Table 13 - Dudley Growth

Object

Representation ID: 10581

Received: 18/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Cleaton

Page 666, Appendix A4 and Page 374, Table 14 I wish to complain about the proposed building on the green belt land i Viewfield Crescent Sedgley there is an abundance of varied wildlife living in that area .The area is already over populated with not enough amenities to serve the existing population. Sedgley is already a bottle neck the pollution from the cars will affect the children's health going to school. The Environment Agency are telling us to protect natural habitats for wildlife building on greenfield land destroys them.

Object

Representation ID: 10677

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Adams

Object to housing development on green belt site - DUH217

Comment

Representation ID: 10820

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Bruno Vinel

The representation is against the projects DUH002, DUH206, DUH 207, DUH 209 and DUH 217 corresponding to around 435 dwellings (out of 605 dwellings in total for Stourbridge). The last four projects are planned on green belt lands, contrary to the commitment of the elected representatives in the last local and mayoral elections to not build on the green belt. It's not sustainable, will kill wildlife and reduce access to green spaces in Stourbridge, particularly for my family. less

The plan is not respecting the commitment from the recently elected councillors and metro Mayor not to build on green belt land. Wildlife is critical for our environment and the plan should not use green belt land to convert it into developments. The plan should only allow construction on brown land.

Object

Representation ID: 10885

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Darby

I have large concerns over an additional 1000+ people entering the area. Doctors surgeries, dentists and schools are already over subscribed so the quality and service will deteriorate even further. Surely there are more suitable brownfield sites without having to resort to destroying the countryside and an already sensitive ecosystem.

Object

Representation ID: 10898

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Wayne Round

I strongly wish to register my objection to the building of house on Severn Drive, Brierley Hill. (DUH222)
The area is already over developed, we already have a massive development being built on the old
brickworks sitewhere roads have been altered and the estate just keeps growing.
The infastructiure around the area is already struggling to cope with the demands of the traffic and this will
add more woe to everyone journeys.
There are other brown sites within the surrouding areas that should be built on first, why doesnt [text redacted] stick to his word and use the brown sites instead of trying to use the green spaces we have. I thought
this was to supposed to be a child Friendly dudley/Brierley Hill?
We already have a lack of Green Spaces.
Black Country Spatial Portrait
1.34Health and Wellbeing: the Black Country has lower rates of physical activity and higher rates of obesity
than the rest of England. In addition, the Black Country has issues with alcohol abuse, depression and social
isolation.
1.36 These and other issues, which negatively affect the physical and mental health and wellbeing of
residents of the Black Country, are all influenced by the built and natural environment.
During covid our Greens were a godsend for people who were struggling and walking onthe Green every day
improved peoples mental health. We have dog walkers on the Green every day, children playing on the
Green and all manner/ages of people getting together .
The schools are already struggling to give children who live in the catchment area a place in the school and
classroom size has already increased

I wish to register my objections to the proposed building area on both North and South green areas of Severn Drive, Brierley Hill for additional housing. (DUH222)
The main reasons for my objections are as follows:
· The local infrastructure is totally insufficient for any increase in both population and traffic.
· So many houses built in the local area in the last couple of years that there are no longer enough school places, Doctors Surgeries, Dentists etc to cope with the existing population.
· The estate roads are not built with construction traffic in mind, Corbyns Hall Lane is too narrow, Corbyns Hall Road always has vehicles parked both sides day and night, and the corner of Comber Drive has a sharp bend and narrow road.
· The new road junction on the High Street is not fit for purpose. Traffic queues are just as bad if not worse than they were before, this will get increasingly worse with the new commercial buildings currently under construction. Local roads are already hazardous, traffic trying to alight from Corbyns Hall Lane turning right now find it virtually impossible. Corbyns Hall Road is a totally blind junction. Corbyns Hall Lane has already become a hazard due to cars parking on the road to visit Sainsbury's.
· These green areas were a designated play area for children on the estate and as such are widely used by local children and supposedly as such cannot be built upon. Also used by many dog walkers.
· During the current Covid-19 pandemic, this green space has, and continues to be very important to help everyone with not only fitness but more importantly mental health and wellbeing.
· This area is important for our local wildlife [text redacted]
· Aerial photographs show how little green space there currently is. These plans will mean there will be no safe green places left for communities to use.
· There are multiple local sites that have become complete eyesores which would be far better demolished, rejuvenate these areas for housing. There are also other brown sites which could be utilised, instead of taking away what little green space we have left.

