounding habitats for these would be irreversible.
• It is part of the Mid Severn Sandstone Plateau-important for habitat conservation.
• In addition, it is an important habitat for declining British
wildlife (list species where known).
• Disrupting the wildlife corridors and surrounding habitats for these would be irreversible.
• Historic character of Prestwood.
Prestwood is a locally designated Historic Landscape area. A collection of Scheduled Ancient Monuments associated with the Greensforge Roman Camp are situated in the area between Swindon and Prestwood to the west of Kingswinford.

7. Huge opposition by the local community
These housing proposals are not meeting affordable housing targets with expensive housing in the Green Belt.

8. The National Planning Policy Framework (the government's 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" and identifies that:
• Sites of biodiversity should be protected and any impacts minimised (para 170)
• Land with the least environmental or amenity value should be considered for development and habitat networks and green infrastructure should be maintained and enhanced (para 171)
• Protect and enhance biodiversity and geo-diversity and
safeguard local wildlife-rich habitats and priority habitats and species, and ecological networks (para 174)
• Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. (para 147)

9. The government is stating that brownfield sites should be used and not Green Belt sites. This should be considered across the whole of the region before ANY Green Belt site should even be considered for development

Object

Representation ID: 19282

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Wood

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 19304

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Rosie Cardall

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

Object

Representation ID: 19318

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ross Downing

Comments relate to Black Country Site Assessment Report - Dudley Appendix A - The Triangle SA-0025-DUD Page 79

The creation of an additional 533 houses at this location will disproportionately increase the relatively small population of Kingswinford and Wall Heath. Based on occupancy rates of 2.4 people per household the population would increase by circa 1200 people or 10%.
This increase would lead to an unsustainable pressure on local services which already struggle to serve the local community i.e. health, schools and transport.
Critically the planned development would lead to increased traffic congestion towards Dudley, Wolverhampton and Stourbridge for commuters and other traffic using the already busy A491, A449, A4101 and Stallings Lane.
In addition traffic from the 'Triangle' would lead to existing residential streets (Maiderdale Road, Brnley Way, Berkeley Drive, Buckingham Grove and Dubany Avenue) being used as a 'cut through' to avoid congestion. This would be harmful to these residents. The junction of Lodge Lane and A449 is already dangerous and the risk of accidents will increase.
The fields identified for development are a haven to wildlife. Importantly they are a nesting site for endangered [REDACTED] and other animals. Development results in a permanent loss of this habitat which cannot be mitigated. Nesting birds require the space.
Increased roads and other hard landscape will increase the flood risk to the natural low point at the junction of Swindon Road and A449. Dawley Brook would be at great risk and the existing housing nearby. All of the above points are likely to be execcerbated by the additional proposals for Kingswinford under plan ref DUH203 and 208.
The greenbelt should not be so easily sacrificed when other brownfield sites are available and better located to meet demand.

Object

Representation ID: 19320

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Stacey & Josh Coward & Price

Number of people: 2

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

Objection to Black Country Plan
I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to ANY building on green belt in the Dudley Borough area.
In the Council Scrutiny meeting on 6.10.21 your officer [redacted] admitted that NO bio diversity checks have been made or wildlife impact assessment.
Our roads are already gridlocked, schools over subscribed, GP's over subscribed, huge waiting lists at hospitals.
People need green spaces for mental health and physical fitness. The impact on the environment and climate by building over remaining green land has been underestimated. An audit of preserved or valuable trees has not been carried out.
The quality of life for existing residents will be greatly diminished, with more traffic, parking issues, nowhere to walk dogs or just take a walk in a green environment.
The plan mentions re-wilding - but where will that be as all available space is gradually eroded and built on. Why not just leave the existing habitat alone.
I do not believe that 'exceptional circumstances' apply in any of the areas listed. I do not believe that all brownfield sites have been identified. I do not believe that all empty Council houses that could be refurbished have been. It is clear that if there is a shortage of land that there should be a preference or flats or maisonettes thereby creating more housing from the same brownfield plot.
A question was also raised in the Scrutiny meeting regarding the data upon which the housing requirement has been calculated. Dudley Council should ask for this to be reviewed particularly post Brexit and post pandemic.
Listed as follows please register my objection
DUH208 Holbeache
DUH211 Summerhill Triangle
DUH216 Bryce Road
DUH222 Severn Drive
DUH213 Lapwood Avenue
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
DUH 206 Worcester Lane
DUH 207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH 209 Worcester Lane South
DUH 217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH 210 Viewfield Crescent
DUH 041 Two Gates Lane Cradley
DUH 212 Lewis Road Lye
DUH 214 Seymour Road Wollescote
DUH 215 Bent Street Brierley Hill
I strongly object to the Conclusions in the draft plan that do not protect our greenbelt and green spaces in Dudley borough, by assessing sites there as suitable for residential or industrial purpose.
Don’t be the problem, be the positive change. Climate change is happening and by destroying a large mass of land will not only affect wildlife (which in itself adds to the affect of climate change) but people’s mental health too.

