Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 46099

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

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 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: 46100

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

DUH 212

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: 46101

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

DUH 214

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: 46102

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Morris

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 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: 46103

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Millard

[Worcester Lane]

I would like to lodge my objection to the allocation of sites for future development in the Draft Black Country Plan. This is part of the public consultation (Reg 18) of the plan. Under pressure from national government, I understand Dudley local authority has had to prepare an order to demonstrate where future development will take place and it has calculated there is insufficient brownfield sites to support the Black Country Plan and ‘exceptional circumstances now exist to justify a review of the green belt’. I understand Dudley has assessed all of its greenbelt for proposed future development and has decided that three sites off Worcester Lane would cause less harm and more benefits than other sites and these are being put forward as an option for removal from the green belt for development.

Worcester Lane is already a very busy, fast road with no safe footpaths or street lighting and it is the major road into West Hagley and on to Kidderminster and Worcester from the Stourbridge direction. One access to the proposed sites is over a railway bridge at the junction of Racecourse Lane and Redlake Road with a weight limit of 7.5 tonnes. The other access is through the busy village of West Hagley in which there are two high schools to which access is by one road only and a primary school, which is on a very busy main road with speed ramps. The two high schools both have students who travel by school bus therefore there are at least six buses in and out of the village twice daily. West Hagley is at the south end of the proposed development and if this land was to be developed the transport needed to deliver materials would have a massive impact on the surrounding areas:
Can they access the sites via the railway bridge due to the weight limit?
Access from any other routes would require using
(i) Bromwich Lane, which is a single lane road and totally inappropriate for HGV’s
(ii) Middlefield Lane, which is a narrow road which joins a very busy dual carriageway
(iii) Park Road, which homes the primary school is ridiculously busy at school times and has speed ramps
(iv) Through the village; this is an already heavily congested village due to current level of traffic and school transport and endures traffic problems when the supermarkets/takeaways receive deliveries.

Everyday traffic would increase substantially if every proposed house had a minimum of two cars. The traffic is already considerable at peak times at the traffic lights at the junction with Redlake Road and Racecourse Lane and this would be increased. This is the same in the direction of West Hagley. The pollution would also increase due to the idling traffic; this then affects the air quality which affects the health of the local residents.

The proposal does not take into account the lack of public transport around the sites. There is currently no public service at all. Therefore, if developed, the extra vehicles would create much more traffic, something which I understood the government was trying to reduce. If public transport was introduced this is a new form of traffic and therefore would also add to the increased negative affect to the air quality and pollution which would have a detrimental effect on the residents currently living in the local area.

Worcester Lane currently has a big problem with flooding in a few areas along the proposed fields when we have heavy rain, how can housing be built on land that floods? The area by DUH206 does not have adequate sewage drainage; local houses have been seriously affected.

Worcester Lane road surface is of a tar and gravel mixture which is considerably noisy. Adding more traffic along it would significantly increase the noise to local residents especially those who have gardens backing on to it. This will have a detrimental effect on the quality of enjoyment in the gardens and therefore mental health. More traffic, of any kind private or public, will affect the air quality which will have an effect on the local residents. This will impact the health of the existing residents and the new residents.

The impact on the local residents during the time of development would be significant, the noise levels, the increased traffic, the dust would be substantial and could have a massive detrimental affect on any person already suffering certain illnesses. Many residents choose their property due to the location and countryside views and losing the green fields would affect their mental health.

The existing area is invaluable to not only local residents but the wider public who walk over the fields. This is excellent for mental health and well-being and has been invaluable during the pandemic. The public would lose the Rights of Way and permissive paths and therefore would not be able to continue to enjoy this area. Many families make use of the area teaching their children the importance of wildlife, identifying with them inspects, birds, vegetation etc and respect for the countryside. Where will they go to do this? Many people use the area for walking dogs, running for pleasure or training for sports; where would they go, how far would they have to travel to have the similar environment to enjoy? This is encouraging local residents to use their vehicles to leave their area to go for exercise; again, increasing the vehicle use and therefore affecting the air pollution. It is devastating to think of the loss of open countryside and the peaceful location on the edge of highly populated areas. This is of substantial importance to the physical and mental wellbeing of the local residents and those who enjoy it.

