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

Object

Representation ID: 45438

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Ridney

Draft Black Country Plan - Holbeache DUH208, The Triangle DUH 211

The new buildings will impact quire heavily on the infrastructure. Roads are already congested, schools are full, GP practices are full. Hospitals always full to capacity. Are there any plans to build new schools? Provide more services? If not how will the existing services cope?
Also the impact it will have on wildlife, crops, air pollution.
Perhaps investment should go in to improving existing buildings, despite being constantly told we don't have enough housing there are still areas with run down and derelict buildings, perhaps making good these properties would help, rather than taking up open spaces which is cheaper to develop.

Object

Representation ID: 45439

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Smith

Triangle DUH 208
Holbeache DUH 211 Page 371

I strongly object to the use of land designated as green belt for housing. Failure to recover and reuse brownfield sites around the black country is no excuse to remove the green spaces during a time of climate crisis.
Dudley's Council Plan for Future Council 2030 states as one of its core principles "creating a cleaner greener place". The offering up of these spaces for prospective development makes a mockery of the Future Council document.
I believe that the Government estimate of the number of houses required to meet need is grossly exaggerated and the failure to include areas currently either under development or with already agreed planning permission in the plan means the scale of development already taking place in the area has been ignored.
Traffic in the area is already at a standstill during rush hour and increasing the population in the area will only add to congestion & pollution at a time when we should be looking to reduce carbon emissions.

Object

Representation ID: 45442

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Jasper

Holbeache DUH 208
The Triangle DUH 211

Object

Representation ID: 45444

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Fletcher

Local Authority Area: Dudley MBC
Location: Holbeache and the Triangle
Holbeache - Ref DUH 208 - 330 houses SA-0017-DUD
Triangle - Ref DUH 211 - 533 Houses SA-0025-DUD

Objection - Building on greenbelt land
Reasons:-
1) Local infrastructure struggling now to cope with traffic levels through Wall Heath and Kingswinford villages. Regular queues form on A449 through Wall Heath and Wolverhampton Road via Kingswinford.
2) Doctors surgeries struggle to accommodate existing patient levels
3) Schools unable to accommodate influx of more children to the area. Local schools already near capacity.
4) Russells Hall Hospitals has long waiting times which will be made worse with larger population
5) Area has already been impacted by increased housing eg. Himley View
6) Government stated all brown sites to be used before green belt considered.
7) Both sites are close to major road routes. Eg. A449 and Wolverhampton Rd. These already buy roads will be made even worse.

Object

Representation ID: 45454

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shelia Tromans

Holbeach DUH 208
The Triangle DUH 211

Traffic around Kingswinford are at a standstill most days
adding more houses will just make it worse.
Drs, school are already under pressure, building more houses will make them even worse

Object

Representation ID: 45457

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Cox

The Triangle DUH 211
Holbeache DUH 208

We need our green spaces

Object

Representation ID: 45460

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Daniel

We do need new houses, but not the kind of houses that will be built under this plan. They will not be suitable for first time buyers and there is no provision for social housing.
The scale of some of the proposed housing developments (DUH211 and DUH208) will completely change the nature and character of the area and the increase in population which will result will overwhelm already overstretched services and facilities (Doctors surgeries, schools, hospitals, roads (which are already congested).
the residents of Dudley are as entitled to the benefits of green spaces as people who live in more rural places. in some cases, for example the proposal to build 52 houses on green space behind Standhills Road (DUH221) the last green space within walking distance will be taken away. It is currently used by many residents.
All the sites proposed for development are havens for wildlife and biodiversity. Even the smaller spaces have mature trees (many of which have preservation orders) which are vital for helping to mitigate climate change and reduce the effects of pollution. It is indefensible to destroy beautiful green spaces at a time of crisis for the climate and for biodiversity.

