Policy DSA3 - Land at Ketley Quarry, Kingswinford

Object

Representation ID: 15556

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Pugh

No comments made.

Object

Representation ID: 15582

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Robinson

There are plenty of derelict brown sites in the area which could be used for building houses, instead of using up more green spaces that local communities use for dog walking and childrens play.
We need to see and use our local green space for general well being and health, both mental and physical.
The more buildings are erected, on our green spaces, the more environmental impact will be felt, such as flooding.
Traffic in our area is already horrendous and roads are used as 'rabbit runs'.
In Pensnett, the doctors surgery has gone. Although the portacabin was not an ideal place, the elderly of the area at least had a place they could access easily. Whereas now they have to travel to Kingswinford or Brierley Hill H.C. Those who have to travel to Brierley Hill H.C do not have a direct bus route to get home.
Schools are already full and parents are having to travel further afield, which again puts more traffic on roads.

Object

Representation ID: 15735

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Joshua Kitson

I wish to object to the building of houses on the proposed sites
BCP REF DUH 216 Bryce Road (Green space)
BCP REF DUH 222 Severn Drive (Green space)
BCP REF DUH 213 Lapwood Ave (Green space)
BCP REF 203 Ketley Quarry (Policy DSA3)

1. Traffic impact on all four sites
2. Effect on road safety again on Lapwood - Bryce Rd and on Severn Drive
3. Effect on school admissions for all areas concerned
4. The effect it will have on the NHS (hospital) (one only). Not enough local doctors or dentists in the local areas. Residents are now being forced to travel further to get access for care.
5. Effect on mental health. Severn Drive is flat for people of all ages to walk - run - play on. Mayflower Drive - Derwent Close make up a 1/4 of the space, neither terrain or shape is viable for any activities. Neither of these sites were large enough to be audited in the open space review 2017.
6. Loss of biodiversity- bats, owls, foxes and other numerous species of birds,
7. Traffic infrastructure cannot cope now - check traffic on high st Pensnett between 3:30pm - 5:30pm and 7:30am till 9:00am its chocka-block.

Object

Representation ID: 15793

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Joseph Kitson

I wish to object to the building of houses on the proposed sites
BCP REF DUH 216 Bryce Road (Green space)
BCP REF DUH 222 Severn Drive (Green space)
BCP REF DUH 213 Lapwood Ave (Green space)
BCP REF 203 Ketley Quarry (Policy DSA3)

1. Traffic impact on all four sites
2. Effect on road safety again on Lapwood - Bryce Rd and on Severn Drive
3. Effect on school admissions for all areas concerned
4. The effect it will have on the NHS (hospital) (one only). Not enough local doctors or dentists in the local areas. Residents are now being forced to travel further to get access for care.
5. Effect on mental health. Severn Drive is flat for people of all ages to walk - run - play on. Mayflower Drive - Derwent Close make up a 1/4 of the space, neither terrain or shape is viable for any activities. Neither of these sites were large enough to be audited in the open space review 2017.
6. Loss of biodiversity - bats, owls, foxes and other numerous species of birds,
7. Traffic infrastructure cannot cope now - check traffic on high st Pensnett between 3:30pm - 5:30pm and 7:30am till 9:00am its chocka-block.

Object

Representation ID: 16044

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Alexandra Barton

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: 16127

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Jones

I object because of the traffic impact on the site, it will lower road safety and cause congestion, the area already has too much traffic.
I also object because biodiversity in the area will be destroyed by the construction.
I further object because we do not have enough infrastructure such as healthcare and schools in the area to cater to hundreds of new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 16182

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Catherine Mainstone

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. Why on earth is there any need for it when so much ugly derelict brown land could be used and improved by housing. See my further thoughts on that
below.
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. CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT AN AREA LIKE THE BLACK COUNTRY CHERISHES
ITS GREENLAND AS WE HAVE LESS OF IT AND SO WHAT WE DO HAVE IS ALL THE
MORE PRECIOUS TO US???
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. The evidence of my own eyes tells me this is all
untrue.
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.
I AM ALSO TRULY INCENSED THAT THIS TORY GOVERNMENT AND OUR OWN
MAYOR - TORY AGAIN - PURPORT TO BE PROTECTING GREEN LAND. PROVE IT!!!

