Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 10805

Received: 11/09/2021

Respondent: Mr MARK ROBINSON

Primarily I object to DUH217. I object to loss of bridleways and paths and object strongly to the destruction of any green space in the area. I also believe that infrastructure will be stretched and the environmental destruction will be way beyond that which is planned.

Object

Representation ID: 10818

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Bruno Vinel

The representation is against the projects DUH002, DUH206, DUH 207, DUH 209 and DUH 217 corresponding to around 435 dwellings (out of 605 dwellings in total for Stourbridge). They will put an unsustain pressure on our public services (roads, schools, health, sport infrastructure, etc.) to be detriment of the citizens. The last four projects are planned on green belt lands, contrary to the commitment of the elected representatives in the last local and mayoral elections to not build on the green belt. It's not sustainable, will kill wildlife and reduce access to green spaces in Stourbridge, particularly for my family.

Object

Representation ID: 10825

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Samantha Shuttleworth

The green land is a haven for wildlife. It has been a saviuour to us over the last few years to be able to access the outdoors and walk with our family.

Object

Representation ID: 10826

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Lawrence Bright

The council has not consulted with its residents about any deregulation of Green Belt Land.
The Council has broken the National Protection Of Green Belt to stop Urban Sprawl.
The council has not informed Residents in Writing by mail about Black Country Plan.
The council has a duty to all to inform consult and listen to the people of Dudley Borough.
The Council has failed all its Residents.
The Residents of Dudley are your employers.

Object

Representation ID: 10839

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Parton

Number of people: 2

[DUH 222 Severn Drive Green Space]
I am objecting to the above.
This is out community green space and is used by everyone in the area.
I am elderly where am me husband and myself going to stroll in safety
1. More traffic in our already over crowded streets
2. Doctors - They have closed out local surgery High Oak
3. where are the children going to play
4. We already have a problem with sewage
5. Haven't you taken enough green space for building houses.

Object

Representation ID: 10842

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Archer

I strongly object to proposals to build new houses on what is currently green belt land (DUH211 & DUH208). This area has grown rapidly in terms of population and business. This destruction of our local environment would contribute to climate change. The loss of fields, meadows and wildlife would impact on an important network of of footpaths including nearby Ridgehill Wood. Local services and facilities (roads, GPs, Schools) are already over used and over subscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 10843

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anne Hodnette

I object to the removal of green belt status and encroachment of housing development into the countryside. In particular Worcester Lane DUH206, DUH207, DUH209. This area is used for agriculture. It provides a habitat for flora and fauna, with wildflowers and hedgerows providing a habitat for mammals, birds and insects. The rights of way which pass through these areas look onto countryside and provide exercise, relaxation and relief. The trees in Worcester lane are dying from traffic fumes along this route. Why are you proposing to increase this instead of protecting it. There is enough brownfield land in the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 10845

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julia Tristram

Plan to build on Wollaston Green Belt. DUH217.
I live locally to this area and I object based on the following concerns;
- Access would need to be created, causing destruction to plant and wildlife habitats.
- High populated area already, to increase this could pose a danger to children at local primary school as traffic increases.
- Increase in traffic and pollution at a time when we should be reducing the local environmental impact.
- Removing a frequently used bridleway, used by riders, cyclists and walkers providing access to an area of outstanding beauty and local significance.

Object

Representation ID: 10849

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Eales

-Unsuitable for redevelopment due to popularity of footpath as access to wider network of footpaths along the canal.
-Loss of last piece of greenbelt between counties, affecting biodiversity and residents well being
-Concern for local infrastructure
-Please prioritise brownfield sites before even considering the greenbelt

Object

Representation ID: 10850

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Three Villages Medical Practice

In respect to DUH217
Extra housing would add extra pressures to the already stretched primary care services within the area
The greenbelt space is currently used for recreational purposes which helps the mental health and general welfare of the local people of Wollaston
The loss of greenbelt would also have an impact on the natural wildlife/ habitat

Comment

Representation ID: 10851

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Three Villages Medical Practice

In respect to DUH217

The greenbelt space is currently used for recreational purposes which helps the mental health and general welfare of the local people of Wollaston

Comment

Representation ID: 10853

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Three Villages Medical Practice

In respect to DUH217

The loss of greenbelt would also have an impact on the natural wildlife/ habitat

Object

Representation ID: 10856

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Barry Wooldridge

[Green Space DUH 222]

1) Too many house's being built in Pensnett the streets just cant cope with the volume of traffic taking short cut through our estate
2) This is out green space, and used by everyone in our community
3) Mental health (during lockdown, the elderly down our street couldn't get out but just to be able to see dog walkers on our green made them feel not so alone
4) The infrastructure in our area, is not going to cope with extra, house's, cares, sewage,

Object

Representation ID: 10857

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Susan Pearson

[Regarding building works on Severn Drive North and South and Bene Road/ Blacklater Close]
1. Loss of greenspace is unacceptable
2. The is an active Bat/Fox/Bird Community
3. Infrastructure - Roads, emergency services, GP, Schools will not support the increase in traffic
4. Extra traffic means - increase in pollution, increase in road traffic accidents - this is unacceptable
5. Drastically changes the landscape forever - this is unacceptable
6. Overcrowding/ overpopulating increases risks of spreading disease
7. Impact on community mental health - loss of greenspaces are there for a reason - why take them away!
8. Loss of space to hold community events
9. There are trees on all sites we should not lose them
10. loss of green space (with dog bins) will lead to an increase in dog piling on footpaths.!