Object

Representation ID: 45461

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Reece

DUH 208 P371 Holbeache:
- Traffic congestion likely with new access/junction required onto A449. Local road network is ancient. Many roads -eg A449 & A491 already cannot cope with existing levels of traffic.
Both developments (Holbeache & Triangle) will produce an additional 770 houses in the Wall Heath area. An average of 2vehicles per household would mean an extra 1,540 vehicles introduced to a local road network that is already unable to cope with existing traffic levels.
Pedestrian safety will be worsened. This would lead to a need for controlled crossing points, further disrupting traffic flow. Likelihood of fatal RTS's will increase.
- Risk of local flooding from additional tarmac/paved run off from new estate. The area outside the field entrance and outside Holbeache House on A449 are already prone to flooding.
- Lack of supporting infrastructure for services -eg doctors, dentists (both already over subscribed) and school places. Additional car journeys to ferry children to school is likely.
- The development will bring an increase in air pollution from additional vehicles, light and noise pollution.
- The development will cause further urbanisation of the area with encroachment onto an historically significant area. Holbeache House will be adjacent to the new development.
- The development will cause further loss of green space and habitat for wildlife. These is a risk of the loss of the iconic daffodil frontage to A449. Further reducing biodiversity.
Note: Many of the objections laid out above also relate to DUH 211 P371 Triangle

Object

Representation ID: 45462

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Round

Holbeache DUH 208
The Triangle DUH 211

I object to the proposed developments, based on the following concerns:-
1) The roads around the proposed Triangle development already cause major tailbacks, especially around rush hour times of the day. Lodge Lane in particular queues from the traffic lights towards the end of Lodge Lane and adding additional traffic will cause gridlock.
2) The drainage, in particular Lodge Lane is already poor and cannot cope with heavy rain/storms, which is only going to get worse with 'Global Warming' adding more houses could cause severe flooding.
3) The traffic lights on Lodge Lane already cause issues and the number of accidents has been high, and is just waiting for more to happen.
4) Building on these proposed 'Green Belts', will minimise the space available for everyone to enjoy green spaces. The so mentioned fields are used heavily by all members of the community, for walks, dog walking which was even higher through the 'Covid Lockdowns!
5) The local infrastructure cannot take anymore housing, schools are already full, lack of doctors places and the extra burden on the local hospital which already struggle to cope.

Object

Representation ID: 45463

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Westwood

The Triangle BCP Ref DUH211 Page 371
Holbeache BCP Ref DUH 208 Page 371

The area simply cant cope with additional housing, traffic and population increase without major infrastructure changes which will lead to even more countryside being lost. The area in question is well used by local residents for much needed recreational time.
During Covid lock downs the area was used by many local residents for much needed walks and remains required in our very much changed way of life.

I oppose these plans and any plans that threaten the mental and physical welfare of local residents and the human population in general.

Object

Representation ID: 45465

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stanley Pickett

SA - 0050 - DUD / BCP Ref DUH 216 - Bruce Road (Green Space)
SA - 0199 - DUD / BCP Ref DUH 222 - Severn Drive (Green Space)
SA - 0025 - DUD / BCP Ref DUH 211 - Summer Hill Triangle (Green Space)
SA - 0017 - DUD / BCP Ref DUH 208 - Holbeache (Green Space)
SA - 0198 - DUD / BCP Ref DUH 221 - Stanhills (Green Space)
BCP Ref DUH 218 - Guys Lane
BCP Ref DUH 203 - Ketley Quarry (Policy DSAS)

Wildlife will be negatively affected by loss of green belt and spaces. Too many houses will cause problems for emergency services, the traffic congestion would cause vast problems for Russels Hall hospital and local residents. People will lose valuable places to walk and exercise dogs and children have little enough safe places to play already.