Object

Representation ID: 19330

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hamblett

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to ANY building on green belt in the Dudley Borough
area.
In the Council Scrutiny meeting on 6.10.21 your officer admitted that NO bio diversity
checks have been made or wildlife impact assessment.
Our roads are already gridlocked, schools over subscribed, GP's over subscribed, huge waiting lists at
hospitals.
People need green spaces for mental health and physical fitness. The impact on the environment and
climate by building over remaining green land has been underestimated. An audit of preserved or
valuable trees has not been carried out.
The quality of life for existing residents will be greatly diminished, with more traffic, parking issues,
nowhere to walk dogs or just take a walk in a green environment.
The plan mentions re-wilding - but where will that be as all available space is gradually eroded and
built on. Why not just leave the existing habitat alone.
I do not believe that 'exceptional circumstances' apply in any of the areas listed. I do not believe that
all brownfield sites have been identified. I do not believe that all empty Council houses that could be
refurbished have been. It is clear that if there is a shortage of land that there should be a preference
or flats or maisonettes thereby creating more housing from the same brownfield plot.
A question was also raised in the Scrutiny meeting regarding the data upon which the housing
requirement has been calculated. Dudley Council should ask for this to be reviewed particularly post
Brexit and post pandemic.
Listed as follows please register my objection
DUH208 Holbeache
DUH211 Summerhill Triangle
DUH216 Bryce Road
DUH222 Severn Drive
DUH213 Lapwood Avenue
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
DUH 206 Worcester Lane
DUH 207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH 209 Worcester Lane South
DUH 217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH 210 Viewfield Crescent
DUH 041 Two Gates Lane Cradley
DUH 212 Lewis Road Lye
DUH 214 Seymour Road Wollescote
DUH 215 Bent Street Brierley Hill
I strongly object to the Conclusions in the draft plan that do not protect our greenbelt and green
spaces in Dudley borough, by assessing sites there as suitable for residential or industrial purpose.

Object

Representation ID: 19346

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Stourbridge Running Club

Number of people: 100

3. Site DUH211 Lodge Lane/ Swindon Road
Running route from Ridgehill Woods out to Himley and Baggeridge Country Park. Used on our longer runs at weekends and in the spring, summer and autumn. Please reject.

Object

Representation ID: 19409

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Zak Hopson

Objection to Black Country Plan

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to ANY building on green belt in the Dudley Borough area.
In the Council Scrutiny meeting on 6.10.21 your officer [Redacted-sensitive information] admitted that NO bio diversity checks have been made or wildlife impact assessment.

Our roads are already gridlocked, schools over subscribed, GP's over subscribed, huge waiting lists at hospitals.

People need green spaces for mental health and physical fitness. The impact on the environment and climate by building over remaining green land has been underestimated. An audit of preserved or valuable trees has not been carried out.

The quality of life for existing residents will be greatly diminished, with more traffic, parking issues, nowhere to walk dogs or just take a walk in a green environment.
The plan mentions re-wilding - but where will that be as all available space is gradually eroded and built on. Why not just leave the existing habitat alone.