Object

Representation ID: 10858

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Mr William Wood

Number of people: 2

[DUH222 - Building proposal Severn Drive North South + Bryce Road/ Blacklater close]

I'm objecting (and so is my wife) to help to fight for and save another piece of England's green and pleasant land an area that since my son moved into [address given] 20 years ago has given pleasure to the estate and surrounding Pensnett Area. Having watched the elderly walk their pets and the school children play is a thing we cannot afford to lose.
Question - is this the first of many - 15 houses invariably means 30 more cars - Have we got the infrastructure to cope? and if not, will you encroach on the Fens Pool Area? Leaving the Pensnett area no green spaces. What are YOU in your WISDOM planning to do next where is your next proposed FOLLY

Object

Representation ID: 10859

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Megan Jones

Objections to housing plans: DUH217.
Distruction of greenbelt area that has historical importance. A wide variety of animals will lose their homes, and potentially die. Loss of trees and vegetation which are essential for our health and climate change. The horses that are currently on the land will be at risk; one of them will need to be put down due to health conditions if they are required to move to a different area. Used by walkers, dog-walkers, cyclists and others for exercise and supports good mental health. Already busy with traffic around the nearby school.

Comment

Representation ID: 10869

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Rogers

Greenbelt land should not be used for development of houses/commercial properties, as this has been set aside for enjoyment of the whole population. The proposed development (DUH206, DUH207,DUH209) along Worcester Lane would encroach on the greenbelt land. This area is used by many residents of Dudley area for walking and enjoyment of the outdoors. This was especially important during the last 18 months when the country was in lockdown. Developing this area would substantially change the outlook not only of the area under development but also from the footpaths/bridleways which join the top of Ounty John Lane to Hagley.

Comment

Representation ID: 10870

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Rogers

[No specific site reference given]

Building on greenbelt land will reduce the amenity available for residents in Dudley to enjoy the beautiful country side surrounding our towns. This land has been used so much more in the past 18 months for people to exercise during the lockdown and I'm sure the availability of such spaces helped people's health and mental well being.

Comment

Representation ID: 10875

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Rogers

With reference to DUH206-DUH209.
This area of land is a very narrow site and the access to the site near to the railway bridge would be very difficult.

Object

Representation ID: 10880

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Harper

(DUH 208)

Sir. Much has already been made of the pressure on the local area that the influx of thousands of people will bring, much to the detriment of those in situ, their presence masking what they might have expected to enjoy.
Wall Heath is one of those small backwater villages that the gems of these often green spaces are a big part of their attraction, in removing them will detract considerably. It is all too easy to criticise another's endevers to create this Black Country Plan, and walk away without its responsibility, so I offer a (in part) solution.
:- It may not have come to the planners notice that a sizable brownfield site may soon become available for development in the Kingswinford area, this being in Stallings Lane, though not as large, it will be a less contravertial offering.
Finally may I take this opportunity to remind our local authority, that it is (among others) their function to look after the residents interests.
I hope you do not disappoint.

Object

Representation ID: 10881

Received: 21/08/2021

Respondent: Jayne Woodcock

Hi
I wish to put forward my objections to the proposals to develop the green land on Severn Drive.
Here are my reasons:
Pensnett hardly has any green land left.
It has had all of its services removed that other local neighbourhoods take for granted, such as GP surgeries, dentists, libraries, butchers etc.
There are plenty of empty houses sitting empty. Plenty of old building such as the Commercial Public House, The
Chapel in Bromley, Abercarn Nursing Home and Male and Son amongst other buildings. There is land where the Queen’s Head public house used to be, the Forum Bingo Hall, The Pensnett School.
Road infrastructure around Pensnett is very poor also. The widened high street has made no improvement whatsoever as I have to travel to the hospital every day.
The green land behind my house is used for children to play on, dog walkers and lots of residents who work for
the NHS to do their walking. This would be a crying shame.
Please consider these points

Object

Representation ID: 10887

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Eccles

DUH217
Development of this area would be detrimental to the wellbeing of people and local nature which is in abundance.This area gives access to the canal/river and stunning countryside and is the boundary between South Staffs and Dudley councils. People have a right to access green open space.I use this area daily. We are encouraged to exercise more as it is beneficial to physical and mental health.If such land is given up where will it stop?The area is of historic interest and is part of Wollaston history and identity. This part of Wollaston is already saturated.Where next?Houseboats on the canal?