Object

Representation ID: 45468

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Stella Hollick

Holbeache Site Ref DUH 208 P371
Triangle - DUH211 P371

The proposed development The Black Country Plan will have the following impact locally - it will increase the population effect local services NHS Dr's hospitals etc. Effect local roads Effect local schools Put a strain on all local amenities Loss of green belt and wildlife
There is no local rail services and network limited bus service it will force more commuters to use the A449 the A491 and use local roads including Enville Rd to travel to work the whole plan is unsustainable

Object

Representation ID: 45469

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Hodgkinson

The Triangle - DUH211 P371
Holbeache - DUH 208 P371

1) The plan will further burden doctors, dentists and schools who are already overstretched.
2) I am aware of one couple who moved here into this street and have had to remain with their GP in their previous are as the GP's locally will not take new patients how will they cope with all the extra households
3) The extra traffic will cause further congestion on the roads around Wall Heath and Kingswinford
4) We chose to live near to the greenbelt to avoid heavy pollution which will increase substantially
5) Wildlife will be destroyed
6) Village community life will be lost

Object

Representation ID: 45470

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Haden

Holbeache DUH 208
Triangle DUH 211

Effect on roads
They are heavily congested all day. Tailbacks at peak times on A491 and A449 routes

Effect on air quality
Limited buses in the area. Volume of traffic at peak times

Effect on schools
Insufficient school places across the area
Difficulties with car parking for local schools

Effect on NHS
Not enough doctors and dentists in the local area

Effect on wildlife and the environment
I appreciate the green belt for dogs walking

Object

Representation ID: 45471

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hill

The Triangle - DUH211 P371

We just don't want any more houses in the area the traffic would be bad schools wont be big enough it would spoil our luvly area we wouldn't have those luvly poppy's that we see coming from Kiddiminster

Object

Representation ID: 45472

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Lee

I object to the developments on the following reasons;
- Traffic is already heavy on the roads around Wordsley, Kingswinford and Wall Heath - access to these sites will only make the situation worse i.e. 900 houses would mean upto 3600 more cars.
Access to and from the A449 would become impossible
- There is nowhere for a developer to build enough senior and junior schools for potentially 1800 more students as a new build would be required.
- Ignoring the above highways issues would only allow south staffs to do the same which would then double the above issues

Object

Representation ID: 45473

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Sophia Allen

The Triangle DUH 211
Holbeache DUH 208

I don't want you to build on our green belt because I like going on walks there and I like all the nature and what's growing. If we loose the triangle where will the animals go? What will happen to our plants? If we have more homes that means we will have more cars and it will be busier and there will be more pollution. Save our green belt !!!

*Image in the submission - see attached PDF*

Object

Representation ID: 45835

Received: 15/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Webley

Objection

Loss of green belt - it is better to use brownfiled sites. This is also useful grade 3 agricultural land and building on it should be prevented. Also the Visual Amenity of the area and its natural character would be adversly effected. If this goes ahead and proposed A449 Road reforms proceed this will set a dramtic precident for redrawing of greenbelt boundaries.
Quality of life - there will permanent loss of countryside, higher noise levels adversly affecting already pressured wildlife and recidencies. There will also be an increase in trafiic pollution and genral impact from comstruction noise and traffic.
Impact of traffic and transport - increased consequences to raod saftey due to increased traffic. Road congestion is already too high. There is an acute lack of public transport already and lack of cycle lanes. We do not want anymore roads including the Western Strategic Orbital Route. We also have poor acces to rail, as it is any planned development will make this much worse. Therte are at least two other sites at Stallings Lane and Ketly Quarry (within two miles) which have no infrastructure improvements and make current infratsture even more untenable as it is.
Pressure on local facilities- there are not enough Ors surgeries, schools, shops, emergency services to serve the Dudley area as it is. The proposal to build 533 new houses would put overwhelming pressure on currently stretched services. The road infrastructure is already at maximum capacity. There is little local employment opportunities, and high value housing will not solve the problem of affordable housing for current residents of the area that already needs investment in a sustainable infrastructre for health and education services.
Destruction of the local enviroment - Loss of ancient trees and hedgerows that are the basis for natural habitats and bioderveristy that is already under pressure. This will contribute to climate change. The proposal will cause the loss of wildlife and wildlife corridors linking green spaces. The proposal will also increase the risk of flooding and decrease the ability of the natural enviroment to act as natural drainage in the area. It would lead to the demise of important local footpaths in the area. The impact to wildlife would be irreversable and unforgivable. Prestwood is also a locally designated Historic Landscape Area containing a collection of designated ancient monuments. There is also huge opposition within the local community who will vote accordingly in future ellections. Moreover it does not meet the needs of the community for affordable housing.
The proposal breaches The National Planning Policy Framework - that sites of biodiversity should be protected (para 170). Land with the least envoremental amenity should be considered and habitat networks preserved (para 171 ). Biodiversity should be protected and enhanced (para 17 4 ).
Inappropriate development is defined as harmful to greenbelt (para 174) less