I do not believe that 'exceptional circumstances' apply in any of the areas listed. I do not believe that all brownfield sites have been identified. I do not believe that all empty Council houses that could be refurbished have been. It is clear that if there is a shortage of land that there should be a preference or flats or maisonettes thereby creating more housing from the same brownfield plot.

A question was also raised in the Scrutiny meeting regarding the data upon which the housing requirement has been calculated. Dudley Council should ask for this to be reviewed particularly post Brexit and post pandemic.

Listed as follows please register my objection

DUH211 Summerhill Triangle

I strongly object to the Conclusions in the draft plan that do not protect our greenbelt and green spaces in Dudley borough, by assessing sites there as suitable for residential or industrial purpose.

Object

Representation ID: 19709

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Thomas

DUH208 p371 Holbeache
DUH211 pp371 Triangle

Reason for objection as follows

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

Object

Representation ID: 19712

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr George Fellows

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

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

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

Object

Representation ID: 19713

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr George Kenneth Houghton

"The Triangle" BCP Site Ref DUH 211 page 371 DSA 2 Pages 424-428
The development will close a "right of way" from the A449 allowing children to exit onto Lodge Lane and allows children a safer place to cross the road to Summer Hill school away from the A449 / Lodge Lane junction which is a very busy junction and children do not always see the dangers at this junction. A449/Lodge lane.
There are not enough school places at Summer hill and Kingswinford schools places - Sept 2021 - Building extra classrooms would take precious space from the playing fields.

There are not enough doctors surgeries, emergency systems are struggling at present, Moss Grove surgery are sending patients to Kinver Surgeries. The turnaround for ambulances for patients is 1 hour and for emergency treatment pre lock down is 4 hours, adding an extra 1279 people to the area plus Holbeache development would make waiting times even longer. The A449 is a busy Road in lockdown the road was experiencing as of 28/8/21 from (16.30-18.00hrs) 4982 cars and 100 lorries. The road through K/Ford and down through Moss Grove and up towards Stourbridge is grid locked at the above times and at others long tail backs. Another 553 at the Triangle and 330 at Holbeache plus Stalling Lane and Ketley Quarry developments will only add to the volume of traffic in K/Ford and compound the problem. Extra traffic brings more pollution and CO2 more noise from the site and lorries in and out of the site creating problems for neighbours and residents over a long period of time. Brownfield sites should be built on first before Green Belt land. The houses to be built are expensive homes and not help younger people on the property ladder. The Green Belt should be a buffer to stop urban sprawl. Wild life will suffer and the green belt helps biodiversity and gives residents in K/ford metal well being and pride in our area. The soil in the Triangle is grade 3 and should be left for farming and not building houses on. Build houses on Brownfield sites first and help our town to thrive again. " Hanson" states that this area as having the worst commuting score from home to work. There is a lot of opposition from the local community that these houses no not meet affordable housing targets. Some of the hedges and trees with preservation orders on them. Ridge Hill would will be hugely impacted and with disrupted wild life corridors and surrounding habitats which would be irreversible. It is no doubt that once permission is given then the Triangle will be lost forever and a part of countryside around Kingswinford would be lost.

Object

Representation ID: 19874

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Keeley Mundy

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

Object

Representation ID: 19881

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Bennett

The Triangle SA-0025-DUD
The Past [underlined] Lived in "village" of Kingswinford 64 years excellent balance infrastructure, roads, traffic, medical, schools and housing, within "a pleasant environment"
The Present [underlined] This small village has been swamped [underlined] with housing developments over the past years. Consequences:-
1) With no major improvements with roads
a) bottlenecks / slow moving traffic
b) environment / air pollution damage
c) roads completely unsuitable to cope with growth of vehicles of all types
d) the "green" areas have been swallowed up
Measures taken to minimise above
None (sadly needless) by local / national authorities terrible condemnation with no real respect for residents
Dudley [underlined] - it has been properly provided with by-pass
Stourbridge [underlined] - it has been properly proved with ring road
Kingswinford [underlined] - it has been suffering the tragic consequences no provision of help [underlined from no]
Future [underlined] - to horrible to contemplate if this "so called plan" ever gets off ground
Request [underlined] - ask secretary of state for housing to please arrange for evidence to be collected to see if they confirm my comments as having merit
Comments commented on
Black Country Assessment Report Dudley Appendix A page 79 The Triangle SA-0025-DUD
Name Graham Bennett

