Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 46049

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Chloe Lansbury

Objection to site allocations because this space is a highly popular area for families, couples and friends to walk and enjoy the outside, an important time for our health, mental health and well-being! Many areas are not safe with roads but this leads to beautiful green space which should never be destroyed.

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.

I object to the allocation of the above site for development on the following bases:

Public open space: The site is located within Community Forum 7, where there is a below-average quantity of open space. It was well-used by local residents in the past for informal recreation and has a high value to the local community. I believe the site should be re-opened to the public to provide a much-needed green space in this area. The site could additionally be enhanced for nature, for example by developing it as a wildflower meadow.

Landscape sensitivity: This is a green belt, green field site which, although having no agricultural rating and defined as ‘urban’, falls within area S17 having high landscape sensitivity and a “sense of scenic rural character” (Dudley Landscape Sensitivity Assessment). It is my/our opinion that Red ratings for landscape sensitivity should be considered to constitute “significant planning constraints which cannot be mitigated”, despite the high levels of housing land which the BCP is seeking to meet (Site Assessment Report).

Tranquillity: The NPPF states that planning policies should “identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason” (NPPF 2019, para 180(b)). The government guidelines on what constitutes a tranquil place are that it is “relatively undisturbed by noise from human sources that undermine the intrinsic character of the area” with a positive soundscape for e.g. of birdsong. (“Guidance: Noise”, HMG 2019, para. 8). This site should be assessed for tranquillity and protected under Policy GB1 (4) on protecting tranquil areas.

Object

Representation ID: 46050

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Chloe Lansbury

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.

This is a comment on an unallocated site.

While I support the non-allocation of the Three Fields, Norton (site reference SA-0076-DUD as it appears in Appendix A:Dudley) in the Draft Local Plan and its continued protection under green belt designation, I believe that due to the pressure on local authorities to release green belt land for development, sites which have particular significance and importance to the local community should be identified and protected by the additional designation of Local Green Space.

The Three Fields meets all of Part A criteria for a Local Green Space, including being ‘local in character’ and is in ‘close proximity to the community it serves’ (NPPF). The site is “demonstrably special to the local community”, as evidenced by the supporting evidence submitted alongside the original LGS application. The site is extensively used by the local community, is important to residents of all ages and from all groups, regarded as a tremendous community amenity seen as adding value to the local area, important for maintaining community spirit, and an asset that should be passed on to future generations.

The site has been assessed as meeting two of the Part B criteria (Beauty, and Recreation) and therefore meets national criteria for a Local Green Space. Beauty: The site is visually attractive, offers magnificent panoramic views, and contributes to local identity, character of the area and a sense of place. Recreational value: The site has been used for informal recreation for over 50 years, is popular with walkers, cyclists, and those using the site as a ‘green gym’. It forms part of a wider green corridor and offers walkers access to the wider countryside. It is used by dog walkers, and encourages a ‘sense of community’ amongst the socially isolated. It is very popular with children, for informal recreation, games, and nature study. The site has been used in the past for organised social activities and could be used again for similar activities as well as by local schools and community groups in activities related to the local natural environment.

The Site Assessment summary for this site quotes the NPPF; “if land is already protected by Greenbelt Policy then consideration should be given to whether any additional local benefits would be gained by designations as local green space”, and suggests that since the site is green belt, “there would not be any additional local benefits” in designating the site a LGS (p. 537 of Appendix A).

However, Government guidance on LGS designation states that even within green belts a LGS designation can “help to identify areas that are of particular importance to the local community” (“Open space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space”, HMG 2014, Para: 010). Green Belt designation itself does not recognise any additional value to the local community which a site may have above the five stated purposes of the green belt. Specifically, “green belts do not recognise… the community value of land” (Neighbourhood Planning, 2019, para.134). Given the ever-growing pressure exerted on local authorities to release Green Belt sites for development, a LGS designation would demonstrate the importance of this site to the local community and its local significance beyond that of being simply ‘green belt’. This site should therefore be granted a Local Green Space designation.