Comment

Representation ID: 10960

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Sutton

I strongly object to any building work on the Wollaston greenbelt due to many factors such the fact that we no not have the availability of services to accommodate any more residents.
We all have a right to access green spaces and this proposal would make it very difficult for us residents to continue to do this by foot as this is the main route into the countryside for many walkers.

Stop building on the greenbelt. Use brownfield sites and build upwards rather than across.

Object

Representation ID: 11054

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hunter

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please accept this email as our formal objection to the proposed development and loss of green belt land at Worcester Lane Stourbridge.
Despite statements previously made by the West Midlands Mayor that there was no case for the loss of green belt land in the Dudley Borough we are now faced with the prospect of substantial environmental destruction and a dramatic negative effect upon the wellbeing of local residents in the area the latter becoming even more evident in these current times.
This planned location clearly poses numerous additional negative factors such an increase in pollution, traffic movement/noise and the associated safety hazard of a road unsuitable in my opinion for any additional service entry roads. The location would also put an unacceptable additional pressure on local infrastructure and amenities due to our location on the very extremity of the Borough.
The situation has been compounded further by the latest draft proposals extending the development by 60 dwellings over that originally proposed by the Bromwich Lane proposal being omitted from the plan and our locality bearing the consequences,
Due to previous planning permissions within the adjoining Bromsgrove Borough our locality has already felt the significant impact of the building and occupation of 300+ houses (with more planned I believe) that has already impacted on school place availability, doctors surgery capacity, increased traffic and parking congestion in the area.
Why should a Borough at the very heart of the industrialised Black Country be sacrificing some of the limited amount of greenbelt land that remains?
Surely any development could be achieved by the utilisation of brownfield sites although I appreciate the attraction of sacrifing greenbelt land by profit driven developers and greenbelt land owners.
We need to protect the limited amount of greenbelt we have for future generations and the well being of the council tax payers within this historical industrial Borough.

