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

Object

Representation ID: 12995

Received: 11/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Parker

THE TRIANGLE DUH 211
HOLBEACHE DUH208

I object to greenbelt being used as development for housing. Green belt is good for mental health

Object

Representation ID: 13021

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Betty Probert

SELECTED SITES TO OPPOSE
SA-0050-DUD/BCP REF DUH216- Bryce Road (Green Space)
SA-0199-DUD/BCP REF DUH22- Severn Drive (Green Space)
SA-0025-DUD/BCP REF DUH211-Summerhill Triangle (Green Space)
SA-0017-DUD/ BCP REF DUH208- Holbeache (Green Belt)
SA-0042-DUD/BCP REF DUH213-Lapwood Avenue (Green Space)
SA-0198-DUD/BCP REF DUH221-Standhills (Green Space)
BCP REF DUH218-Guys Lane
BCP REF 203-Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
The roads around these sites are already congested with traffic and pollution
we need green spaces for walking and out wellbeing.
The schools in these area's are already overcrowded.
The waiting times to see a doctor in some areas is already to long so this would get worse putting peoples health at risk.

Object

Representation ID: 13026

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Carey

Holbeache Greenbelt BCP site ref DUH 208 page 371 +DUH211 DSA1 pages 419-423
my objections are as follows: ~
The roads all around the proposed sites are totally inadequate for the traffic these developments will bring. many trees will be lost which is appalling. The island at Swindon Road already floods during heavy rainfall so take away the fields which at least absorb some of the water + all this will cause is more flooding ,wrecking cars and the road surface.
There are two schools within the proposed area, with many students walking adding more traffic volume is likely to cause more dangerous situations and hazards.
These proposals are purely for housing with no extra facilities i.e. Doctors, schools being included.
I live on the A449 and the volume of traffic is already horrendous this will only get worse as will the state of the already pot-holed road

Object

Representation ID: 13036

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beryl Wilkes

THE TRIANGLE -DUH 211 page 371 & DSA 2 pages 424-428

I object to the use of greenbelt land at the Triangle and Holbeache site and attach my full comments.

I have read with concern the draft proposals for future development within the Black Country. I list below my serious concerns and observations about the use of green belt sites in Kingswinford and Wall Heath, known as The Traingle and Holbeache.
There is target of 76,000 new houses that I am told are needed to meet future demand. This figure is calculated on the future population growth projections for the next 10 years. The growth projection figure is inaccurate and therefore needs recalculation. From comments made at a public debate we were informed the target of 76,000 is 10,000 too high thus making use of building new homes on green belt unnecessary.
Since attending a public debate I have noted that Michael Gove MP has been appointed Secretary for housing, communities and local government. He will be tasked with shaping a new strategy to meet the government’s 300,000 a year new housing target. I trust that he will be looking into population growth projections as well as further points I raise below.
Kingswinford’s local services are already under severe strain. Our local doctor and dentist practices are struggling to meet demand for their services, and this has been increased by the pandemic, showing there is little capacity to cope with increased demand, in fact they are only coping by reducing their service offerings. The additional properties proposed will make these services
severely stretched and even more unable to cope for the existing residents. Wall Heath and Kingswinford’s primary and secondary schools also are at or have exceeded, capacity. The size of the proposed development plots will cause the existing school aged population to be disadvantaged, due to ‘distance to school’ rules.
The services and schools are already struggling with recruitment so this additional demand could not be resolved by potential developers just offering to build new or extend existing facilities. These need to be staffed and salaried. Smaller development projects have a chance of being able to integrate into existing services and facilities,
Our local highways are also now at saturation point with volumes of traffic both at peak and off peak times. Even whilst many people are working from home, traffic volumes are still high.
The Holbeache plot near Charterfields Estate only has one potential road exit. This is onto the main A449. This is an extremely busy road as it is the main route down from Wolverhampton. It turns into a 30 mph limit but this is not observed. There is already a no right turn on to Maidensbridge estate due to the layout and speed of the road. The island at the junction of A449 and A491 is regularly congested and the traffic from Kingswinford speeds across the junction. The A449 onwards to Wall
Heath is similarly either congested with queueing traffic, or traffic exceeding the 30 mph limit. A recent traffic survey stated the speed limit was not regularly exceeded, but living on this road I can categorically say the survey is incorrect, and was not a true picture.
The plot known as the Triangle would also contribute to the concerns raised about the Holbeache plot. The Triangle abuts the same main road (A449) and would increase the traffic congestion on the same routes. Residents of these potential developments would most likely have to commute north or east along the congested roads. The junction of A449 and Lodge Lane is already a busy junction with many incidents. The A449 at this point is on the cutover to the national speed limit, and the left
turn onto the A449 is almost blind. This would need serious highway assessment over more than one point in time.
Travelling out of the Kingswinford area is already congested at most times of the day, with queues on Stallings Lane, A449 to Wolverhampton, A491 to Stourbridge and A4101 to Dudley. In fact this traffic is so bad, we travel to Stewpony and up the A458 Stourbridge Road, as that is quicker than travelling the direct route along the A491. The A491 from Kingswinford to Stourbridge has something like 14 sets of traffic lights to attempt to manage the flow of traffic joining the road.
All this traffic congestion is causing increased air pollution for residents who live near to these roads.
I give you one example of potential problems to come with road and highways with a new housing development. Ridge Hill Wordsley - “The Leys”. A development of over 100 properties on the old Ridge Hill Hospital site. The development is on an infill site, in practice less of an issue with encroaching on to the green belt. Access is via a road off the Brierley hill road right next to the Wordsley School. However, the planning application P15/1394 makes note to the existing T junction right next to a pedestrianised crossing. Having read the access/highway implication statements made under para 43, 44,45 and 46, I can only say I am disappointed by the transport assessment findings. Without doubt, the Brierley Hill Road is extremely busy and I have serious misgivings that the approved plans for a so-called up graded T junction will be able to manage increased flow of traffic on and off the new housing development. Surely this was at least a case for a traffic light controlled junction or a traffic roundabout? The access road also supports an exit road from the school where parents park for drop off/pick up. The school impact does not appear to have been taken into account, or been ignored by this report. The school are already raising concerns with the authorities over traffic volumes and parking.
I do not agree with the management of what will be increased vehicle movement on this site, and I fear that a similar highways problem would occur on whatever new housing development if approved, as very little consideration is being given to the increased volume on our existing highways. Our highways are extremely busy already and any re-design is almost impossible due to existing infrastructure.
Developing on the Triangle would decrease the amount of soakaway, thus increasing the run off down towards the roundabout.