Object

Representation ID: 45839

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ronald Griffin

Triangle Site [Lodge Road, K'ford]
Dudley MBC - Black Country Plan
Objections: Building on a greenfield site instead of developing derelict areas, factories, waste land, redundant premises etc. When green belt is lost it never comes back.
Increase in vehicles, affecting air quality, parking, traffic congestion, accidents.
Pressure on schools, doctors, surgeries, dentists and hospitals.

Object

Representation ID: 45841

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Baker

I object to the building of houses on green belt land.
The Kingswinford Triangle 533 homes.
Holbeache Lane 330 homes.
These will be high value homes £350,000 upwards. So if each house has 2 cars that will mean another 1726 extra cars locally on the roads which i may add are in a terrible state.
The roads around surrounding area are already congested without adding more traffic
There will be extra pressure on G.P surgeries which may I add you can't get a appointment now for love or money. Hospitals (Russells Hall) are already over stretched.
Where are all the children going to go to school are children now are unable to get into their local school.
There is brown sites around without building on the green belt. By using green belt you will be harming local environment also wild life.

Object

Representation ID: 45853

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Bennett

The TRIANGLE
BCP Site Ref DUH 211 Page 371
DSA 2 pages 424 - 428

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to voice my objections to the above draft development proposals. Having lived in Wall Heath for over 60 years I feel any further building in the Green Belt is unacceptable.
This site is a buffer green belt to the South of the Dudley Metropolitan Borough and was designated to be a Green Belt site to stop the urban sprawl. I've have always understood that the aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. This would or should assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, I do not feel that Dudley has exhausted it recycling of Brownfield sites. The land if built on would not be permanently open. This large development I feel it would have a detrimental affect upon the wildlife in this part of the borough damaging fauna and flora, with the loss of well-established hedgerows and trees resulting in a decrease in biodiversity. The land in this Triangle has been farmed for all the years that I can remember and seems to be good grade soil. This site has been a godsend during the recent Lockdowns due to the Covid 19 enabling people to exercise by either walking of cycling around these sites without breaking any social distancing requirements, I feel this has had a positive impact upon people's mental health during this difficult time, especially when the poppies are in full bloom. Though environmental issues are important, especially with the Climate Change Talks on the horizon other issues of concern are: -
The adverse impact this large housing development will have on our local hospital facility at Russell's Hall Hospital and the medical surgery I attend at Moss Grove Kingswinford. Russell's Hall is a good hospital, and its staff are excellent but like all NHS sites, even before the pandemic, are overstretched and waiting times are excessive. The medical surgery at Moss Grove is also at capacity and on occasion I have been advised to go to the Kinver surgery to get treatment because Kingswinford has reached its capacity, an influx of a large housing development cannot help this situation.
Now turning my attention to the local roads in Wall Heath, they are already congested not only during rush hours in the morning and evening, but during weekend and bank holidays, again an inevitable increase in traffic volume from this large housing development will compound the problem. It not only the circulation and free flowing of traffic that will be impeded but the inevitable upsurge in pollution and reduction of air quality as well more vehicle noise throughout the day. The vehicular access and egress to this site I feel will also have a negative impact on the flow of traffic throughout Wall Heath and Kingswinford where "rabbit runs" through local estates are now commonplace, especially through the Holbeach estate.