Object

Representation ID: 16214

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Owens

(No text attached to submission)

Object

Representation ID: 16229

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Deb Brownlee

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 underetimated. 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 mee ng 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: 16266

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Carol Allen

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 maisiontes 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 development.

Object

Representation ID: 16276

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Denise Lorna Smith

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 maisiontes 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 development.

Object

Representation ID: 16390

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Robinson

There are plenty of derelict brownfield sites in the area which could be used for building houses, instead of using up more green spaces that local communities use for dog walking and childrens play.
We need to see and use our local green spaces for general well being and health, both mental and physical.
The more buildings are erected on our green spaces, the more environmental impact will be felt such as flooding, loss of habitats for wildlife etc. Traffic in our area is already horrendous and roads are used as 'rabbit runs'. Roads are in terrible condition with pot holes everywhere.
In Pensnett, the doctors surgery has gone, although the portacabin was not an ideal place, the elderly of the area at least had a place they could access easily. Whereas now they have to travel to Kingswinford or Brierley Hill H.C. Those who have to travel to Brierley Hill H.C do not have a direct bus route to get there.
Schools are already full and parents are having to travel further afield, which again puts more traffic on the roads.

Object

Representation ID: 16476

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Chester

REF DUH203 KETLEY QUARRY DSA3
(and ref DUH213 Lapwood Avenue)

In brief:
Ref DUH213 - Lapwood Avenue

Traffic impact on Lapwood during and post development would impact the already serious congestion which currently occurs outside the Crestwood Primary School at school term times.

The effects on road safety and car parking would be seriously impacted, especially close to the Crestwood Primary School.
The effect on NHS and school admissions again would be seriously impacted, as the current access to both NHS and school services are currently difficult. Adding 50+ homes would tip it over the edge.

The effect on road safety, increased congestion, poor quality of air due to pollution, and the pressure on biodiversity which would undoubtedly occur if the proposal to push through a road link to Ketley Quarry were to take place.

The residential estate we currently enjoy would be lost forever. Please do not approve DUH213 or Ref 203.

Object

Representation ID: 16527

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John C C Tracey

DUH221Standhills Road
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)

I strongly object to the Conclusions in the draft plan that do not protect our greenbelt and green spaces in Dudley borough, and particularly in Pensnett, Kingswinford & Wallheath by assessing sites there as suitable for residential or industrial purpose as follows:-
DUH216 Bryce Road
DUH222 Severn Drive
DUH213 Lapwood Avenue
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
DUH211 Summerhill Triangle
DUH208 Holbeache
There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring in greater profits. The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in the Dudley area which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

I do not believe it is possible to put in place sufficient mitigation to make up for the loss of any greenbelt or green space to the community.
It’s claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises. I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure, and physical and mental wellbeing for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

Object

Representation ID: 16560

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Morris

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
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)