Object

Representation ID: 20021

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Jones

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

Object

Representation ID: 20031

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Mills

The Triangle BCP REF DUH 211 page 371
Holbeach BCP REF DUH 208 page 371
I would like to object to the above proposed development. This will impact the already high level of traffic congestion around the immediate vicinity, and further afield.
I travel regularly from Wombourne to Stourbridge and this will hugely affect the length of my journey.
Areas of Green Belt land are starting to disappear affecting natural habitat and raised levels of pollution will follow.

It would make far more sense to use areas currently requiring regenerating rather than eating into prime Green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 20033

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Moore

Holbeache BCP Site DUH 208 page 371
Triangle BCP Site DUH 211 page 371
I object to the proposed housing developments on Holbeache and the Triangle in Wall Heath for many reasons.
I, like many others chose to live in Wall Heath because it was a village on the edge of the greenbelt because of all of the benefits living in a small village brings: close community, close to pleasant walks, quiet, low crime rate, close to local wildlife, etc. For this, we have paid a premium, as the average price of a house in Wall Heath is £291,624, compared with £201,232 in neighbouring Wordsley and £148,161 in Pensnett. In changing the nature of where we live irreversibly, you will make the sacrifices that we have chosed to make futile. You will change everything we moved here for!
Another reason that we moved here was for our children to go to good schools. We have a child in a local primary school which is oversubscribed in some year groups; and a child in a local secondary school, which is also oversubscribed. Their education will undoubtedly suffer. I teach in one of these schools, where we have 47 children in a year group which should be 45. Extra-curricular trips are more and more difficult to book and less financially viable when you need 5+ adults to go on the trip. We chose these schools because they are good, community -based schools. again, a greater population in the area will change this. If more houses are needed, they should be built on brownfield sites and where towns are already established with greater services and infrastructure.
Another reason for not building on our greenbelt land is the potential damage to our local wildlife. We have many protected species such as bats, not to mention many others, which will have their habitats destroyed and ecosystems will be ruined. These areas where we, as a family, and many others walk regularly, have been essential for our mental health, particularly in our recent lockdowns. Preserve these for us and others who live in the Black Country, rather than build more houses.
Many houses have already been built nearby. We do not need more expensive houses to be built. By proposing these builds, you are showing a complete lack of understanding about Wall Heath and its residents. You will force those who can afford it to move further into more rural areas to replace what you have taken, thus driving demand for more housing into more greenbelt land. Where does it stop?
In conclusion, I fiercely object to the building of houses on Holbeache and the Triangle in Wall Heath.

Object

Representation ID: 20035

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Wilfred Foley

Objections:
1. Local road infrastructure already congested. During rush hours, Lodge Lane, cars nose to tail without additional vehicles from proposed buildings.
2. Already busy waiting times to get Drs appointment and ambulances difficulty reaching patients.
3. Why use our lovely green belt when brownfield sites available, it will be lost forever.
4. Schools already bursting at the seams.
5. many residents purchased properties because of close proximity to greenbelt.
6. A449 already very busy, noisy and frequent accidents occur.
7. Building on this land will change this lovely area forever, and certainly not for the better. Just consider local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 20036

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Reeve

South of Holbeache Lane, Triangle Swindon Road
Dudley Appendix A pages 75-78 Holbeache SA-0017-DUD
I appose the proposal to build on the above areas and any green belt area locally. Due to the following:-
The road network cannot cope with current traffic damage irepariable, to the views, country walks and wildlife.
There are enough brownfield sites locally to build on
Russalls Hall hospital cannot cope
Doctors surgeries also,
schools are near full capacity.
We do not have sufficient public transport in the area, no local railway stations, (on that note we don't want any built.
I cannot see even one positive , by building in these areas.