I note that the traffic through High Street in Wall Heath ( the A449) was disrupted during the Lockdown when the Severn Trent took the opportunity to work on the water/sewage facilities that ran from the High Street up to the junction of the Wolverhampton Road and Lodge Lane, which borders the proposed Triangle development, this I understand was carried out to improve the overstretched facilities as the stand rather than for any future plans for development in this area. A housing development of this size would surely require further improvements to be carried out to cope with a volume increase.
Though I no longer have children of a school age this large housing development again will put a strain on our local school system. Having been a governor at Maidensbridge School I appreciate how difficult it is to cater school children places. However, looking at recent OFSTED figure the capacity for school spaces versus the actual numbers is very close at the present time leaving only a small safety margin. I feel that this development would only make the situation worse.
I understand people need housing but I hope my points illustrate that this site will have too many adverse effects upon the local environment and local facilities

Object

Representation ID: 45856

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Michaela Parry

The Triangle BCP Site Ref DUH211 page 371, DSA pages 424-428
HOLBEACH BCP Site Ref DUH 208 page 371, DSA 1 pages 419-423

- Effect on NHS - not enough doctors/Dentists to local area/ Patients have to travel to Kinver at present
patients - on waiting lists now at Russell's Hall for operations, procedures, physio and A&E waits - long patients have to go to walk in centre as GP busy.
Mental Health increased - lock down
- Effect on Roads - A449 busy, noisy road 28/8/21. 16.30-18.00 5000+ vehicles - school holidays.
Local road infrastructure already congested - Air quality - higher C02 emissions. Drivers seen (use Dudley Town) Centre cutting through Maidensbridge - 28/8/21
2nd access road in to A449 - slow traffic forcing drivers to use local village roads (lapwood/Standhills too many in Dudley)

- Effect on local schools - only secondary with places Wordsley, other year groups full. Primary - none in Wall Heath, only Kingswinford. Parents difficulty with places now.
School sizes would increase.
169 new houses Keepmoat Stallings Lane
*no information through door*
Lapwood/Standhills - houses - new & Ketley Quarry.
- Strain on local amenities - lack of parks
- Loss Green belt and impact on local wildlife & environment.
Local people appreciate greenbelt especially since lockdown - impact on mental health if taken away.
The triangle Grade 3 useful agricultural land. Reduce the need to import food in to Birmingham and contribute to easing resource reliance. Govt committed 25 yr plan to protect land of this quality and use soil in sustainable way.
It is also SLINC - sites of local importance for nature conservation, sighting of owls, buzzards, pair red kites, bats & , bees, butterflies and biodiversity thank linked.
*The triangle DUH 211 Page 371 & Wildlife Corridors

Object

Representation ID: 45861

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Summercourt Square Residents Association

Black Country Plan - Consultation

Set out below are the Association ' s comments on the above plan. These comments relate to the plan as a whole and to the particular sections relating to the Triangle- Lodge Lane/Swindon Road/A449
and Holbeache in Kingswinford.

1 Infrastructure - roads

The plan grossly understates the traffic problems already suffered in this part of the borough

"Parts of the Black Country's existing highway infrastructure,and the motorway network, suffer from
congestion." - page 57

This is an absurd undefined statement that in no way reflects the painful congestion suffered by residents. Anyone who travels around the Black Country knows how ridiculous this statement is.

In particular the A491between Kingswinford and Stourbridge - with onward access to the rail network and the motorway network is a notorious bottle neck. Very little improvement has been attempted on this route over recent years as traffic volumes have escalated. With buses the only public transport option all users suffer extended journey times during busy periods.
The A449, which parallels this route, also suffers from excessive traffic volumesat peak times.

The queue to the Stewpony lights now backs up to the Forester's Arms on the Stourbridge boundary. T-junction at the Stewpony suffers from severe flooding and has done for several years, making a bad situation worse.
The junction of the A449 and the 84176 at Himley can have long tailbacks for those wishing to turn onto the A449 in the direction of Kingswinford. South Staffs have dismissed a cheap solution by declining to consider installing a simple turning right phase. This situation is in the process of worsening due to additional house building in Wombourne.

The junction of Swindon Road/Cot lane/ Summerhill/ Lodge Lane has developed into a troubled location due to increased traffic volumes and erratic timings of the traffic lights. Work has been carried out to improve traffic flows but this has not been successful in resolving this growing problem. Development on the Triangle will make this problem much worse. This is a regular source of
complaint to Dudley Council from ourselves.