Object

Representation ID: 10893

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Megan Jones

Objections to housing plans: DUH217.
Distruction of greenbelt area that has historical importance. A wide variety of animals will lose their homes, and potentially die. Loss of trees and vegetation which are essential for our health and climate change. The horses that are currently on the land will be at risk; one of them will need to be put down due to health conditions if they are required to move to a different area. Used by walkers, dog-walkers, cyclists and others for exercise and supports good mental health. Already busy with traffic around the nearby school.

Object

Representation ID: 10900

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart wood

[DUH222 - Severn Drive + Bryce Road]

1. Green space is for the people
2. Wildlife birds bat fox
3. Trees that on the sites TPO
4. Traffic in the area as there is already site being built on
5. Brown site left for years
6. Have to jump in a car to go to a green space
7. When the green space has gone what can you sell next Pensnett pools Himley Hall

Object

Representation ID: 10905

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Paulette Wooldridge

[DUH 222]

As a resident of Severn Drive my worries are as follows
1. This green space belongs to the community and is used everyday, by dog walkers, children. Playing football and our local Dog groomer [Name] training his dogs
2. Where are the children going to play. many of them are to young to go to the Dell Stadium unsupervised
3. We who live in pensnett are fed up with all the building work already going on.
4. Our streets werent built to take the amount of traffic that travel everyday. Taking short cuts from Merryhill Centre - Dangerous
5. Schools/Doctors - How are they going to cope' Surgery already closed at High Oak

Object

Representation ID: 10906

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Hopcutt

I highly object to the release of this green space to build houses on. It is much used for dog walkers childrens play and is a lovely approach to our estate, more houses means more pollution it is a quiet estate and more cars would be a danger to to everyone it is congested enough when the children are at school and only a matter of time before an accident will take place. That land has been a godsend to our mental health during lockdown, where else is there close and safe for us to walk our dogs and children to have a run around. I really object to having our green space taken away it will have an affect on our house prices too. Please don't take away our lovely field.

Object

Representation ID: 10908

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Charlton

(DUH 206,207,209)

Please accept this completed form as my objection to the proposed development at Worcester Lane Stourbridge. My objection is based on the following -

Loss of greenbelt that forms a natural division between Pedmore and the close village of Hagley and all its related negative impacts primarily the wellbeing of local residents such as myself.
A development would be totally out of character for the area and would create more local pollution and introduce traffic dangers on a road that is unsuitable in my opinion for additional roads.
As longstanding residents in this area we are already suffering the impact of the major housing developments in the adjoining Hagley village (Bromsgrove Borough) and this would further compound the situation regarding stretched local amenities allied to the loss of historical settings in the area and would only serve the continuation of urban sprawl expansion into the boroughs limited countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 10915

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs June Wilson-Smith

Areas of land around Gornal Wood, for example the Straits and Ruiton, which have been proposed for building. I object to this proposal as this land is more beneficial left as green belt/ fields rather than yet another housing estate. The area houses a great deal of wildlife and birds including green woodpeckers (I have seen them myself here) and has done so for many centuries. It has a calm natural beauty that is missing in Dudley in general and is praised by many visitors to the area. I doubt if anyone will be praising a housing estate. There are other suitable sites in the Dudley area that could by used for building, why destroy a thing of beauty?

Object

Representation ID: 10926

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Mr peter brazier

[Wollaston Grazing land]

We are residents with the fence at the end of our garden overlooking the open (so-called) grazing land. Having looked at the document quoted we are surprised that this piece of the Green Belt has been ear-marked for the building of up to 90 houses. Whilst we live in South Staffs we are of course very much affected by the published plans. What do the words Green Belt mean other than protected ares to retain the open aspect of the encroaching towns. Just behind our fence on the Dudley side there is a footpath which is signed from Twickenham Court and is very well used by walkers going down to the canal towpath and often by horse riders. We are aware that frequent this grassed area and indeed have seen evidence in our own garden of the wild life.

We urge you to reconsider these plans to reduce still further the green areas in our town

Comment

Representation ID: 10943

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Parliament

Ref: Page 374, Table 14 - Dudley Housing Allocations in the Black Country Plan (BCP Policy HOU1). DUH210, Viewfield Crescent.

Points to consider:
Designated Green Belt, a designated Site of Local Importance to Nature Conservation (SLINCs) and within a Landscape Heritage Area and falls within a designated Wildlife Consultation Area.

The site remains highly sensitive given the above designations. The Public Local Inquiry Inspectors Report (Jan 2004) fully supports the above designations.

As result of these designations the Black Country Core Strategy absolutely limits development of these types of sites (ENV1 Nature Conservation and ENV2 Historic Character and Local Distinctiveness). In addition, local biodiversity action plans much not be harmed by development, which this proposal contravenes and would not be in keeping with safeguarding nature conservation.

This would contravene the fundamental aim of Government Green Belt policy, which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open (several public rights of way cross the land). Local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance Green Belt use, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity.

The consultation ends at 5pm on Monday 11th October 2021