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. less

Object

Representation ID: 16675

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jennie Rivers

Comments attached are in respect of Crestwood Park area only.
In addition to the document by Crestwood Park Residents Action Group
Comments and feedback in respect of the Black Country Plan -
I haven't had sufficient time to fully read the plan. Thus I'm not fully aware if it specifies, other than numbers, what type of housing is in the proposal. However, the fact that it appears to grab every green space available, no matter how small, is horrifying. We need some green areas for our general well being, mental and physical, or everyone will decline in health and put even more pressure on already stretched resources.
The main thrust of my disagreement lies in and around the Crestwood Park area. The area where I have lived for 40+ years. To grab small amounts of green area to facilitate small numbers of properties takes away the offsetting of carbon emissions with flourishing greenery. These areas add to one well being and pride in the place where one lives.
In respect of the Bryce Road playing fields I would have thought that is going against the current ethos of encouraging people to get fitter and slimmer. This area is regularly used for football and should be championed not removed.
I have grave concerns about the access via Lapwood Avenue for the Ketley Quarry site. The volume of traffic, particularly at peak times, makes this proposal a very high safety risk. Parking on both sides of the road outside the school usually limits the road to a single lane already without any additional traffic. If, as in an earlier proposal the access is through to Dudley Road. It will be a 'rat run' for all and sundry to use adding to, and increasing, the risk.
One big void in the plan is what would happen to the 'old railway line' adjacent to Bryce Road playing fields. The only feedback I received is no-one knows who owns it. However, over the years it has become a haven for wildlife with many different species occupying the space.
My final comment is that we do not have the infrastructure to handle the volumes of properties as proposed. Insufficient -
DOCTORS - HOSPITALS - DENTISTS - NURSERIES - SCHOOLS - CARE HOMES - JOBS
TO NAME BUT A FEW.
Appendix A - Green Space Arguments
These notes apply to the following sites:
BCP REF DUH216 - Bryce Road Playing Fields
BCP REF DUH222 - Severn Drive Open Space
BCP REF DUH213 - Lapwood Avenue Open Space
BCP REF DUH221 - Standhills Road Open Space
BCP REF 203 - Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
1. Traffic impact on site. The proposed Lapwood Avenue open space is directly opposite a primary school, on a road that is already severely congested, and parking takes up both side of the road and surrounding roads, several times throughout the day. Building 45 houses on this field would cause further difficulties for parents accessing the school, and residents of the estate. In the site assessment, "Impact on the wider road network" states no impact expected, but a significant effect will happen on the immediate rather than wider road network, several times a day.
2. Effect on road safety. The BCP plan indicates the proposed Ketley Quarry site will not include a through road connecting the new estate to the Crestwood Park estate via Lapwood Avenue, whereas the recent planning application/feasibility study did indicate it. A through road would create a cut through shortcut between Bromley Lane and the main Dudley Road, which would likely cause a significant increase in traffic moving through the estate not only at peak times, but at all points throughout the day, and further problems leaving the estate at the Bromley Road junction. This would significantly decrease road and pedestrian safety on the estate, especially at peak school times.
3. Effect on road safety and car parking for schools. A new housing site on Lapwood Avenue would reduce availability of car parking for the school which is already overly congested, and decrease road safety, with more cars travelling through, increasing the risk of an accident.
4. Effect on school admissions. There are insufficient school places for children across the area. For September 2021 admissions, the only secondary with places for year 7 is Wordsley. Most other year groups are full. There are no places for Reception in Wall Heath for 2021; only one school in Kingswinford with places. Creating spaces by enlarging existing schools will change the character of them, or force buildings that take away car parking, play areas or fields.
5. Effect on NHS.
There are not enough local doctors and dentists in the local area. Residents are being forces to travel out the area to access care. Wall Heath and Kingswinford have a number of elderly residents who cannot physically do this - due to their own capabilities and lack of public transport.
Pre-lockdown, the average waiting time at Russell's Hall was over 4 hours (2019). April '21 inspections show it still 'requires improvement'.
Longer ambulance wait times (in 2020, the turnaround times reached 60 mins)
Further delays in local health services, mental health services (rapidly growing), hospital treatment and operations for serious illness.
6. Effect on Mental Health. The BCP calls out that Kingswinford South and Wordsley specifically have a below standard quantity of public open space. This space is very important to local residents, for many uses, but frequently including dog walking, and safe spaces for children of all ages to play and socialise, specifically it is within site of many of the local houses. Many residents purchased houses on the estate specifically because of access to the space, and over the 2020 lockdown the use of this space increased even further.
The BCP identifies Ketley Field Open Space as suitable alternate space to allow for loss of Lapwood Avenue; however, this site frequently floods (hence the recent planting of many young saplings across the field) and although it has a playground, it is of poor quality, with very little equipment for younger children, and much of the equipment that is there is damaged and broke.
Residents disagree that Ketley Fields is of higher quality and value.
For older residents at the opposite end of the estate, this may be too far to walk.
7. Loss of Biodiversity. Although not designated as SLINC or similar, there are frequent sighting of foxes, and bats over Lapwood Avenue, Bryce Road and Severn Drive sites, owls are heard over all three sites every year, and numerous species of bird. Loss of the site would lead to loss or displacement of these animals.
8. Local space quality and value grading. This was carried out as part of the Open Space Review 2019. It seems unfair that all local spaces were graded using the same criteria, therefore pitting the likes of Mary Stevens Park against our local field, which lost out due to no presence of toilets, a cafe, tennis courts, even the fact we don't have a sign indicating the name of our field!
*Produced by Crestwood Park Residents Action Group