Regards

Kim and Stephen Hunter

Comment

Representation ID: 11125

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sukninder Manik

Dear Planners

KEEP PEDMORE GREEN (PLANNING REQUEST TO BUILD ON PEDMORE GREEN BELT)
I am writing to you with some concerns relating to the proposed development (DUH206 and DUH207 and DUH209) on Worcester Lane, Pedmore Stourbridge.
I understand and appreciate that councils are under pressure from central government to provide more housing. However, I do believe the above proposals if approved would have a negative impact for the following reasons and urge you to help us with refusing permission for the destruction of our greenbelt;
Infrastructure – Worcester Lane is a single lane road and already quite busy and noisy. A development of the size proposed, inevitably will have residents who are car owners, and possibly two cars per household. The traffic will have no other entrance in and out of these new estates but on to Worcester Lane. This will increase the number of vehicles using the road immensely. This will impact on the air quality and hence public health. I find it very hard to comprehend on one hand city centres are introducing congestion charges, yet on the other increasing traffic in semi-rural areas. Residents from Worcester Lane, Bell Meadow, and Green Meadow are not the only people to be affected by this proposed development. Bromwich Lane, Redlake Drive through to Middlefield Lane and Worcester Road in Hagley will all be equally affected, in terms of increased traffic, pollution, a strain on existing services such as schools, medical centres, dentists. Patients to Pedmore surgeries have already been impacted with the changes to medical centres in Wollescote and Norton.
As Worcester Lane and surrounding roads gets busier, pedestrians are at an increased risk too from cars who already use this stretch as a speed track because speed cameras’ do not feature along here and hence there is no deterrent for these law breakers. The area is used for walks by varying age ranges, including older people who already find the road a challenge at times to cross.
This side of Pedmore and Hagley have a limited bus service and have for years. The bus service demand is not there as residents are car owners in the main and this is the most convenient way to get about. Stourbridge being a commuter town has a population with a work base which is not concentrated to Stourbridge town centre but all around the West Midlands and beyond so improving the bus routes is not an option for reducing traffic in this area. Social housing as per you plan talks about providing employment in the local area, the town is small and there is very little opportunities for residents who currently live here. Increasing the population with no work to offer would not be wise.
Internet speed is currently as low as 10mbps. The agencies providing the service have declined to link the area to super broadband despite the infrastructure being in place. When we inquired about Super broadband with BT we were told we could have it at a cost of approximately £20K, which would have to be paid for by the residents of Bell Meadow, Green Meadow and Worcester Lane. This was declined by most residents on the grounds of affordability. A year on residents have now been advised this is coming (coincidentally shortly before the development was proposed).
Existing Doctors surgeries, Dentists surgeries, school services will not cope. These provisions are already stretched and getting an appointment is not easy since Cala homes and other developments were approved over the last few years. The appeal of Hagley and Pedmore is its semi-rural location. I do feel this is slowly being eradicated, and its beauty is being destroyed. This part of the city brings visitors from nearby Birmingham and it would be a shame for the West Midlands area as a county to become so built up that its residents have no greenery at home to enjoy.
Pedmore has over the past three decades or so, seen a fair amount of green belt used for housing, we will have very little left to enjoy. This is land used for walks by residents of Pedmore, Norton, Iverley Hagley, Old Swindford and more, including by residents of a local special needs’ unit.
Social housing/affordable housing is a myth the smaller houses on these developments still attract a premium which still makes them out of reach for most first-time buyers. The number of homes built of this description are so minimal to have real impact anyway which then beckons the question ‘who really gains from building on greenbelt as opposed to brownfields and inner-city regeneration projects?
I appreciate Bell Meadow, Green Meadow and the Redlake Drive area is on greenbelt land. I therefore feel this area has played a big part already in permitted developments on greenbelt Wildlife has already had it's habitat reduced, and therefore it is important to preserve these last few fields so they still have a home. It also means Pedmore maintains some attractive landscapes and views something the area is renowned for.
Regeneration of inner-cities and brownfield land have the infrastructure already in place, it makes more sense and has the least impact on the environment to use these areas for such developments. Clean air is important to us all and this development will compromise this for the residents in Pedmore, Hagley, Norton and more. I can only assume developers cannot maximise their own personal wealth from regeneration as they can from untouched green belt and therefore making greenbelt far more favourable.