Designations: The site has mature hedgerows which should be surveyed. Other hedgerows in the locality recently received SLINC protection (Racecourse Lane SLINC, Norton).

Tranquillity: This site should be protected under Policy GB1 (4) on protecting tranquil areas. The site is experienced as a natural space, and is described by visitors as a ‘piece of the countryside’. It is often possible to observe and listen to the sounds of farm animals in adjacent fields. It is possible to enjoy sunrise and sunsets, and because of Dark Skies, the stars at night. There are extensive views over local countryside, fields, woodland and distant hills. The dominant soundscape is that of birdsong. The NPPF states that planning policies should “identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason” (NPPF 2019, para 180(b)). The government guidelines on what constitutes a tranquil place is that it is “relatively undisturbed by noise from human sources that undermine the intrinsic character of the area” with a positive soundscape for e.g. of birdsong. (“Guidance: Noise”, HMG 2019, para. 8).

Object

Representation ID: 46053

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Page

I am OBJECTING to the following sites being listed as suitable for development in the Black Country plan:

DUH221 Standhills Road, Kingswinford

I am OBJECTING due to the following reasons:

1. I am concerned about the increase of traffic on the roads as the local road network cannot cope with the existing amount of traffic and long traffic jams and delays are already a major problem. It can currently take up to 1 hour during peak times to travel just a few miles through the Kingswinford / Wall Heath / Wordsley / Pensnett area. If these developments are approved that could mean up to an additional 2000 vehicles on the road. The local road system would not cope. All these extra vehicles on the roads would lead to an increase in air pollution, noise, dirt and general disruption in the area.

2. I am concerned about the impact that these developments would have on accessing local services such as GP practices and schools, many of which are already over subscribed. Any increase in houses would put even more pressure on already stretched and under pressure schools and doctors.
3. I am concerned that the loss of any of the above mentioned sites would have a detrimental effect on the health and well being - both physical and mental health - of local residents. These sites are used by local residents for excercise, dog walking , relaxation, wellbeing, socialising and for children to play. After the pandemic and lockdown it is more important than ever for people to have access to green space and fresh air for their health and well being. The loss of any of these sites would have a negative impact on local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 46054

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Page

I am OBJECTING to the following sites being listed as suitable for development in the Black Country plan:

DUH216 Bryce Road, Pensnett

I am OBJECTING due to the following reasons:

1. I am concerned about the increase of traffic on the roads as the local road network cannot cope with the existing amount of traffic and long traffic jams and delays are already a major problem. It can currently take up to 1 hour during peak times to travel just a few miles through the Kingswinford / Wall Heath / Wordsley / Pensnett area. If these developments are approved that could mean up to an additional 2000 vehicles on the road. The local road system would not cope. All these extra vehicles on the roads would lead to an increase in air pollution, noise, dirt and general disruption in the area.

2. I am concerned about the impact that these developments would have on accessing local services such as GP practices and schools, many of which are already over subscribed. Any increase in houses would put even more pressure on already stretched and under pressure schools and doctors.
3. I am concerned that the loss of any of the above mentioned sites would have a detrimental effect on the health and well being - both physical and mental health - of local residents. These sites are used by local residents for excercise, dog walking , relaxation, wellbeing, socialising and for children to play. After the pandemic and lockdown it is more important than ever for people to have access to green space and fresh air for their health and well being. The loss of any of these sites would have a negative impact on local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 46055

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Page

I am OBJECTING to the following sites being listed as suitable for development in the Black Country plan:

DUH213 Lapwood Avenue, Kingswinford

I am OBJECTING due to the following reasons:

1. I am concerned about the increase of traffic on the roads as the local road network cannot cope with the existing amount of traffic and long traffic jams and delays are already a major problem. It can currently take up to 1 hour during peak times to travel just a few miles through the Kingswinford / Wall Heath / Wordsley / Pensnett area. If these developments are approved that could mean up to an additional 2000 vehicles on the road. The local road system would not cope. All these extra vehicles on the roads would lead to an increase in air pollution, noise, dirt and general disruption in the area.

