Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 10560

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ryan Priest

Site DUH060 is inappropriate for development. It has been rejected by planners previously, provides greenspace access to residents, and any increase in housing would lead to significant issues around transport infrastructure on Windmill Hill, an area which already has bad traffic and has some of the worst air pollution in Dudley.

Object

Representation ID: 10579

Received: 18/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen James Pratt

The strategy for Dudley does not allocate all the relevant strategic growth locations recommended in the 2018 GBHMA Strategic Growth Study which sought to indicate how the current shortfalls in housing and employment land from the GBHMA & relevant Economic Functional Areas could be met. As such, it is unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 10600

Received: 21/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kay Cook

[Worcester Lane]

Proposed housing on green belt land along Worcester Lane, Pedmore is scandalous. There are many brownfield sites in Dudley including derelict and unused factory sites that should be built on first. This area of land was extremely important to the public’s mental health during lockdown. It needs to be protected, stay green and open. Local services including schools and particularly GP practices are over subscribed and Dudley MBC should be ashamed that they propose to put more pressure on these services.

Object

Representation ID: 10603

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Stella Layton

Green belt has been reclassified for commercial gain and for no real benefit to the communities that it impacts. Affordable housing will NOT be the outcome but more executive homes.
Infrastructure will sink under the additional pressure, transport, health and education.
The natural environment will be massively impacted and disrupted with little thought for nature or climate change impacts.
Without our green spaces as a community we are significantly impacted, these areas got us through Covid and continue to be used today.

Object

Representation ID: 10625

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Wright

I do not support the development of the land at Worcester Lane Stourbridge due to the environmental impact - destruction of beautiful green belt land and increased pollution due to increased volume of cars and impact on already heavy traffic

Object

Representation ID: 10640

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Pickering

I am writing about the sites DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209. I am not in favour of building on these sites. I do not know what the point is of allocating green belt if we are only going to remove sites from the green belt when it is convenient to develop them. My concerns are particular about loss of amenity. This is the kind of well-used countryside which has proved vital to wellbeing during the pandemic and beyond. Having recently moved into the borough from London, access to the local countryside was a big part of attracting my young family here.

Object

Representation ID: 10644

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Davis

The following sites…
DUH206
DUH207
DUH209
Should not be built on. This is important green space for local residents and there is plenty of alternative brownfield sites to develop instead.

Comment

Representation ID: 10652

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ryan Priest

While I support site DUH045 in principle, I believe that there must be guarantees of of a certain number of affordable housing and there must be space allocated for small retail properties.

Object

Representation ID: 10664

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Su Brad

DUGT01 - This is a terrible site for travellers due to Delph Lane being an extremely narrow one track lane. There are a lot of objections to this development already, including a highways report which states how narrow the road is and that it is blind access from a very busy main road.
It is also in the centre of a housing estate and the site itself is between 2 houses. There are no turn around points in this narrow lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 10666

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Su Brad

DUH009 - If this area is to be used for housing, please ensure that foxes, etc are provided with an area they can live. This brownfield site has a lot of wildlife due to the area being left to flourish for years. There are also TPOs on a lot of the trees on the perimeter of this land. They also need to be protected.
Any future housing needs to take into consideration the character of the existing properties of Withymoor Village and be designed with those in mind. 3 story town houses for example would not fit the area.

Object

Representation ID: 10668

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Davey

Local roads, services unable to cope with current demand. There are Brownfield sites as alternatives. Speak to the constituents

Object

Representation ID: 10671

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Sproson

No green space for children to play, dog walkers, Will effect peoples mental wellbeing. Increase in traffic, pollution , noise.
Trees & wildlife will be destroyed. . Already overstretched services in Pensnett.

Object

Representation ID: 10672

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Jennie Russell-Smith

Infrastructure not suitable
Green spaces are important for health and well-being
Children should have green spaces on their doorstep and not have to travel
Biodiversity and the amount of insects/pollinators which are vital to our survival

Object

Representation ID: 10678

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Roden

DUH217 - This land is precious to the people of Wollaston.
We walk our dog, if it would disappear, it would be impacting our lives and many others in Wollaston.
The roads in Wollaston are already utilised to over capacity. More houses mean more cars, more pollution for our children to have to deal with.

Object

Representation ID: 10679

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mr JOhn Tiltman

I want to object to part DUH217 of the plan.

This would take away a beautiful ancient footpath that myself and my family have used for 20 years. We walk, jog, cycle and walk the dog on the path.

If it is taken away it will mean that our exercise will be affected not to mention the terrible affect this housing will have on the environment especially the wildlife and insect habitation.

Object

Representation ID: 10681

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Colin Marshall

DUH217 - Object
This is a vital wildlife corridor and area much enjoyed by local residents in a densley populated area.
The ancient hedgerow forms a border between Dudley and South Staffs of historical importance.
We should be protecting green belt - this area is vital to my daily exercise and well being regime. The path provides access to open space.