Noise & Pollution - Residents with gardens backing onto Worcester Lane will find their gardens will be even noisier and impossible to enjoy. The road surface is a tar and gravel mixture. When cars travel on this surface the noise from rolling tyres has been recorded to be between 90 to over 100 decibels by a local neighbour. This was recorded using a sound App on an Apple phone. I am fearful the proposed development will result in traffic noise getting louder, air pollution getting worse, thus impacting health of residents and sale ability of some of the existing houses for those who may need to move for health reasons.
Health - Asthma sufferers and those residents with mental health issues are not being considered. Its’ sad that health and well-being of residents does not appear to be a consideration. Will the developer be expected to contribute to the local hospice annually as health of residents deteriorates and more cases are referred to the hospice? Poor air quality jeopardises health and is linked to some cancers and asthma both of which can be killers.
Will local schools be expanded to deal with the increase for pupil places. If this is the case this will inevitably take a way children from other schools which would reduce rolls, therefore budgets, resulting in redundancies, and deficits and possible school closures. Can local schools accommodate the building of more classrooms without jeopardising the outdoor facilities for sport and recreation for its pupils?
Wildlife - A housing development of around 115 extra houses will destroy habitats for local wildlife which has already been pushed out once for the already developed areas since the 80’s and 90’s. Since covid lockdowns local wildlife activity has improved and this will once again be destroyed. This proposal wouldn’t just destroy wildlife habitats but also the enjoyment of green spaces by the residents within several areas surrounding the greenbelt of which there will be very little left.
Archaeological Site - it is believed the sites proposed for development may have historical value and they should be preserved for archaeological investigation making it a more exciting space than it already is for walkers from the area and visitors beyond.
As a resident who has family members who suffer from asthma I would ask that along with all my points within this letter the council consider these matters and refuse giving such a development the go ahead. Dudley could be a great place again if only those areas that desperately need regenerating are prioritised and given an attractive face lift making it more fashionable, attracting those who require social housing as well as the more established resident who are treading on the first rung of the housing ladder and beyond.
Kind Regards
Mr & Mrs Surjit Manik,

Comment

Representation ID: 11141

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Parvesh Sharma

3 Worcester Lane Sites
Dear Steve Griffiths,

Thank you for meeting with us at the scrutiny meeting and allow us to email you questions we have regarding the Black Country Planning in particular with plans for housing in Worcester Lane.

Below are some points I would like to bring to the officers’ attention:

1. When considering green belt land have all brown field sites been considered? The reason for this question is that when referring to the brown fields register some locations have not been bought forward for call for sites. Also, in actual terms if they travel around Dudley, you can see ample number of sites that can be used/built on for housing instead of eating into green belt locations. Would the officers be able to provide evidence they have considered the Brown fields register and have an actual up to date register reflecting the current situation of the local area as some sites are listed but clearly been used?
2. The next issue I have is when officers considered the location on Worcester Lane why was this location not taken out of the plans when the location on Bromwich Lane was taken off for the call for sites list? As both locations are right next to each other so if Bromwich Lane is protected by green belt why is the land on Worcester Lane not considered the same? (both locations are close in proximity)
3. Alongside the impact on the Environment, impact of transport/access and many more issues that I can list and show that they have not been considered when the location on Worcester Lane has been put forward. The actual financial impact this development will have on our properties, by putting "affordable housing" in between houses that are valued near the Million-pound or more seems like a total disregard for the local area and the proposition put forward would have a huge impact on the value of our homes. Who would compensate us home owners who have recently purchased in the area and will be in negative equity due to this development.
4.
I have generalised my main point that I would like answered however it would be nice to actually attend or book a meeting with officers to go over more detailed scrutiny questions and actual practical and logical oppositions to the planned Black Country Plan in particular the location on Worcester Lane.