2. I am concerned about the impact that these developments would have on accessing local services such as GP practices and schools, many of which are already over subscribed. Any increase in houses would put even more pressure on already stretched and under pressure schools and doctors.
3. I am concerned that the loss of any of the above mentioned sites would have a detrimental effect on the health and well being - both physical and mental health - of local residents. These sites are used by local residents for excercise, dog walking , relaxation, wellbeing, socialising and for children to play. After the pandemic and lockdown it is more important than ever for people to have access to green space and fresh air for their health and well being. The loss of any of these sites would have a negative impact on local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 46061

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Dunn

DUH218 - Guys Lane Paddock

I object to these developments. Green space is being reduced all the time and if we we should from the pandemic how important these areas are to the environment and to our personal health and wellbeing. The local wildlife and animals are beneficial to the environment and the important eco-structure of the area.
The increase in traffic on the surrounding roads would cause issues on roads which already overloaded. The local schools and medical centers are already overflowing and could not cope with the additional increase. The local amenities are already struggling and Gornal Village cant cope with the increase in traffic which is already a danger to drive through. The proposed Aldi would also increase the traffic risk and therefore the additional housing would add to this problem.
The growth on the surrounding greenbelt and green areas will just increase the urban sprawl and the infrastructure is not in place to cope with the growth. The massive housing development from Wombourne is creeping towards the border and we already have Himley View from the other direction, by developing these DMBC areas it will eventually join up with only Himley hall as a green areas in-between. We are therefore reducing our green space and increasing the housing stock which will have a major negative on air pollution and a negative effect on the health and wellbeing of DMBC residents. We have plenty of Brown-field areas throughout the Black Country area which should be developed over any green space.

Object

Representation ID: 46062

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Dunn

DUH210 - Viewfield Crescent Paddock

I object to these developments. Green space is being reduced all the time and if we we should from the pandemic how important these areas are to the environment and to our personal health and wellbeing. The local wildlife and animals are beneficial to the environment and the important eco-structure of the area.
The increase in traffic on the surrounding roads would cause issues on roads which already overloaded. The local schools and medical centers are already overflowing and could not cope with the additional increase. The local amenities are already struggling and Gornal Village cant cope with the increase in traffic which is already a danger to drive through. The proposed Aldi would also increase the traffic risk and therefore the additional housing would add to this problem.
The growth on the surrounding greenbelt and green areas will just increase the urban sprawl and the infrastructure is not in place to cope with the growth. The massive housing development from Wombourne is creeping towards the border and we already have Himley View from the other direction, by developing these DMBC areas it will eventually join up with only Himley hall as a green areas in-between. We are therefore reducing our green space and increasing the housing stock which will have a major negative on air pollution and a negative effect on the health and wellbeing of DMBC residents. We have plenty of Brown-field areas throughout the Black Country area which should be developed over any green space.

Object

Representation ID: 46063

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Melissa Parsons

DUH222

I wholeheartedly object to building on the green spaces available to residents in the local area, particularly those which i have listed above. Such green spaces are used within the nieghborhood on a a daily basis for a multitude of activities: as a paramedic with little free time I personally find out local Severn De=rive and Bryce Road green spaces invaluable as I walk my dog here daily to allow him access to nature. I would be both deeply upset and compromised if we no longer had such green spaces to add to our quality of life. I strongly object.

Object

Representation ID: 46067

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Brockley

2 Bryce Road SA 0050 DUD
Incorporating Bromley-Bromley Land staggered crossroads with Bryce Road this this area speaks for itself as being a number of busy roads for access to Brierly Hill/Merry Hill/Commonside and short cuts via Tiled House Lane, as mentioned above to High Street Pensett. This adds up to an impossible situation and would, in my opinion be dangerous.