The threat of additional housebuilding alongside the A449 in South Staffordshire has already aroused major concerns in the area. The detail of such plans has been delayed by Covid and the fact that the South Staffordshire plan is not yet published. Suggestions of some 800 houses have been mooted adjacent to the possible development in the Lodge lane/Swindon Road triangle within Dudley. Such additional development is looked upon with alarm.

2 Infrastructure - Other

If some 800 houses are to be built in Kingswinford obviously the infrastructure to support this population increases is necessary. We believe that if, despite local objections, these house are built the provision of increased infrastructure- Schools/ Doctors and additional car parking in Kingswinford centre etc should only be permitted if this infrastructure in put in place. We deem it
totally unacceptable to simply assume that provision will bemade at some future date.

2 Brown Fields First

It is unclear what this means. Does it mean that no green field development will be permitted until ALL brown field sites have been used up. If not how will development on Green Belt sites be constrained whilst Brown Field sites are still not fully developed?

3 Loss of Green belt

We strongly oppose the release of Green Belt sites such as the Triangle (Lodge Lane/Swindon Road) this is prime agricultural land and provides a good buffer between the A449 and existing housing development. The triangle is used extensively by local walkers and is much valued. We are puzzled as to why the Triangle has recently become a Slinc - which would presumably have to be removed if the land is released for development. This site also provides an essential buffer between urban development and anything that may happen in South Staffs.

4 Public Transport and Global Warming

Given the limitations imposed by the lack of an alternative to buses on congested roads being available in the Kingswinford area we believe that further housing development within the Black Country should be focused around the forthcoming Metro development, rather than in an area that does not benefit from such links.

In conclusion we are of the view that the plan, in its current form, is totally unacceptable, and must be rejected.

Object

Representation ID: 45909

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Pamela Haden

Holbeache DUH 208
Triangle DUH 211

MY PARTICULAR CONCERN IS THE LOSS OF GREEN BELT SO TO COMBINE
DEVELOPMENTS WITH GOOD CONSERVATION I SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:-
1. GIVE INCENTIVES TO DEVELOPERS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO USE BROWN SITES
2. ENSURE THAT DEVELOPERS CONSULT WITH CONSERVATIONISTS AND WILDLIFE
EXPERTS AND COMPLY WITH THEIR SUGGESTIONS
3. INSIST THAT AN AREA OF EACH SITE IS GIVEN OVER TO WILDLIFE AND SUITABLE
HABITATS
4. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO WORK AROUND EXISTING TREES
5. EVERY SITE COULD AND SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS GOOD CONSERVATION AS
PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT BY PROVIDING:-
GRASSED AREAS TO AID DRAINAGE
WILDFLOWER AREAS TO PROVIDE HABITATS FOR INSECTS
BIRD BOXES; BAT BOXES; INSECT/BEE HOTELS
AREAS OF HABITAT THAT PROVIDE EASY ACCESS FOR HEDEHOGS, FOXES,

6. WHEN ADDING LANDSCAPING TO A SITE MAKE IT WILDLIFE FRIENDLY - E.G. USE NATIVE
HEDGES, USE TREES AND SHRUBS THAT PROVIDE FOOD FOR WILDLIFE
I FEEL THAT IF WE HAVE TO ENCROUCH ON GREEN BELT IT COULD AT LEAST BE DONE
SUSTAINABLY AND SYMPATHETICALLY - WE ALL HAVE A DUTY OF CARE FOR OUR
ENVIRONMENT AND A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN IT'S NATURAL BALANCE.
THANK YOU.

Object

Representation ID: 45926

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Stafford

I object to the following developments: Land south of Holbeache Lane/Wolverhampton Road Kingswinford DUH 208
Land at Swindon Road Wall Heath ‘The Triangle’ DUH 211
I feel the plan should not include any greenbelt land as there is only 14% in the borough. Once built on it is lost forever.
I believe there is a disproportionate amount proposed for Kingswinford, that would put additional strain and pressure on local services and exacerbate traffic issue in the area.
There has already been numerous housing sites developed in the Kingswinford area, notably Ibstock brick, Stallings Lane, Wordsley Hospital and Crystal Glass site.
Currently there is further development at The Leys, Brierley Hill Road on the Pen’s Meadow site and planned development at Ketley Farm DUH 203. Both these sites represent a large number of houses being added to the area. Both these sites have made use of the brownfield sites in the area and these developments should be encouraged to preserve Greenbelt land.
I also think it is unreasonable for Dudley borough to be expected to hit the high housing levels as the borough is already largely built on.