Support

Representation ID: 13039

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverley McCabe

Document: The Triangle SA-0025-DUD
I am in favour of the above project. I currently live in a 3 double bedroom house which would be ideal for a family. We would like to move to a 2 bed bungalow if this new project plans to include any! I believe more housing generally is needed and the triangle is not currently used at all apart from by dog walkers who have a lovely wooded area at the back of Summer Hill School- which incidentally has enough ground to expand if needed to accommodate the extra influx of pupils

Object

Representation ID: 13043

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Allen

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

1. Loss of green belt
1.1 It is better to use old factory sites (Brownfield) and re-develop inner cities to revive town centres.
1.2 This is useful Agricultural land graded 3 and above.
1.3 The Visual Amenity and Character of the Area would dramatically change.
1.4 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
2.1 Developing green belt means loss of access to countryside, once it's gone, it's gone.
2.2 Higher noise levels impact of adjoining residents and wildlife.
2.3 Increase in light pollution in a much needed area of tranquility.
2.4 Poorer air quality impact of adjoining residents and wider area, particularly from increase in traffic.
2.5 Impact of building from construction noise and traffic.

3. Impact on traffic and transport
3.1 Increasing numbers of vehicles will mean increased pollution, road safety consequences.
3.2 Road traffic congestion in the area is already high. A449 and A491 gridlocked in the morning.
3.3 Lack of public transport or cycle routes. Hansen rate this area as having the worst commuting
score from homes to places of employment.
3.4 Poor rail access. Time taken to reach the rail network to Wolverhampton/Birmingham is much
longer than 30 minutes.
3.5 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.