Comment

Representation ID: 46071

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor David Borley

DUH 024

I support in principle the following areas for housing: DUH 023, DUH 024, DUH 025, DUH 007.
However, please can the design of the estate include greenspace area and not housing 'crammed in' for profit reasons. An aesthetically pleasing estate, especially in Lye would improve the well being and a good mix of housing however understandably affordable housing and apartments should be predominant. For the greenspace - I propose an area of half the size of DUH212 in the middle of 023, 024, 025 and not surrounded by road, including small trees and playground would form a lovely communal area.

Comment

Representation ID: 46072

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor David Borley

DUH025

I support in principle the following areas for housing: DUH 023, DUH 024, DUH 025, DUH 007.
However, please can the design of the estate include greenspace area and not housing 'crammed in' for profit reasons. An aesthetically pleasing estate, especially in Lye would improve the well being and a good mix of housing however understandably affordable housing and apartments should be predominant. For the greenspace - I propose an area of half the size of DUH212 in the middle of 023, 024, 025 and not surrounded by road, including small trees and playground would form a lovely communal area.

Comment

Representation ID: 46073

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor David Borley

DUH 007

I support in principle the following areas for housing: DUH 023, DUH 024, DUH 025, DUH 007.
However, please can the design of the estate include greenspace area and not housing 'crammed in' for profit reasons. An aesthetically pleasing estate, especially in Lye would improve the well being and a good mix of housing however understandably affordable housing and apartments should be predominant. For the greenspace - I propose an area of half the size of DUH212 in the middle of 023, 024, 025 and not surrounded by road, including small trees and playground would form a lovely communal area.