I hope to get a reply as soon as possible prior to me issuing my opposition on the Black Country Plan forms.

Kind Regards,

Pav Sharma

Object

Representation ID: 11150

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Woodall

The planned development of land at Worcester Lane is inappropraite and I object strongly becuase:
1. Local infrastructure schools and GP surgeries are full to capacity and will not stand further development in the area
2. This is the only remainning green space belween Stourbridge and Hagley which is highly civeted by local people for recreational use and the feelong of space in the area
3. Housing would add to traffic congestion on all routes into Stourbridge which are already at capacity
4. This is not and urban area, people move here and expect some green space, removing it extends the conurbation into green filed development.

Object

Representation ID: 11213

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sukninder Manik

Number of people: 2

KEEP PEDMORE GREEN (PLANNING REQUEST TO BUILD ON PEDMORE GREEN BELT
I am writing to you with some concerns relating to the proposed development (DUH206 and DUH207 and DUH209) on Worcester Lane, Pedmore Stourbridge.
I understand and appreciate that councils are under pressure from central government to provide more housing. However, I do believe the above proposals if approved would have a negative impact for the following reasons and urge you to help us with refusing permission for the destruction of our greenbelt;
I am pleased we have the support of Andy Street and Councillor Patrick Harley who both have made statements in March 21 which included that they both felt there was no evidence that Dudley needed to encroach on its green belt at all for housing developments.
Infrastructure – Worcester Lane is a single lane road and already quite busy and noisy. A development of the size proposed, inevitably will have residents who are car owners, and possibly two cars per household. The traffic will have no other entrance n and out of these new estates but on to Worcester Lane. This will increase the number of vehicles using the road immensely. This will impact on the air quality and hence public health. I personally have family members who have Asthma and it is proven that road pollution does exacerbate the condition. As was demonstrated by the Ella Adoo-Kissi Debrah case in London where the Coroner called for a change in the law after air pollution led to the death of a nine-year old girl. I find it very hard to comprehend on one hand city centres are introducing congestion charges, yet happy to increase traffic in semi-rural areas and pollution because these areas are not on the governments radar! Worcester Lane, Bell Meadow, and Green Meadow are not the only areas to be affected by this proposed development. Bromwich Lane, Redlake Drive through to Middlefield Lane and Worcester Road in Hagley will all be equally affected.
As Worcester Lane and surrounding roads gets busier, pedestrians are at an increased risk too from cars who already use this stretch as a speed track because speed cameras’ do not feature along here and hence there is no deterrent for these law breakers.
This side of Pedmore and Hagley have a limited bus service and have for years. The bus service demand is not there as residents are car owners in the main and this is the most convenient way to get about. Stourbridge being a commuter town has a population with a work base which is not concentrated to Stourbridge town centre but all around the West Midlands and beyond so improving the bus routes is not an option for reducing traffic in this area. Internet speed is currently as low as 10mbps. The agencies providing the service have declined to link the area to super broadband despite the infrastructure being in place. When we inquired about Super broadband with BT we were told we could have it at a cost of approximately £20K, which would have to be paid for by the residents of Bell Meadow, Green Meadow and Worcester Lane. This was declined by most residents on the grounds of affordability. A year on residents have now been advised this is coming (coincidentally shortly before the development was proposed). I can’t help thinking is this an incentive to reduce resident backlash to the development proposal!
Existing Doctors surgeries, Dentists surgeries, school services will not cope. These provisions are already stretched and getting an appointment is not easy since Cala homes and other developments were approved over the last few years. The appeal of Hagley and Pedmore is its semi-rural location. I do feel this is slowly being eradicated, and its beauty is being destroyed. This part of the city brings visitors from nearby Birmingham and it would be a shame for the West Midlands area as a county to become so built up that its residents have no greenery at home to enjoy.
Pedmore has over the past three decades or so, seen a fair amount of green belt used for housing, we will have very little left to enjoy. This is land used for walks by residents of Pedmore, Norton Iverley Hagley, Old Swindford and more, including by residents of a local special needs’ unit.
Social housing/affordable housing is a myth the smaller houses on these developments still attract a premium which still makes them out of reach for most first-time buyers. The number of homes built of this description are so minimal to have real impact anyway which then beckons the question ‘who really gains from building on greenbelt as opposed to brownfields and inner-city regeneration projects?
For those who argue that Bell Meadow, Green Meadow and the Redlake Drive area is on greenbelt land, so we have no leg to stand on…. I say to those people only this ‘we have therefore played our part in permitted developments on greenbelt in the 80’s and 90’s and noughty’s’! The remaining greenbelt surely remains as the compromise for past developments and, also so the wildlife still has a home. It also means Pedmore maintains some attractive landscapes and views something the area is renowned for.
Regeneration of inner-cities and brownfield land have the infrastructure already in place, it makes more sense and has the least impact on the environment to use these areas for such developments. Clean air is important to us all and this development will compromise this for the residents in Pedmore, Hagley, Norton and more. I can only assume developers cannot maximise their own personal wealth from regeneration as they can from untouched green belt and therefore making greenbelt far more favourable.
Noise & Pollution - Residents with gardens backing onto Worcester Lane will find their gardens will be even noisier and impossible to enjoy. The road surface is a tar and gravel mixture. When cars travel on this surface the noise from rolling tyres has been recorded to be between 90 to over 100 decibels. This was recorded using a sound App on an Apple phone. I am fearful the proposed development will result in traffic noise getting louder, air pollution getting worse, thus impacting health of residents and saleability of some of the existing houses for those who may need to move for health reasons
Health - Asthma sufferers and those residents with mental health issues are not being considered. Its’ sad that health and well-being of residents does not appear to be a consideration. Will the developer be expected to contribute to the local hospice annually as health of residents deteriorates and more cases are referred to the hospice? Poor air quality jeopardises health and is linked to some cancers and asthma both of which can be killers.
Will local schools be expanded to deal with the increase for pupil places. If this is the case this will inevitably take a way children from other schools which would reduce rolls, therefore budgets, resulting in redundancies, and deficits and possible school closures. Can local schools accommodate the building of more classrooms without jeopardising the outdoor facilities for sport and recreation for its pupils?
Wildlife - A housing development of around 115 extra houses will destroy habitats for local wildlife which has already been pushed out once for the already developed areas since the 80’s and 90’s. Since covid lockdowns local wildlife activity has improved and this will once again be destroyed. This proposal wouldn’t just destroy wildlife habitats but also the enjoyment of green spaces by the residents within several areas surrounding the greenbelt of which there will be very little left.
Archaeological Site - it is believed the sites proposed for development may have historical value and they should be preserved for archaeological investigation making it a more exciting space than it already is for walkers from the area and visitors beyond. As a resident who has family members who suffer from asthma I would ask that along with all my points within this letter the council consider these matters and refuse giving such a development the go ahead. Dudley could be a great place again if only those areas that desperately need regenerating are prioritised and given an attractive face lift making it more fashionable, attracting those who require social housing as well as the more established resident who are treading on the first rung of the housing ladder and beyond.