Object

Representation ID: 45937

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Nicola Brettle

There is a huge amount of disused brownfield development sites available in the Black Country, I see no reason why greenfield should be developed at this point.

These greenfield sites are just the developers pressing for the biggest possibel returns, the council should target developers on using many of teh disused sites to improve the characteristics of the area rather than build on greenfield which only worsens the lives of residents. I also worry about the strain on our roads, doctors, hospitals, and impact on teh wildlife which is loved in this area.

The plan for Dudley is ill thought out 860 of the 1,100 properties planned are in two developments less than 1 mile apart, both affecting Wall Heath.

I strongly oppose!

Object

Representation ID: 45938

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Le Cras

DUH 208 page 371
DUH 211 page 371

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

Object

Representation ID: 45941

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Hilliard

Direct quote from Andy Street- April 2021 via www.andystreet.org.uk - "We have shown that there are enough derelict brownfield sites to ensure that nothing is built on the Green belt in the Black Country for at least 10 years, and the Government is providing hundreds and millions of pounds to clean up those old sites so they can be used for housing."

Given the above from the Midlands Metro Mayor I am unsure how development on green belt can be justified. There is a huge amount of disused brown field land within striking distance of these proposed developments- therefore I can see no realistic requirement, bar the fact developers can make more profits (which isn't in the public interest) to develop these sites. Promoting the development of brownfield first should be the priority, it retains our valuable green spaces and improves the look and feel of areas currently derelict thereby having a net positive effect.

In addition the local area does not have the facilities to accommodate more than 2,000 new residents (based on average of 2.4 people per household)- 1) there are already no spare capacity in the schools, this before other new developments are completed in the area (development on stallings lane) 2) A449 is hugely busy and noisy, this will add traffic and also impact the flow of traffic 3) NHS services are already stretched, please note wait times and givernment ratings of service. Finally there is also the loss of habitat and a wildlife that will come with thsi development that should be considered unacceptable in a case where it is patently avoidable.

The plan for Dudley is utterly lopsided 860 of the 1,100 properties planned are in two developments less than 1 mile apart, both affecting Wall Heath. Surely the plan should be more spread out rather than focused in on such a small geography- calling this a plan is about a loose a use of the term as I've seen.

Object

Representation ID: 45942

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shelia Abrahams

I object in principal to building on GREEN BELT LAND.
In particular I wish to object to the land known as the Triangle, off Swindon Road and Lodge Lane, Kingswinford bordering the A449, also the land next to Holbeache Lane, Wall Heath, being used for building purposes.
My reasons are as follows:-
- The traffic around this area is already causing great congestion.
- The infrastructure of roads around Kingswinford cannot cope already with the number of cars and commercial vehicles.
- Congestion means pollution of the atmosphere
- People will get sick because of the pollution and have difficulty getting a doctor's appointment because the NHS is already over-stretched.
- The environment and wildlife will be destroyed - no longer will the skylarks be heard over the fields in Springtime and the flocks of over-wintering birds will not be able to shelter in the hedgerows, nor the wild flowers be allowed to grow along the verges.

Object

Representation ID: 45945

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Jan Norton

The Triangle - DUH 211

There are lots of reasons why Dudley should not be building on green spaces or green belt.

Informal green spaces are precious areas in which our children can play, especially if they are not near a park. If we are going to support our children to become healthy adults, it is key that they have opportunities to exercise both in and out of school. These spaces also support adults taking exercise and are positive for everyone’s mental health and wellbeing.

My concern is that once green belt land is developed, it will be followed by more and more erosion of green belt. I am also concerned about the potential erosion of the Borough’s precious other green spaces.