Additional sheet attached
Section 2: continued…
Black Country Site Assessment Report
Dudley Appendix A, Page 79. The Triangle SA-0025-DUD4.
Pressure on local facilities
4.1 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)
4.2 Local Health Services are already over-subscribed and un-sustainable.
4.3 Primary Schools over 15-minute walk away.
4.4 Road Infrastructure already struggling to cope at present with high traffic levels. Impact on the
wider road network particularly Kingswinford and Wall Heath junctions.
4.5 No suitable or regular bus routes or cycle network.
4.6 No nearby employment sites or network.
4.7 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
5.1 Loss of ancient trees, natural habitats, biodiversity.
5.2 Loss of SLINC (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) hedgerows to create access.
5.3 This will contribute to climate change.
5.4 Loss of wildlife, impact on the fields and meadows.
5.5 Loss of wildlife corridors linking green spaces.
5.6 Flood risk affecting drainage of the area and ground water.
5.7 Contributing to rapid loss of species in Britain in recent decades e.g moths, butterflies, bees have
declined significantly.
5.8 Replanting schemes do not replace ancient habitats and features.
6. Important locally
6.1 Local people love and appreciate this green belt area, and want it for future generations
6.2 Important local green space, valuable trees, hedgerows and open fields. Many trees have Tree
Preservation Orders
6.3 Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) – ‘Ashwood Haye Fields’ - hedgerow
around the perimeter of the site and some within the site
6.4 It contains important local green space, valuable trees, hedgerows and open fields.
6.5 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.
6.6 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.
6.7 It is part of the Mid Severn Sandstone Plateau—important for habitat conservation.
6.8 In addition, it is an important habitat for declining British wildlife.
6.9 Disrupting the wildlife corridors and surrounding habitats for these would be irreversible.
6.10 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, instead will be expensive
housing in the Green Belt.
8. Relevant legislation
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:
8.1 Sites of biodiversity should be protected and any impacts minimised (para 170)
8.2 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)
8.3 Protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity and safeguard local wildlife-rich habitats and
priority habitats and species, and ecological networks (para 174)
8.4 Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be
approved except in very special circumstances. (para 147)

Object

Representation ID: 13046

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Shirley Corbett

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

The highway infrastructure is unsustainable!

Road traffic congestion in this area is horrendous now, the A449 and A491 gets gridlocked at rush hour.

The other new development sites at Stallings Lane and Ketley Quarry impact this area and no improvements have been made either.

The area includes valuable mature trees and hedgerows which are a haven for wildlife. These need protection.

Use Brownfield sites instead which is the right thing to do for all our futures, which enhances our area rather than reduce our precious green belt!

Comment

Representation ID: 13055

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Cheryll Shuttleworth

Number of people: 2

Dudley MBC - Ref:- Draft Black Country Plan - July 2021

Dear Sir/Madam,
My wife and I are writing to express our deep concerns regarding the Kingswinford Neighbourhood Growth proposals which, according to Table 14(page 371 of the Draft Black Country Plan) - Dudley Housing Allocations in the Black Country Plan (BCP Policy HOU1) , would result in an additional 863 houses being built in the area.
Whilst we are concerned about the development/building of 330 homes on land south of Holbeache Lane and Wolverhampton Road in Kingswinford(DUH208), we are particularly concerned about the building of 533 homes on land which forms a triangle within the Swindon Road, Lodge Lane and the busy A449 in Wall Heath/Kingswinford(DUH211).

Our particular concerns are:-
1. 1. The loss of precious Green Belt – up to 10% of Dudley MBC’s total, apparently.
2. 2. The quality of life and health of local residents - additional noise and air pollution.
3. 3. The impact on traffic and transport - 863 houses could mean, as a general calculation, an additional 1200 or so cars for the roads to have to cope with.
4. 4. The pressure on local facilities - 863 houses could mean, as a general calculation, an additional 2000+ residents.
5. 5. The destruction of the local environment.

Whilst more housing is perceived as a necessity for the future of the nation and the area, we feel more research into the location of Brown Field sites should be considered.
From a practical viewpoint, below are some of the issues that we are concerned about and feel the ‘Council(s)’ must, as a top priority, think seriously about the following points:-
1. 1. Have you considered the impact on local facilities and infrastructure?
2. 2. Hospital provision, doctors, social care - how on earth would existing provision cope?
3. 3. Nursery, Primary and Secondary education - how on earth would existing provision cope?
4. 4. Roads - roads in this area are already full to capacity - how on earth would existing provision cope?
5. 5. Electricity, gas, water, sewers - how on earth would existing provision cope?

Current infrastructure would, in our view, prove to be inadequate to take on board the additional burdens which these proposals would generate; the points immediately above ought to be a legal requirement; that is, councils/developers must ensure that adequate infrastructure is in place BEFORE any housing development is allowed to even be considered!! I doubt that it is a legal requirement, unfortunately, and would urge the ‘Council(s)/developers’ to consider them most seriously.
Our view is that we must not allow these beautiful areas of Green Belt land to be ‘released’ for housing development and feel that this would result in the building of the wrong sort of housing in the wrong places!
In conclusion, my wife and I wish to offer our total objection to the Kingswinford Neighbourhood Growth proposals.
Yours faithfully,
Richard and Cheryll Shuttleworth

Object

Representation ID: 13059

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Withers

I wish to object to the proposed green field housing developments outlined in the Black COuntry site assessment report (The Triangle - SA-0025-DUD) as well as all the other green field developments outlined in the report for Wall Heath and Kingswinford.