Object

Representation ID: 11217

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Michael Garbett

Number of people: 2

DUH210(Viewfield Crescent)

Objections to build on land between Viewfield Crescent and Moden Hill:
1. Which doctors surgeries will the residents of these proposed houses go to? it is virtually impossible to get an appointment as it is. Have you tried to get an appointment with the GP in this area?
2. Where will the children of these residents of these proposed houses go to school? Again, it is almost impossible to get a place for a child to attend a local school in this area.
3. The traffic between Sedgley and Dudley on a morning and evening is a nightmare. Cars use the Ridgeway, the Holloway and Moden Hill as short cuts, so more houses will only add to this already heavy traffic and increase pollution in this area. Ask Adam asking about this!
4. What will happen to the [redacted ecological data] in the field? The wildlife has lived there for at least 40 years when we moved into Snowdon Rise. They frequently come into our garden at night for food that we leave for them. [redacted ecological data]?
5. Should the proposed building go ahead this would result in MORE green belt land lost forever because of the thoughtless councillors putting money first for their coffers
6. Voters in this area WILL remember the names of the councillors who vote in favour of the passing of these plans, and remember who NOT to vote for in the next round of local elections
Please note our strong objections to these plans.

Object

Representation ID: 11218

Received: 05/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Markey

Worcester Lane Sites (DUH0206, 207 and 209)

I’m writing to register my objection to the proposed reclassification of land at
Worcester Lane Pedmore .
>
> The formal process for consultation hasn’t started yet but clearly much has already
been done to consider the merits of the location as some land previously proposed
has now been rejected .
>
> The land being considered is all currently “green belt “ and provided a green barrier
between residential areas and space for the residents to enjoy . I am very concerned
that the planned density of housing will put further strain on the local amenities and
make an already busy road very dangerous for local residents .
>
> Please can you explain the rationale for still considering these sites and the logic for
using green belt land rather than the plentiful supply of reclaimed industrial land .

Object

Representation ID: 11219

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Simon Hill

Worcester Lane Sites (DUH206, DUH207, DUH209)

I have been made aware through a recent flyer that the land in Worcester lane opposite the service road has been considered for potential future residential development.
I offer my objections to the proposal based on the following grounds:
1/I consider this to cause an impact on drainage of flood water plus a huge increase to flood risk and enclose the following images to show the current situation when we get a good down fall. I feel the fields provide an essential run off for this. Should these go it will be detrimental to where it can drain and consider the impact this would have on the rail line with regards to this as well.
2/I believe there would be a substantial impact regarding critical light source
3/As the area is considered a conservation area and the setting is an area of outstanding natural beauty I consider the proposal to have a profound effect in regards to this. The area is used by many families, walkers, dog owners to access various walks in these surroundings
4/if we look at the natural surroundings of the area that remains unimpacted. The current habitat of birds such as buzzards, sparrow -hawks, an environment for, Foxes etc will be gone forever.
5/ I think the character of the neighbourhood and conservation area would be a huge loss to the borough and is irreplaceable should this go to more than an existing proposal
6/ As with most proposed applications it is worth highlighting the usual effect of increase to traffic congestion, parking, schools, doctors surgeries etc.
7/if we are looking for areas to redevelop then surely it is more worthy to consider current brownfield sites as opposed to development on our shrinking green belt.
8/Increase in noise and the impact of site traffic would raise a considerable issue
9/Impact on light through a dramatic increase in street lighting of an evening
10/Adverse effect on the residential community of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) disturbance, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc but this does not include noise disturbance arising from the actual execution of any works which I know would not be taken into account
11/The suggested proposal has a large visual impact which is out of character with the neighbourhood. The suggested number of propertys for the proposal is over-bearing, out of scale and out of character compared to existing developments in the vicinity.
12/It would appear from your proposal plan that you are also looking to utilise a strip of land owned with the property of 113, Worcester lane. How so?
13/I believe the neighbourhood strongly objects to these proposals as I do and therefore challenge the merits of such a scheme .
Kind regards

Object

Representation ID: 11250

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rach Evans

This is a terrible idea to build on these sites children will have nowhere to go to play people will have
nowhere to walk there dogs there will be no green space left in our area at all i am completely against this idea! Please register my complaint ASAP

Object

Representation ID: 11252

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Pittaway

Number of people: 2

DUH210 Viewfield Crescent

To whom it may concern
We are residents [redacted personal details] adjacent to the plans that have been put forward to develop green belt land on viewfield crescent, Sedgley dy3 3up.
As a resident our concerns first are the wildlife that will be directly affected [wildlife data redacted] with the
additional cars that will be entering and leaving viewfield crescent
Come and view for yourself the number of cars already parked on the streets of the ridgeway together with the parking on viewfield crescent where our private drive is
situated for access to our 3 bungalows which already restricts our view to get out of our driveway which is adjacent to the green belt land.
We need to protect these green belt areas for wildlife in the future and should be looking at brown field sites as an alternative first.
Why have we not been notified by letter of these planning proposals
This e mail comes from a local resident and estate agent in the area
We feel that you are trying to pass these proposals through without notifying us the local residents who in the normal way could make objections once you notify us by
letter
Why have we not been notified by letter?
Thank goodness we are on Facebook otherwise we would not have known of Dudley councils proposals to develop this green belt site
I would appreciate you lodging our STRONG objection to this development and notifying us directly by letter or e mail as to future meetings that we can attend as to date we have not been invited or informed about any meetings whatsoever!
I await your response

Object

Representation ID: 11255

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Carter

DUH217 (Land at Wollaston Farm)

DUH217 Land at Wollaston Farm is part of the green belt between Dudley & S.Staffs. This proposed development would destroy this valuable well being asset for current & future generations.
This strip of green belt has been invaluable to residents health and mental health during the pandemic allowing residents access to the countryside for leisure/pleasure/well being. The surrounding area is already heavily populated and polluted by traffic.
The local road network cant cope with the existing volume of traffic. Access to rail links is impossible at peak times due to grid lock. The local schools, doctors surgeries etc are already overstretched and would be unable to cope. This appears to be an underhand attempt to link with SS SHELAA 2020-3641 to create a massive new housing development