Object

Representation ID: 16704

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Deonne Whittaker

I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT ON CRESTWOOD PARK ESTATE SINCE I WAS 6 YEARS OF AGE, AS A CHILD I ENJOYED PLAYING ON MOST OF THE PROPOSED SITES, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THESE OPEN SPACES BEING BUILT ON AS IT WILL TAKE AWAY THE ONLY SPACE THAT OUR CHILDREN CAN PLAY ON, RESIDENTS CAN WALK AROUND AND THAT DOESNT FLOOD, NOT ONLY THAT BUT THERE WILL BE A HUGE IMPACT WITH TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LAPWOOD AVEUNE IS DIRECTLY OPPOSITE A SCHOOL AND THE ROAD IS ALREADY CONGESTED WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IF THE PROPOSAL TO OPEN UP LAPWOOD AVENUE TO GIVE ACCESS THROUGH TO THE QUARRY, THIS WOULD CAUSE TRAFFIC CHAOS AND A DANGER TO PUPLIS ATTENDING CRESTWOOD PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL BUILDING NEW HOUSES WOULD ALSO IMPACT ON SCHOOL ADMISSIONS, LOCAL DOCTORS SURGERIES (WHICH ARE ALREADY OVER SUBSCRIBED) DENTISTS AND WAITING TIMES AT RUSSELLS HALL HOSPITAL WOULD INCREASE DRAMATICALLY I BELIEVE THAT THE OPEN SPACES THAT WE HAVE SHOULD BE KEPT AS THEY ARE DUE TO THE FACTS OUTLINED ABOVE. DURING THE RECENT LOCKDOWN MOST RESIDENTS AND CHILDREN MADE THE MOST OF THE OPEN SPACES TO ASSIST WITH THEIR MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING, AND THEY ARE USED DAILY, ALSO THE LOCAL WILDLIFE WILL ALSO BE EFFECTED. THE ESTATE AS IT IS AT THE MOMENT IS SAFE AND A PLEASURE TO LIVE ON BUILDING HOUSES ON LAPWOOD AVENUE WOULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THIS AND CAUSE RESIDENTS PROBLEMS WITH PARKING AND ROAD SAFETY NEAR TO THE SCHOOL AND UNTOLD TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

Comment

Representation ID: 16760

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Policy ENV1 – Nature Conservation

We welcome this policy, however that the following site allocations are likely to impact upon the effectiveness of policy ENV1 (1b,1c,1d, 3):

• DUH203- Land at Ketley Quarry, Kingswinford
Impacts on Ketley Claypit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and potentially priority habitats- deciduous woodland.

Please see 13 Sub-Areas and Site Allocations for further details of our concerns.

We would advise that the Plan should identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental significance.

Natural England welcome the creation and designation of new Local Nature Reserves as additional assets to the Local Nature Reserve suite currently in place, especially were they offer additional access to local people for recreation and education.

Object

Representation ID: 16848

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Fairclough

DSA3

I am opposed to all development in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 16880

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marion Cherrington

(no text attached to submission)

Object

Representation ID: 16894

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kaye Highway

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
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: 16900

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Jamie Travis

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
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)

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: 16911

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Katie Flavell

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
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: 16919

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: James Hughes

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
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)

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: 16923

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Danielle Morris

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
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)
DUH206 Worcester Lane
DUH207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH209 Worcester Lane South
DUH217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH210 Viewfield Crescent
DUH041Two Gates Lane Cradley
DUH212 Lewis Road Lye
DUH214 Seymour Road Wollescote
DUH215 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: 16953

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kevan Mcdermott

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
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)
DUH206 Worcester Lane
DUH207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH209 Worcester Lane South
DUH217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH210 Viewfield Crescent
DUH041Two Gates Lane Cradley
DUH212 Lewis Road Lye
DUH214 Seymour Road Wollescote
DUH215 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: 16972

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Karen Westwood

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]admittied 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 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.

[Part 2]