As it stands, the area and road network is not fit for purpose and the development of the outlined further dwellings will create major issues on the highways of Kingswinford around the triangle and wall heath.

I also object as do not believe our current Council services (NHS, dentists, policy, waste collection and schools) have the spare capacity to absord such growth in potential dwelling numbers and the people who would live in them.

I also object due to mental health reasons. The triangle and all other green spaces within kingswinford and wall heath allow for a great many people to releave stress and other potential mental health issues. without these locals spaces, i fear many more people would need NHS support at a cost to the Council and us as tax payers which is not economically viable when other brown field sites are still available.

Finally, I object for environmental reasons. Our green belt is more important now than ever and the Council with its net zero targets should be doing everything in its power to preserve and protect every blade of grass and tree within the Borough, rather than pouring cement on what we have left.

Object

Representation ID: 13065

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Alexandra Griffiths

[The Triangle - DUH 211
Holbeache - DUH208]

This is Green Belt Land -
When purchasing out home in 2020/2021 our environmental report highlighted nature conservation, and our responsibilities as owners if this development does ahead this will be a direct change in our purchase terms + conditions.
We moved to the area for the semi-rural benefits of green belt living, and to hopefully rectify the damage of pollution was having on our health from living in a overpopulated area.
The road network is not capable of increased traffic this development(s) would create the local health care facilities are already under strain with increased volumes the NHS in this area will collapse.

Object

Representation ID: 13066

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Mark Westwood

In regards to the proposal at The Triangle DUH211 and DUH208

I strongly object to the development of land in between the A449, Lodge Lane and Swindon Rd known as The Triangle. My property backs onto the (location given), there is already a lot of congestion at this junction and the surrounding roads at peak times. With the addition of many hundreds of cars due to the housing development and the lack of meaningful public transport in the area, this junction will become much busier; leading to lots of noise and air pollution in the area and more congestion on the roads. These roads are already running over capacity and have long delays throughout the day. The pollution will particularly affect me and my family as we live so (location given), but will also badly affect the children of Summerhill Secondary School who have to walk past this traffic on a daily basis.

The public transport in the area of Kingswinford and Wallheath is terrible and very limited, there is no mass transport, commuting in the area is predominantly by car and therefore other areas should be considered that have access to better transport links. The traffic on the road in morning rush hour and on the evening can put upwards of 20 minutes onto a journey. With the addition of traffic from this development and the proposed development in Wallheath this will greatly increase the traffic outside my property and the roads leading into the larger towns (Dudley and Stourbridge.)

The development on the land known as the triangle will be the destruction and removal of the last part of green belt in this local council area, which is terrible news for me and my children's future. The green space of the triangle brings mental and physical wellbeing for me and my children and we often walk the fields to relax and unwind.

To summarise the increase in traffic, pollution and the lack of infrastructure, both in transport and local services make this development and others in the area unsuitable. The removal of the final piece of green belt in this local council ward when other brownfield sites with better transport links are available is unacceptable.


Regards Mark Westwood

Object

Representation ID: 13067

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mark Morris

I am objecting to the proposed development for housing in Kingswinford at the Kingswinford Triangle between A449, A4101 and Swindon Road.

Irreversible damage will be done by building across green spaces that are so important to our local community. Not only would this destroy green belt land – but add unacceptable pressure to our local amenities, such as schools, roads and GPs.
Surely there still must be a brownfield first development policy? This would rejuvenate unused land, provide the vital homes we need and leave our previous green belt intact

Object

Representation ID: 13070

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Maria Wiltshire

I am writing to object to the proposed development of Site Ref:DUH 211 p371(The Triangle), [respondents location was disclosed].

'The Triangle' currently provides a much needed off-road space where individuals and families can go to walk in a safe environment away from the busy roads which surround this area. The site is also used for growing local produce and shelter for wildlife. It would be a great loss for our local community, as I and most of my neighbours use it on a regular basis.

If planning is approved, the housing would place a greater strain on local infrastructure which is already stretched to the maximum. Would the development include extra amenities such as schooling, health and transportation facilities? I doubt that this would be the case.

I urge the council to reject the proposal and maybe look to other potential abandoned or derelict sites around the borough.