Object

Representation ID: 11285

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Woodward

Number of people: 2

Worcester Lane Sites (DUH206,207 and 209) and Wollaston Farm (DUH217)

We wish to put forward the argument against further development on Green Belt land in Stourbridge. The points are general but we believe relevant to both Worcester Lane and Wollaston Farm locations

1. Urban Sprawl

Urban sprawl has been correlated with increased energy use, pollution, and traffic conges on and a decline in community distinctiveness and cohesiveness. In addition, by increasing the physical and environmental “footprints” of towns and villages, the phenomenon leads to the destruction of wildlife
habitat and to the fragmentation of remaining natural areas.

2. Impact on Wildlife

Wildlife is under pressure on many fronts. Over the past 50 years we've seen declines in two thirds of the UK’s plant and animal species, for a range of reasons, including loss of habitat. Many of our more common species are increasingly endangered. Green Belt land is important because it is home to a wide range of species - it can provide a wildlife highway for many animals, creating corridors for them to move between cities and towns and the wider countryside.

3. Exhaust Brownfield Sites First

There is space for at least one million homes on brownfield land in England. A recent CPRE report also showed that developments on brownfield land are completed more quickly than on greenfield sites, and academic studies have also shown that cleaning up contaminated brownfield land has public health benefits.

4. Planning Policy

England’s 14 Green Belts currently cover just 12.4% of the land in the country, and in order to keep it that way, the government needs a housing policy where brownfield land is prioritised. The government has to make it more attractive to developers – by way of subsidies or a streamlined planning process – to build on brownfield over greenbelt. It needs to be cheaper and quicker to build on brownfield than green belt and councils must be authorised to refuse planning permission for greenfield sites where there are suitable brownfield alternatives. We cannot have a situation where
we choose to build on what countryside we have left when there is space for a million new homes on land that is currently sitting abandoned.

Comment

Representation ID: 11304

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dale Field

Reference DUH217 I object as this land is precious green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 11531

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Deborah Dallison

Coseley is over developed and under resourced in terms of schools, GP surgeries, adequate jobs and shopping areas as it is. In addition, the roads are poorly maintained, there are lots of small industrial businesses already in the area that contribute to poor air quality. The proposals seems to be aiming to squeeze out every last drop of green space in the area - this is unfair on local residents. Roads such as Shaw Road and the junction there are already congested and dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 11539

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Lorna Blanco

Strong objection to housing plans, sites DUH06 07 09 Worcester Lane, Stourbridge. This is Green belt land used by locals to access walks across the pumping station at Ounty John Lane . Traffic levels are already extremely high in this area into and out of neighbouring Hagley. With queing back along Worcester Lane from the traffic lights in Hagley from school / commuter travel. This proposed housing will cause extensive congestion around this area as anyone would know if they have reviewed the traffic situation. This is precious green space that cannot be a justifiable or intelligent choice for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 11881

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Bryan Gould

Worcester Lane (DUH206,DUH207, DUH209) and Wollaston Grazing Land (DUH217).


1) Sites: DUH206, Worcester Lane North; DUH207,
Worcester Lane Central
DUH209, Worcester Lane South; Objection to allocation because: Sites lie in an AHHLV. Adjacent to SLINC. Would constitute unacceptable harm to green belt.

2) Site: DUH217, Grazing Land Wollaston Farm. Objection to allocation as site: Should be used as a public open space. Falls in an area of high Landscape sensitivity. Should be protected due to Tranquillity.

3) Site: ID 10511, Three Fields. Objection to this site not being designated as a Local Green Space: Meets criteria for LGS. Designation would demonstrate significance to the community.

Object

Representation ID: 12099

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Everton

Nature of comment: ‘Objection’

1) Sites: DUH206, Worcester Lane North; DUH207, Worcester Lane Central
DUH209, Worcester Lane South; Objection to allocation because: Sites lie in an AHHLV. Adjacent to SLINC. Would constitute unacceptable harm to green belt.

2) Site: DUH217, Grazing Land Wollaston Farm. Objection to allocation as site: Should be used as a public open space. Falls in an area of high Landscape sensitivity. Should be protected due to Tranquillity.

Object

Representation ID: 12154

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Hadley

Site DUH213 (Lapwood Avenue)
The area in question is adjacent to a small community Primary school which in recent times has had issues with road safety due to the nature of the surrounding roads. Further development of this area would increase such issues considerably.