Object

Representation ID: 46079

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Morris

DUH217

1/ I am very concerned that the assumptions and forecasts on which the whole Black Country plan is based are already out of date, thereby making the housing targets invalid before we start.
Recent figures show that birth rate in the UK is now only 1.5 /woman, life expectancy has dropped and the Government insist that ‘the days of unfettered immigration are over’. There also appear to be many EU citizens who have not registered to remain in UK, and these at some point will be leaving. So the population will either be static or even decline – so we don’t need 76000 houses built in the borough, and the 41000 planned on brownfield sites will be more than adequate. So we don’t need to select DUH217 for building.
2/ Everyone (population generally, Government, more specifically the West Mids Mayor Andy Street and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, insist building should not be on green belt until all Brownfield sites are built on – so the ONLY way to make this happen is to simply not approve any greenfield sites until all the brownfield is used. Once greenfield sites are allocated for building, as they are cheaper and more profitable to build on, they will be used first not last, and the brownfield sites will remain empty eyesores. There are figures which show developers prefer greenfield sites as they make 5 times the profit. Our greenbelt must not disappear for monetary reasons. DUH217 should not be even considered for selection for building until all brownfield sites are actually built on.
3/ This is even more relevant to the so called ‘unviable’ brownfield sites, which will only be built on when all the other brownfield sites have gone. If we want to see these eyesore and polluted sites treated and developed, then we have to firmly resist calls to build on any green sites. Science and industry will then have the incentive to find a way to treat the ‘unviable’ sites, removing the pollution for the greater benefit of the whole population. It is wrong to build on, or select for building, DUH217 until all brownfield sites are fully developed.
4/ Once we have built on greenfield sites we have lost the amenity forever. So we must not make any greenfield sites available for building at all, including DUH217, until all brownfield sites are used up.
5/ During Covid this site was a godsend. Its use as a recreation and exercise site increased dramatically. We are being told that we will have to learn to live with covid, so it seems further lockdowns etc will be inevitable, and we will need this site for taking exercise and breathing clean air in the future.
6/ This sites location is crucial, as it gives the local residents access to the countryside, very near their homes (by virtue of its location, built up on 3 sides). Once into site DUH217, the residents are ‘in the country’. Otherwise they will have to walk an extra half mile or more to reach the country side. This will be a disincentive to many, and a problem for others with mobility problems. This site is not just a green corridor for wildlife, it’s a green corridor for residents too. Plus its used to graze horses, which not only will have nowhere else to go if its built on (so may be ‘put down’), but which the local residents love to see as they demonstrate clearly that once into site DUH217, you are ‘in the country’. DUH217s location, built up on 3 sides, is a virtue, and makes it more even valuable as a green space near homes and people, which needs to be preserved. Not a feature which should be used to select it for building.
7/ We have a right to access green open spaces like these, and this site is vital to my wellbeing and that of other locals. This site gives locals a green space to exercise reducing risk of diabetes, obesity etc., and for socialising in the fresh air, reducing spread of Covid. After the recent pressure put on the nhs by covid, giving us the green sites the experts say is crucial to our health and wellbeing will lessen the future pressure on the nhs.
8/ The loss of DUH217 would be detrimental to my health.
9/ There is a bridleway, which will be lost. It’s a pleasant grass/earth bridle way, and a definitive path. Whilst it would be retained as a right of way if built on, this would no doubt be simply as a path down a road, through an estate. This is not so good for walkers or cyclists, but especially for horse riders and particularly young/inexperienced horse riders who are much safer on a bridleway such as presently exists than on a tarmacked road. Yet a further reason to refuse to consider this site for building.
10/ There is no existing road access into DUH217 making it an ‘unviable’ site. From Hyperion Rd, the access is currently only via a stretch of private road, and I am assured that the residents will not
allow any further access. From Kingsway, there is only a narrow track. To create access here would mean demolishing 2 houses at the very least (as the nearest house is a semi). This alone should make it a site to refuse to consider for building.
11/ Further to point 10, once access to DUH217 is created, this opens adjacent greenfield sites to prospective development, which is clearly one of the reasons green belt was created following WW2 in the first place - to restrict urban spread and ribbon development. Allowing building on DUH217 would open up still further green spaces to building, giving a further reason to not select DUH 217 for building.
12/ The extra traffic on Kingsway would cause severe problems, its currently a bus route, with very steep gradients and is heavily parked on, causing obstruction at even the existing traffic levels, more traffic would place even more burden on the road. There is a school on Kingsway and it’s particularly congested in the whole vicinity at certain times of day. The extra traffic would be an increased hazard to the children. The bus route is not served by many buses and if DUH217 is built on, there would not be enough capacity on the buses. Similar problems would be caused by access through
Hyperion Rd. The only entrance to which is just across the Staffordshire border and already a dangerous junction on a blind bend. There was a serious crash there recently. With more traffic turning in and out it would be even more dangerous.
13/ The local health infrastructure already fails to cope. The only local GP practice is Lion Health centre, which currently seems to have a poor reputation, and does not seem to cope with its existing patient numbers. I understand the local MP gets lots of complaints about this heath centre.
14/ The local school, St James C of E primary school, is already oversubscribed. So could not take extra children.
15/ There are already local traffic jams at every major junction in the vicinity, which would get worse.
16/ These infrastructure and access issues are not solvable, demonstrating that building on DUH217 is not viable.
17/ This site DUH217 is an important wildlife corridor (not a piece of low grade land), and also an important wild life habitat. It houses [redacted] many more species. This wildlife habitat needs preserving not building on.
18/ There are trees and bushes, cleaning the air we breathe. New housing will simply increase pollution whilst removing this cleaning facility. We are supposed to be embracing a green lifestyle – building on DUH217 will negate this.
19/ The local children need to be able to see and play in the countryside, close to their homes. Building on DUH217 prevents this for existing local children.
20/ There is a high pressure sewerage pipe beneath the field which the water companies will not want built over, as they may need access. This will make development difficult too, as it will restrict the layout of the housing, making DUH217 even less viable.

Object

Representation ID: 46081

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

[Severn Drive]

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: 46082

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH 213

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

Comment

Representation ID: 46083

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH 218

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: 46084

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH 221

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: 46085

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH206/207/209

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: 46086

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH217

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: 46087

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH 210

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: 46088

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH041

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: 46089

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH212

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: 46090

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH214

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: 46091

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Nicola Ceney

DUH 215

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: 46092

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

DUH 222

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: 46093

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

DUH 213

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: 46094

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

DUH 218

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: 46095

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

DUH 221

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: 46096

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

DUH 206/207/209

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: 46098

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

DUH 210

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.