This proposal will destroy 100’s of years of growth of hedgerows, greenery and trees. These give the life to the insects which are the bottom of the eco system. Where will we be when we have developed all of our green fields? Some of the trees along the proposed site have TPO’s – will this be taken into consideration? One of the fields is currently being used for agricultural land – where is the farmer expected to move to? Why are we removing existing hedgerows and then realising we need to replant elsewhere? Our Prime Minister only recently has said we need to build on brownfield sites to preserve our greenbelt and I feel this plan is not inline with government views. We need to protect what little greenbelt we have to preserve all natural habitat and wildlife. Once this has gone it will never recover.

There are insufficient existing local services to cope. Local schools, primary and secondary, are oversubscribed and the two closest secondary schools are, as the crow flies, in another local authority so therefore residents are highly unlikely to be given places. The closet secondary school within Dudley borough is an approximate half an hour walk, not really suitable for young adults to walk on unkempt pavements with no street lighting. There are insufficient primary places now. The closest GP practice is in another local authority and there are constant complaints regarding the waiting lists and difficulty in getting appointments. The GP surgery within the Dudley borough and with whom local residents are registered is often on the local news regarding the difficulty getting appointments/telephone consultations. The local leisure centre is not within walking distance. The nearest few shops are one mile away and in a different authority. There are no safe footpaths or street lighting so this is dangerous. I feel this is penalising people with disabilities or who are less able. This again will increase traffic as it is encouraging people to use vehicles due to the lack of public transport and again is increasing the air pollution thus affecting peoples physical and mental health. Developing new housing in this area will not address the needs of the local people and it will affect existing commuters who already use the roadway.

The area is of importance for its history. The right of way leading into Quarry Park Road is thought to be part of an ancient path; the earliest map showing this is the Pedmore Tithe Plan of 1846. There has been limited archaeological investigation into the area and therefore it is not implausible that more archaeology remains there.

The proposed removal of this greenbelt not only will affect the local people now but will adversely affect generations to come. Once removed greenbelt cannot be replaced and the wildlife and natural habitat will never return. The decision to remove green spaces is extremely serious and should be addressed accordingly. Green spaces are more important than ever as we are aiming for a carbon neutral society. It is absolutely imperative that we keep our greenbelt for the future enjoyment of everyone

Object

Representation ID: 46104

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Bate

Number of people: 2

[Worcester lane]

We as a family who live at the address listed below OBJECT to this proposal on the 20th August 2021 for the following reasons :-

The use of Greenbelt – There are no exceptional circumstances for developing this area of Green Belt.

The proposal does not meet the main criteria of the National Planning Policy Framework for releasing land from the Green Belt.

There are brownfields sites and empty buildings that the council could and should use this land.

This will destroy the natural and irreplaceable habitat for an incredible amount of wildlife, some of which are may without further investigation be on the endangered species list.

Traffic – The road infrastructure will not cope with an additional cars within the proposed building of 115 residential units.

It needs to be noted that the claim in the SGA7 of a 1:1 ratio of cars in the development is completely unrealistic by todays standards. Most households have at least two cars.

Air and noise pollution – With the extra traffic this will no doubt increase the pollution and noise levels to a dangerous and harmful level.

Schools – It will cause further strain on the overcrowded schools which are already exceeding their capability.

Health Care – The local health care is already overburdened. Care homes are in the process of being closed and GP’s are already stretched to the maximum making it impossible to get a doctors appointment.

Overburdened Infrastructure – Care in the community, Police, Fire station, Shops, Water Supply, electrical supply, sewage systems etc.

As you can see from the above this proposal being considered raises real concern to me and my family and that is why I am writing this letter of objection and also request that Dudley council remove Worcester Lane, Stourbridge from your list of earmarked greenbelt sites, to be used for housing developments.

I also demand that policies are put in place to permanently protect the greenbelts for any future development plans.

Can you please ensure that my letter of objection is added to the Dudley Council Consultation Database in order to be notified regarding local plan consultations and other aspects of the council’s planning policy work.

Regards

Object

Representation ID: 46234

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: W Heritage

Summary: Draft BCP Ketley Quarry DUH 203 page 372
Holbeache BCP Site REf DUH 208 page 371 DSA1 pages 419-423
The Triangle BCP Site Ref DUH 211 page 371 DSA 2 pages 424-428
Roads will not be able to cope.
Hospitals are overloaded, waiting times etc
the whole infrastructure is overloaded
Schools will not cope
Doctors are overloaded and waiting times are very long.
It allready takes 30-40 mins to get past High Oak jut to get to Russalls Hall Hospital.
+object to Lapwood Avenue Draft BCP DUH 213 page 401