Furthermore, the estate has very little greenery and so to remove this area would significantly impact the same further. Particularly in recent times it has been established that access to open space has a positive affect on mental well-being. Taking away the little open space available on the estate would adversely affect beings well-being.

Object

Representation ID: 12373

Received: 11/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Ashley Cooper

Black country plan REF DUH 206,207,209 (Worcester Lane Sites)

Please note that I wish to Object to the proposed development of these three sites.
Grounds being
1) Destruction of natural habitat to many wild bird species , small mammals, and bats
2) Loss of an important leisure facility for the people of Stourbridge, walking, jogging, bird watching, pigeon racing and model aeroplane flying
3) Highway safety. The B4187 is a fast 'winding" road with a history of nasty vehicle accidents
4) Local infrastructure insufficient to cater for a large influx of families
5) This area of land is a natural buffer separating the borough of Dudley , West Midlands from Hagley a large village in Worcestershire without which it becomes one large conurbation blurring the identities and histories of the two parts.
6) Proposed development is out of keeping with local area

Object

Representation ID: 12380

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Britton

DUH 217 land at Wollaston Farm is part of the greenbelt between Dudley and South Staffordshire. Green belts were established to prevent urban spread and to safeguard the countryside. We have a right to green open space, and we should be protecting our green space.

This area is of archeological and historical importance and daes back to the 11th Century and provides a link to the ancient tracks down to the River Stour and the various communities of Amblecote,Wollaston, Stourton, Prestwood and Wordsley.

The affected land provides access to green space for residents as well as those in adjoining areas and provides pathways to the canal networks. This route is well used by walkers, runners, cyclists and invaluable for peoples mental health wellbeing.

The surrounding area is already heavily populated and polluted by traffic. The local road network cannot cope with the existing volume of traffic. Access to rail links is impossible at peal times due to grid lock. The local schools, doctors surgeries and other facilities are already over stretched and would be unable to cope.

This appears too be an underhand attempt to link SS SHELAA 220-364 to create a massive housing development which woul bring the infrastructure of the area to its knees.

Comment

Representation ID: 12474

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Jean Swift

DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209 (Worcester Lane Sites)

Very little to say re proposal to build on a narrow strip of land and I MEAN REALLY NARROW alongside the railway line in Worcester Lane.
I thought English foot paths were protected! The bridge is part of that footpath.
Yes I could go on with devaluation of property there already etc BUT TO DESTROY A FOOTPATH is enough.
I suspect English Heritage has more clout than Dudley Council.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to add to other objections already raised .Personally I am too old to WORRY and it may not happen in my lifetime but the future generation has a right to some heritage sites near them including ancient footpaths.
Jean Swift

Comment

Representation ID: 12493

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Deborah Raggett

DUH206,207 and 209 (Worcester Lane Sites)

Good Evening.
I would like to reject the idea of more properties being built on Worcester lane and Bromwich lane, I have lived in Pedmore all of my life and have seen how busy it has now become with more and more daily traffic jams at all of the major junctions as peak times . Worcester lane suffers with this problem daily so building numerous more properties will only add to this gridlock.
The schools cannot cope with the extra children, the green space wildlife is decreasing, the air pollution in the area will increase, the floods on the road by the bridge on Worcester lane every time it rains will increase , a lack of parking in the whole area will be more of an issue than it already is.
Please take these points into consideration when reviewing these plans as Pedmore was once a lovely area now being ruined.

Thank you
Deborah Raggett

Object

Representation ID: 12495

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Catherine Lander

DUH217- Grazing Land Wollaston Farm

I am objecting to the planning proposal for houses on the fields between Kingsway and Hyperion Road. It is a well used route enjoyed by many local people. Many local people in the area do not have access to gardens and need this green oasis to walk through or just to look out on for their physical and mental health.
Stourbridge has a lot of new housing being built along the canal on old factory and warehouse land, and the Longlands site. The schools and services in Stourbridge and Wollaston have not increased to cope with the increase in population. Green areas are needed, as the last 18months have shown.
Putting these relatively few houses on the field in Wollaston does nothing positive for the local area, and takes something away from people who live there.

Dudley needs to preserve its Green areas.

Object

Representation ID: 12497

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Potter

Black country plan REF DbUH 206.207.209 (Worcester Lane Sites)
Please note i strongly object to the proposed development of these three sites
Grounds being
1 Destruction of valuable Green Belt
2 Increased noise and pollution
3 Local schools and facilities already at breaking point
4 No infrastructure to support the development
5 Use available Brownfield sites and NOT Greenbelt which is for the benefit of the land owners and developers
and not the local community
6 Worcester lane is a lane not suitable for additional roads leading on to it ,making it even more dangerous.