Regards,

Maria Wiltshire.
Very concerned local resident.

Object

Representation ID: 13073

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Grigg

REFERENCE .. THE TRIANGLE QUH211 PAGE 371
My obiection to to the loss of our Green Belt as part of the Black country Plan
Road Network
The Triangle is bounded by three already busy and dangerous roads and the development of the site with 533 more homes would see as a minimum another 1000 vehicles pouring out onto these routes and they just can not absorb that level of increased traffic.

Lodge Lane is already at capacity especially when the children arrive at and leave school. The road is also a key route out onto the A449 where its junction is always busy and often a cause of traffic delays on the main A449. Lodge Lane has already seen at least 1 fatality in recent years as well as numerous accidents at its junction on Summerhill lights. Any access from the development of the Triangle onto Lodge Lane would not only compound the traffic chaos at peak times but further endanger the lives of the children using Summerhill school.

Access from the development of the Triangle into Swindon Road would again prove very dangerous as this is a very fast road (even though it is a 30mph area) and there are already 3 roads linked onto it servicing hundreds of homes on the Briarscroft Estate. In addition to this Swindon Road is also a key route onto the A449 as well as a main route onto Swindon village and beyond. It is always busy and especially so at peak times.

The A449 is a major route in the area and already carries a significant amount of traffic which invariably causes severe traffic jams in Wall Heath village at key times of the day. Any access from the Triangle development onto this road would be extremely dangerous and have a major impact on traffic flow especially if the plan were to connect the development into the A449/Swindon Road island.

In short the road infrastructure around the Triangle is insufficient to cope with this huge degree of development but this is also the case for the road network further afield from the Triangle through Wall Heath, Kingswinford and Wordsley all of which routes are grinding to a halt with the existing level of traffic.

Schools
This level of development on the Triangle with 533 homes would mean we need more schools. Whilst a developer might be happy to build them at their cost to gain the right to build on the site it is Dudley MBC would would have to fund its running which means more cost to the Council Tax Payers, namely us.
HA1Aitals t Doctors t Qeottm
With a further 1500 plus people on this site alone how would our hospitals cope. Russells Hall is currently experiencing a 1O hour wait in A&E and the GP services and dentists are grinding to a halt not able to cope with current demands.

Food security
Whilst referred to as Green Belt it is actually farmland producing crops to help feed the nation. At this time when food security is such a hot topic the last thing we need is to sacrifice land to housing that can produce food to feed our population.

Jbe Environment
The addition of 533 homes in such a confined area will inevitably impact on wildlife, air
pollution - there is a school of 1000 children just over the road, light pollution, increased risk of localised flooding, increase in noise as well as all of the impacts of construction traffic in the years of development..

Conclusion
We should be protecting our Green Belt, our Farm land at all cost in the face of an uncertain future for our food supplies. Stop flooding areas with new homes when there are already Brown Field sites that can be developed with existing facilities and infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 13076

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Kevin Parker

Black Country Plan – Objections to sites DUH208 (Holbeach) and DUH211 (A449, lodge lane, Swindon Road ‘The Triangle’)

These are both greenfield sites on the edge of Kingswinford/Wall Heath.

The sheer size of these sites will cause a significant increase in traffic through Wall Heath and Kingswinford.
The roads are already congested and at peak times cause significant delays and air pollution. The existing ‘hot spots’ will be exacerbated by the proposed increase in housing:

- Stallings Lane (B4175), heading towards Wall Heath, tailbacks from traffic lights at junction with A491, often beyond Morrisons store
- Wall Heath High Street, often tails back from mini-Islands in the centre of wall heath beyond the island on A449/Swindon road junction
- Junction of A449 and A4101 (Lodge Lane), already and accident hotspot and close the Summerhill School. Extra traffic will increase pollution for pupils walking to and from school and increase likelihood of accidents, injury and potentially death of pupils
- Kingswinford Cross, approaches from all directions (Wolverhampton, Dudley, Kidderminster, Stourbridge) already busy at peak times. Again close to a school (The Kingswinford School) – delays will increase use of rat-runs through Water Street, Cottage Street, Wartell Bank, Penzer Street, Queen Street, Dawley Brook Road … increasing pollution and danger of accidents to residents and pupils.