I support the Conclusions in the Site Assessment Report that protect the greenbelt
and green spaces in Dudley borough, and particularly in the Brockmoor & Pensnett,
Kingswinford & Wallheath wards by assessing sites there as not suitable for
residential or industrial purpose as follows:-
DUH211 Summerhill Triangle
DUH208 Holbeache
DUH216 Bryce Road
DUH222 Severn Drive
DUH213 Lapwood Avenue
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
I strongly object to the Conclusions in the draft plan that do not protect our greenbelt
and green spaces in Dudley borough, and particularly in Pensnett, Kingswinford &
Wallheath by assessing sites there as suitable for residential or industrial purpose as
follows:-
DUH216 Bryce Road
DUH222 Severn Drive
DUH213 Lapwood Avenue
DUH221 Standhills Road
DUH218 Guys Lane
DUH203 Ketley Quarry (policy DSA3)
DUH211 Summerhill Triangle
DUH208 Holbeache
I do not believe it is possible to put in place sufficient mitigation to make up for the
loss of any greenbelt or green space to a community.
It’s claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for
housing and commercial premises. I believe that there is no justification for removing
the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source
of pleasure, and physical and mental wellbeing for the community. It is not
sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat
for wild life, hedgerows and trees.
There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new,
easy to develop sites that bring greater profits. The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are
closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which
are in need of revival and redevelopment.
I am particularly concerned about the Bryce Road green space DUH 216. Questions
and objections include:- RAG says there is no known biodiversity or Geodiversity.
How has it concluded this. It is known by residents there is wildlife here so when is a
proper study going to be undertaken?
RAG states that there is still a requirement for a survey of the mature trees
Residents believe there has been some leisure related designation of the site
previously. Please can the Council find the documentation and clarify? It is currently
well used for leisure purposes, including walking and a football team has a formal
arrangement with the Council to use it.
The Leader of the Council has advised residents at public meetings that transport is
the single biggest issue to protest on as developers are unlikely to want to invest in
the infrastructure. Surely that means that the developer would also be reluctant to
invest in alternative entrance/exit to the site as well as any surrounding roads, given
the existing one is totally unfit for purpose for accessing a new development.
Therefore, on these grounds along shouldn’t this site be withdrawn from the plan.
Have there been planning applications to this site before and what was the outcome
and reason for rejection/withdrawal of any application?
RAG states there is over 15 minutes access time to Health services from this site
which could 200 – 350 more people to provide services to. How would this be
addressed when there are already existing pressures and what impact is anticipated
for existing residents using these services.
RAG states there is a poor connection to cycle routes (RAG) With no access to cycle
routes, walking is the only alternative for exercise. The area is used as a park is flat
enough for people with mobility issues to use too.
How can residents protect these sites forever? Like John Corbett meadow? What
designations are available to us? What steps can we take?
Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that
are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and
health centres. This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the
same problems for new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support
any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 16983

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Karen Towns

I strongly object 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.
We are being told to ‘go green’ and save the planet
and some people are trying to do their bit but it seems pointless as there will
be no green spaces le, everywhere will be one huge concrete jungle.
Does anyone making these decisions live by any of the
areas that will be affected?
I live in [Redacted-GDPR] Brierley Hill and the traffic
is awful (as is the parking) everywhere is gridlocked during main times so
losing more green spaces to housing will mean more cars which will cause even
more misery for residents.
Green spaces are hugely important so don’t take them
away from people.
Are the Council selling off green spaces just to get
more money? The spaces that are being sold off, are they actually Council land
or are the Council ‘laying claim’ to these spaces?
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. What about wildlife, losing more green
space will impact the wildlife.
The plan mentions re-wilding - but where will that be
as green spaces are being 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, if council houses will cost the Council to much
to refurbish them do the Council sell these houses. It is clear that if there
is a shortage of land that there should be a preference for flats or
maisonettes thereby creating more housing from the same 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: 17069

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mike Amor-Wilkes

My objections are this would destroy irreplaceable Green Belt Land lowering the quality life in this area of the Black Country not only enjoyed by people that live in the area but further away.
It will add unacceptable pressure on our local amenities, such as schools, roads that are heavily congested at as it is, Dentists, GP’s, hospitals and other public services.
There has already been a massive building programme on Stalling Lane where fields have been lost, a Brownfield site has been used and a further one in the planning, pressurising local amenities as it is adding to waiting lists and times for all health care users.
Parking issues with insufficient places as it is.
There has been no biodiversity checks been made or wildlife impact assessment.
An audit of preserved or valuable trees has not been carried out.
Exhaust all brownfield site before looking at Green Belt Land.
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: 17219

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natasha Flowers

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
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)
DUH206 Worcester Lane
DUH207 Worcester Lane Central
DUH209 Worcester Lane South
DUH217 Wollaston Farm grazing land
DUH210 Viewfield Crescent
DUH041Two Gates Lane Cradley
DUH212 Lewis Road Lye
DUH214 Seymour Road Wollescote
DUH215 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