I live on a brownfield site which was developed with a mixture of homes including those for rent, some with affordability schemes, and those for people with disabilities. It works, and there is an expectation of all developments that a mix of homes and tenures are likely to be needed (BCP, p98)

Kingswinford and other areas along the A449 corridor are what some people would describe as semi-rural. The proposal to build on Holbeache and the Triangle will impact on the nature of the area and has been described as “urban creep”.

There is a direct relationship between our health and well-being, the quality of the air we breathe and having access to green spaces. (BPC, 3.74 Strategic priority - Improving the health and wellbeing of residents and promoting social inclusion). Dudley Borough faces health challenges because of low rates of physical activity, high rates of obesity, depression and social isolation. If the proposals in the plan go ahead, this will impact negatively on wellbeing through lack of green space as a social amenity. It will also bring poor air quality (BCP, 4.24, 5.12e, p 72 fig 3) noise and traffic, particularly during any building work.

I hope that the Council is constructively able to use any funding made available by the West Midlands Mayor to regenerate brownfield sites and that this can be factored into the next planning stage.

I recognise that green sites are “appealing to developers” – they are appealing to residents too!

When was it agreed that Holbeache and the Triangle sites were suitable for release from green belt for development? I would like to see the minutes of the meeting, a list of people present and a summary of the discussion. Was there local consultation about this?
Could you explain what is a Core Expansion Zone and what is the difference between Zone 1 and Zone 2.

Has there been an audit of derelict sites which could be compulsorily purchased so that green spaces can be retained?

Can you explain the process by which sites may have come into the Plan then disappeared, may be in the Plan and then taken out or may not have been in the Plan but may come in as new sites?

I understand that the sites of at Holdbeache and the Triangle are useful agricultural land, grade three and above.
How do you define "High Quality" and "High Value" arable land in order to explain the difference?

In relation to a number of sites (Severn Drive / Bryce Road , Triangle, Holbeache) residents have raised questions about the risk of flooding. Once land is cleared, the potential for soil erosion increases.
Has the Borough assessed the risk of flooding or specific drainage needs in relation to all proposed sites?
What plans do the Council have for mitigation?
I have seen no independent environmental impact assessment (which also involves speaking to local people who know the area from their own experience, flooding risk, local wildlife etc)

What is the Borough policy on maintaining ancient trees and woodland?

Retaining trees is vital to the environment, to air quality and for as part of a community’s amenities. They are part of the character of the area. Ancient trees cannot be replaced by saplings.

Wildlife, in particular protected species, wildlife corridors, hedgerows, meadows and fields should not be put under threat. It is essential that Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and ootpaths are preserved. Wildlife Trusts will strongly oppose any development that will damage or destroy sites that are important to wildlife. https://www.bbcwildlife.org.uk/blackcountryplan

Proposals for house-building
Members of the public raise concerns about the types of houses that are planned. Many point to the possibility that there is an under-estimate of quality, affordable homes that people can afford to heat (BCP, 5.12 c – “a key priority for tackling health and wellbeing”; “an increased proportion of being affordable or in the social housing sector”)
I have heard the Black Country Plan described as both a “speculators’ charter” and a “landlords’ charter”.
Do the numbers reflect prioritisation of quality, affordable homes?
Is there an increased proportion in the plan of homes which are affordable or in the social housing sector?
How will a range of homes including affordable to buy, to rent, shared ownership and those specifically built for families with people with disabilities?
What horizon-scanning has been done regarding the changing / likely future population of Dudley and their housing needs?

Infrastructure
The Plan proposes significant developments. Many local people are concerned about pressures on education, health services and smaller, more local roads where there is already congestion.
I’m old enough to remember the concept of an “inverse care law” – the fact that in wealthy areas, articulate residents can put pressure on agencies for better quality or more services. The residents with the most and often most complex health and social needs often have to make do with a poorer quality service, less services or no service at all. Food for thought for the Council and
its partner agencies. Where are the proposals for improved public transport, walking and cycling? (BCP 3.74 Strategic priority – promoting sustainable transport)