The road infrastructure of Wall Heath and Kingswinford simply will not cope with the increased housing proposed in these specific locations. This will affect the quality of life and the safety of pupils and residents via increased traffic, use of rat-runs and pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 13078

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Angela Garlick

[The Triangle
Holbeache]

I object on the reasons listed below: -
1) The infrastructure cannot cope now. All these extra properties will make matters worse
2) Doctors you cant get in to the DRs now what will it like if these proposals go ahead
3) Schools all the schools in the area are full where are the extra children going.
4) Pollution its bad enough now and only going to get worse therefore it will be even harder to see a doctor with all these extra chest complaints
5) New buildings should be built on Brown Field Sites not Farmers Fields that we need for growing food.
6) Parking roads blocked round schools already so that will also get worse and will cause more accidents

Object

Representation ID: 13081

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Evans

My husband and I came to the village of Wall Heath 60-odd years ago. With the prospect of all these houses being built around us it will no longer be a village! The roads around the area just about cope now - now will double (at least) the amount of traffic fare?
The greed of property developers seem to be at the back of our troubles. The 'The triangle' at Wall Heath would make a lovely wild flower meadow. Don't let them take our green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 13083

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kay Lowe

The areas I am opposed to directly are DUH208 - Holbeache; (330) DUH211 - The Triangle; (530)DUH203 - Ketley (612).

A further 2 sites will have a direct impact also and these are, DUH223 - Brockmoor Foundry North;(60) DUH001 - Cookley Works (70).

My main objection to this proposal is that on no draft are we shown any plans for the extra amenities that will be needed to be built in order to cater for these 1602 houses currently proposed for the areas detailed above.

Firstly, schools. The houses in the areas listed above currently have 4 secondary schools serving them. Summerhill, Kingswinford, Crestwood & Wordsley school. I was lucky enough to get places for my sons at Summerhill in 2008 & 2012. However, in 2007 a child could only get Crestwood from our address and in 2009 only get Wordsley. Fast forward to 2016 and a child got none of these four schools and instead, was given Ridgewood in Wollaston. The problems regarding places at secondary schools already exist and have for a long time in this area so how are they supposed to cope with the children generated with the extra housing? Since the capacity for those schools currently stand at 3755, how do you propose to fit over 40% more children (average one child per household) in?

Next would be GP surgeries and hospitals. Prior to the pandemic when we could actually get to see a GP the phone lines would be engaged from 8am with everyone calling in a desperate attempt to secure an appointment for that day. Generally, unless it was an emergency, appointments were being given for two weeks ahead at my surgery. How many more GP surgeries have you planned to build under this proposal? Has any consideration been given to the expansion of Rssells Hall and/or the building of a new hospital? In April of this year, they were told to improve so how are they going to do this with extra patients?

Finally, this would be bad enough when considered on its own but, given that propsals have been drafted/submitted to build another 800 homes on Ridgehill Woods which is out of the Black Country Plan but whose residents would use Dudley Services and amenities as opposed to Staffordshires then our schools, GP's and hospital will be at breaking point.

Object

Representation ID: 13088

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kimberley Fox

- The road infrastructure is not adequate for the increased volume of traffic
- The increased dangers of traffic with children and the volume of pupils leaving and entering Summerhill
- Not being able to enjoy the greenbelt land (walks for our wellbeing and mental health)
- Schools in the area are already at capacity, where will all the children in the local area then go for education?

Object

Representation ID: 13092

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laura Evans

I fully object to ALL building work in the Wall Heath and Kingswinford areas. (The Triangle and Holbeache).
Our schools are currently full, doctors surgeries are too busy and the traffic is heavy. Can you imagine what building over 1,000 houses will do for the infrastructure?
We moved to the area because of village community and the beautiful green belt on our door steps. These plans will devalue our homes and create worry for school places, there plans are putting our childrens futures in jeopardy and will have serious health implications on all of us, as the pollution will increase and the air quality will decrease. THESE PLANS NEED TO BE THROWN OUT!