Object

Representation ID: 10683

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Smith

I object to all use of Greenbelt sites as part of the Black Country plan and of neighbouring Council South Staffordshire Council.
There is no need for greenbelt use where there are still many brownfield sites that are derelict, waste land that are owned by individuals and councils alike that MUST be used first.
The use of greenfield is not appropriate and will impact local lives and remove natural breaks between existing urban developments that during the enforced lockdown of 2020-2021 became a relief for many people to get away from their home for 1 hour.

Object

Representation ID: 10685

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Dathan

Re DUH217.
Loss of pathways accessing green space.
Infrastructure problems caused by inadequate road and path systems.
Felling of trees and hedgerows would change the landscape and and have a negative effect on wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 10687

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley McArthur

Re. Site DUH217, I use this land to walk my dog and not having access to it will have a detrimental effect on my mental health

Object

Representation ID: 10690

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mr G Mills

My Wife and myself regularly use this land to access walking and cycling routes around the canal and river. Developing this green belt will transform a peaceful and historically important area into a noisy, busy and more polluted region, with restricted rights of way and didrupt the habotats of a variety of wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 10691

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Moore

DUH217 is part of the Green Belt between Dudley and South Staffs. This proposed development would destroy this valuable asset for current and future generations of residents. Once gone its gone for ever.
This strip of Green Belt has been valuable during the pandemic, llowing access the countryside for pleasure and ensure their well being.
The area is already heavily populated and polluted by traffic. The local schools, doctors surgery's etc are already over stretched and would be unable to cope.
This appears a disingenuous attempt to link with SS SHELAA 2020- 364, to create massive new housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 10692

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Alexander Somers

Object to site DUH217

As a local resident we have the righ to access green areas within our local area. This application along with one by south Staffordshire Council will virtually eliminate green space in this area.

Furthermore, I fail to see when global warming is an issue how again destroying green areas is in keeping with national and international objectives. These green areas are important to us local residents as well as providing homes to many wild species and the impact on local residents and local wildlife wellbeing appears to have not been considered.

Object

Representation ID: 10693

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah-Jane Stevens

Sites DUH208 and DUH211 are utilising green belt. These are on the edge of the countryside, not within the current urbanisation thus extending the urban sprawl of the Black Country. Both are currently used for agriculture, with DUH208 being grade 2 quality. Roads, public transport, education and NHS Infrastructure does not support existing local population

Object

Representation ID: 10695

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jan Millward

I object to site at Wollaston being allowed for building of houses. Ref DUH217
During lockdown it was invaluable for people walking outside in the fresh air.

Object

Representation ID: 10697

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Whiting

[DUH217]
I object as it’s taking the nature away. I live on [address[ and my [child] loves to walk through to see the nature. If this is took away I fear for the animals who live in this green space. I’ve only lived here [x] years and this has helped me with my depression going on walks we need this beautiful green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 10700

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ann Adams

Reference site DUH217 ,

i object the plans for this proposal because this is a lmportant strip of greenbelt land , for not only local people , but also the local nature .We should have the right to access this green open space as should the wildlife that already habitate this area . We should protect and respect our green belt not destroy it !

Object

Representation ID: 10704

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Glazzard

Children's mental health and fitness would deteriorate if they can’t go there. It’s close and it’s safe.
I use the access this path provides.
I run through this space.
I have concerns about the impact on traffic, especially with young children, and the pollution the construction and ongoing use would bring. The roads are busy enough and not maintained well enough, even before additional traffic.
Wider public services would be impaired as the supply is limited.
The wildlife in this area would also be at risk it must be preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 10707

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Slaughter

ALL green belt and green field sites need to be removed from this list and left as protected and open spaces in perpetuity.

Developments on Green Belt land are supported by property developers as they can avoid the costs of clearing up often polluted brownfield sites, and therefore their profits will be greater. Such developments attract wealthy incomers, but what we need is affordable smaller private homes and council houses (rather than private sector rental homes) for local people currently unable to afford to buy or stay in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 10713

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Louise Sullivan

I object to site DUH217 and taking Wollaston Greenbelt for housing. The paths that go through there are vital to my well-being as I use them for walking my dog, it is a route for me to get to meet my parents and where we often walk together. There is a lot of wildlife there that is being put at risk and we should be protecting the biodiversity in the area as more and more is getting taken for housing. Development here would be harmful and detrimental to both the wildlife and local people of the area and is inappropriate

Object

Representation ID: 10715

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emily Fitz-Harris

I don't think Land at Swindon Road, Wall Heath, Kingswinford (The Triangle Site) (or any green areas) should be removed from the greenbelt. These green spaces are vital for mental health and wellbeing to residents, they are vital for the environment. At a time of climate crisis you shouldn't be building on green spaces that provide much needed pollution barriers and homes for wildlife. Its just not right. There's not enough infastructure for 500 more houses, the roads are already busy. It already takes 20mins to get to the center of Stourbridge from Kingswinford at peak times.