Object

Representation ID: 13095

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Bennett

The loss of green belt will be devastating to the local wildlife and environment. Having lived in Wall Heath for sixty years I have witnessed the gradual erosion of the green belt, the buffer between built environment that is so important for people's quality of life. All brownfield and greyfield sites should be considered first before this permanent loss. The Triangle is agricultural land, surely it should be protected and used in a sustainable way. It is very important for the UK to produce as much food as it possibly can. The hedgerows around around the site will be affected by the building, leading to loss of wildlife, important to the biodiversity of the area. It would also change the character of Wall Heath . Since covid-19, I appreciate more and more the importance of greenspaces to maintain good mental health. To experience, while walking, agricultural fields, hedgerows, trees and creatures that live in them, including bees, moths and butterflies. Local residents will be impacted by the noises, smells and pollutants of the long construction process.
Roads in the area are already congested, the A449 is already busy and noisy. The effect of an increased population will lead to poorer air quality, noise, tailbacks and public transport delays and journey times lenghtened. More drivers may cut through residential areas, causing further road safety issues for children and adults near their homes.
Parking in Wall Heath to access local shops and services is already very limited, this will lead to further difficulties in access for existing residents, particularly for the elderly or disabled.
Other local services that will be affected are the NHS. Already there are not enough GPs and dentists locally. Even now, Moss Grove Surgery have to offer patients 'flu vaccines and other treatment appointments at their Kinver Surgery. Russells Hall Hospital, in April '21 were inspected and told that their A&E waiting times still 'requires improvement'. More housing will also lead to longer ambulance wait times, and delays in other local health services, including mental health.
Schools will also be affected, with very few spare spaces in Wall Heath and Kingswinford. Within 1 mile of Wall Heath, according to most recent Ofsted there were 7 spaces spare secondary places. New estates will impact on families already living in Wall Heath, leading to longer journeys (& more traffic) to get to school. Already, houses built at the top of Stallings Lane in Pensnett, although Pensnett schools have received extra funding, the developers' (Keepmoat Homes) brochure states "The advantage of what Kingswinford has to offer... a great choice of schools".

Object

Representation ID: 13096

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Leonard McCann

Re Black Country Site Assessment Report
Dudley Appendix A - page 79
The Triangle SA 0025 - DUD
Building on this land will reduce the value of our property as we will no longer be on the edge of the greenbelt. We bought it in good faith due partly to its location.
During the Covid epidemic, this land has become an amenity for people to walk for essential exercise.
Building will not just change that land. It will change the aspect of both Lodge Lane and Swindon Road.
Neither Swindon Road or Lodge Lane is a big road. Building on the green wedge will significantly increase traffic and lead to congestion.
There is a school on Lodge Lane. Increased traffic would represent an increase in hazards for pupils.

Object

Representation ID: 13100

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Levene Fletcher

Notwithstanding the obvious lack of schools, doctors and dentists etc that currently are struggling to cope with the existing local population, the existing highways / road network will be totally incapable of sustaining 900+ further road users. Kingswinford and Wall Heath are already a bottleneck as historically over the last few decades the areas have become highly populated with numerous housing estates. Many residents commute out of the area to travel to their place of work, like a mass exodus. The improvements in Pensnett were welcome and necessary and have alieviated that particular part of the area but no sooner have you passed through the congestion builds up again. Given this is the main route to the boroughs main hospital which now has reduced parking facilities, how is that going to work? The A449 forming part of "The Triangle" an extremely busy road which currently cannot cope with continuous flooding at Stewponey traffic lights since the erection of new homes at this junction a few years ago. This main thoroughfare makes its way through wall Heath Village and already creates congestion when drivers have to navigate two bizarre mini roundabouts. both proposed sites will see a further 800 plus households navigating their way in and out of a tightly packed community. The proposed Holbeach site is situated where the A449 meets A491, another busy road to Stourbridge. Interested to know what plans are being considered by the Highways Dept as to how these major roads will sustain extra volume.

Object

Representation ID: 13103

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Linda and Reg Stevens

Number of people: 2

These comments refer to any current or future plans to build on green belt land in the Kingswinford, Wall Heath and surrounding areas.
Our objections are: -
Increased problems with traffic in an already busy area
Danger to old and young when attempting to cross busy roads
Increase in residents have a further detrimental affect on the infrastructure of the area. i.e. schools, GP's, dentists, hospitals etc. Workload already at breakpoint.
Massive affect on already depleting environment of wildlife. Removal of ancient mature trees and loss of fields and hedgerows causing wildlife to move out completely.

Object

Representation ID: 13104

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Jane Owen

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. 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. The existing roads are unable to cope with current volumes of traffic and will not be able to sustain any increased vehicles in the local area
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.

3. 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 tranquillity.
Poorer air quality impact of adjoining residents and wider area, particularly from increase in traffic. • Impact of building from construction noise and traffic.

Additional information continued
Black Country Site Assessment Report
Dudley Appendix A, page 79
The Triangle SA-0025-DUD
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 un-sustainable.
• 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
Completed by Jane Owen

Object

Representation ID: 13106

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Roberts

I am objecting to the plans for the reasons below:-
Very close to Summerhill school, extra trafic on an already busy road, risk of accidents to pupils and other
commuters, plus extra emmisions into the atmosphere.
Loss of good agricultural land, or farm animals to graze, as we are now indepentant from Europe this is what
:greenspace should be used for.
Loss of wildlife, trees and green area’s goes against the enviromental issues currently going through
parliment. This will cause poor air quality.
Doctors, dentists, schools already full, plus only 1 A and E depatment for the whole of Dudley which is also
used by Sandwell residents who have 2 A and E departments.
No leisure centres nearby this route is used by many for walking and cycling.
There is alot of unused old industrial ground in all 4 boroughs without taking our green space.
The houses planned will only be purchased by the higher paid and will not help the housing crisis or 1sf time
buyers

Object

Representation ID: 13111

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Luke Griffiths

- Losing greenbelt
- Not enough places in schools
- too much traffic in current conditions, more houses will exacerbate the issue. This will also affect pollution levels in the area
- Loss of trees

Object

Representation ID: 13115

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Mac & Mary Hodgkiss

Number of people: 2

COMMENTS BELOW REFER TO TWO SITES — HOLBEACH AND THE KINGSWINFORD TRIANGLE
Firstly, we would like to comment on the lack of information made available about the proposals — we heard of the proposal from a neighbour, who had seen something on a lamp post whilst walking their dog! We were assured at the meeting we attended on the 27th September that literature was with Royal Mail and would be delivered to houses during that week — it is now the 6th October and we still have not received any literature via Royal Mail. An article was published in the Express & Star a few days before the meeting on the 27th September— a little late we feel!
However, here are our comments and they refer to the two sites mentioned above.
Do we need more homes in Kingswinford — No. We have already seen the results of extensive house building at the top of Stallings Lane — traffic congestion in Stallings Lane is dreadful whatever time of day you use the road. To add to this already awful situation there is a further site which is due to be built at the top of Stallings Lane, which we have been told will be in excess of 300 dwellings. Regarding roads in the area, there is no room to widen any of the existing roads —we sincerely hope that planners in their supposed wisdom don’t go down the route of a by-pass around the area—this was explored and squashed a few years ago. We would suggest that planners look at towns where either a ring road or by-pass has been built — in some cases they have helped to kill trade to the town centres — look at Stourbridge and Wolverhampton.
Apart from the traffic problems we are encountering we understand that there are no plans to provide extra supporting services — doctors’ surgeries, schools, dental practices, and this is without mentioning the local hospitals which are having great difficulties in coping with the current situation. It is a well known fact that people are living longer, which surely means that as the population gets older they will possibly need extra support from hospitals, and GP’s. At the meeting on the 27th September when the above point was made there was a comment made that if the need arose that extra services may be considered — we think a bit late when people are struggling to get the support they need now let alone after the building of extra dwellings. Plans for extra services should surely be addressed before all the extra houses are built.
Green belt areas are very important. particularly in helping the control of climate change so why should these areas be released for building when there are still plenty of ‘brown field’ sites available? It has also been shown during ‘lock downs’ that such areas are very important to the mental health of people, particularly those who don’t have access to a garden.
A further question —why should the Dudley area be asked to give up ‘green field’ sites to help other areas, who may then be able to keep their ‘green field’ sites?
We hope that the above comments demonstrate the main areas for our objection to such actions even being considered.

Object

Representation ID: 13117

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Donna O'Connell

I am writing to object to the extra houses proposed to be built on green belt land in the triangle of wall heath and Holbeach House and also on Severn drive pensnett.

With all the extra houses previously built on Himley view the pressure on schools, doctors, NHS have become more strained already.

Traffic around kingswinford and wall heath is already a nightmare and the costs entailed to try and maintain the roads as so busy must already be eo expensive.

Crime rate and anti social behaviour has already increased and with cuts to police forces this is also an area of concern with regards to tackling this with ever growing population.

There are only small parts of green belt land left and the reason i moved to where I live now was to be closer to this, not become a built up area full of houses and no land.

Object

Representation ID: 13120

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Dent

Number of people: 2

Proposed plans for the 'triangle' and Holbeache Lane sites in Kingswinford. Reverses previous plans showing this land as 'Green Belt'. If any building takes place on these sites now or in future years. There will be no green spaces left in Kingswinford it will just become an area of urban sprall that a) doesn't have the logistical support now, let alone with 1000+ houses planned. The A449 will become a joke, already the air pollution monitor in Wordsley is way above 'safe' readings. b) no extension of services ie, schools, drs to service these extra residents. Use brown field sites still plenty left in Dudley.