Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 10945

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Anne Edwards

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

I am [age given] and have lived at my home, which backs onto the Green Belt for 30 plus years. Daily i see Fox's, Squirrels, and occasionally Muntjac and Pheasants, and many birds like Sparrows, Pidgeons, Magpies, Starlings, Blackbirds, Robins and more,
I strongly feel that the loss, or disruption to these would be wrong.
Please could you find somewhere else to build your houses. I know people need homes, but so to the wild life, and once their environment has gone, its gone forever.
Please save out Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 10948

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr olof lee

I would like to submit objections to proposed plans to build on previously green belt land.
The site is DUH 217 in Wollaston.
I object to the gradual erosion of public greenspaces for the construction of houses when brown site plots are available (only less profitable for developers).
It beggars belief that local councils don't cherish this land particularly in this day and age of environmental awareness. The damage to the local natural eco system will of course be significant.
Local residents including myself use this land in a variety of ways which help maintain a healthy mind and body.

Comment

Representation ID: 10949

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr olof lee

[DUH217]
Local residents including myself use this land in a variety of ways which help maintain a healthy mind and body.

Object

Representation ID: 10951

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Sutton

Referring to plan DUH217

I strongly object to any building work on the Wollaston greenbelt due to many factors such the fact that we no not have the availability of services to accommodate any more residents. surgery at lion health is becoming a joke. Too much traffic in the village. Also it would be awful for walkers as these routes offer a pleasant walk into the countryside and is a haven for wildlife, horses and dog walkers. We all have a right to access green spaces and this proposal would make it very difficult for us residents to continue to do this by foot as this is the main route into the countryside for many walkers.


Objections
Ancient hedgerows and biodiversity need protection
We need access to the countryside for our health and wellbeing
Too close to a busy school
Not enough services in the village to accommodate an increase in population
Concerns about traffic and noise

Object

Representation ID: 10952

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Jay & Kerry Rose

Number of people: 2

[Lapwood Avenue]

Object to land being built on as this provides a social environment for residents currently, building here would take away our public open space (which is paramount in new builds!) The site has an abundance of mature trees providing natural wildlife, a place for dog walkers + playing fields for children. On a personal level this site provides essential privacy for my house, I am concerned that building new homes here + taring down trees will have a severe impact on privacy + devalue my home. I am also concerned that this may become a housing association site which is something I object to also, as I know I stand how these areas are treated having lived in an an area previously where homes are not respected or looked after! I moved to get away from this to a private estate which was very well looked after. I moved here I purchased this house due to its private setting provided by the field with lots of trees providing clean air for my husband + son who suffer from asthma. I have concerns over how houses will be positioned if this plan goes ahead. My gardens will be impacted by the loss of natural light + sun. My house is eastly facing so the sun is on the south side which is where these houses will be casting a shadow over both front/ side + back garden. The fencing already casts a small shadow to houses 2 stories high will certainly takeaway sun + light from my garden. I am also worried about gardens backing onto my own trees being destroyed. Plus the prospect of having housing association is close proximity fills me full of drear! So much so that I am already losing sleep thinking about it + the prospect of selling my precious home is evermore apparent due to these plans + concerns. I understand that some greenspace needs to be released but please consider areas which will have less impact on neighbours + more rural areas + larger plots as then POS's will still be accomplished + enjoyed by residents, you will be taking ours away for the sake of 44 houses! Very small amount with tragic impacts

Object

Representation ID: 10953

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Rowley

(1) Building houses on this land would mean loss of privacy!
(2) It would also prove to be more noisy and more pollution
(3) There is a nature reserve next to the proposed building of 24 houses, building houses on this site would be catastrophic for the wildlife that surrounds the site
(4) All in all, its green belt land, not for building houses on
(5) There are numerous brown sites about so I would suggest building on Brown sites and leave green belt alone

Object

Representation ID: 10954

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Pitt

The Black Country area and its people created a large area of wealth of this country in late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Our ancestors would now marvel at the regeneration of the area. They played their part in history. No doubt they would love to think future generations would enjoy what they could never imagine or not even aspire to. Building on Greenbelt? (because we must create affordable housing, I don't think so, building houses of the executive type doesn't address this problem) In any case what ever the proposals building on this greenbelt is not on,. People are intelligent enough to realise that less profit is to be made by developing Brownfield sites. The overall reasons for developing greenbelt areas are repeated time and again and are well documented. The added increase in the volume of traffic and the impact on the local wild life that lives on this land would be catastrophic. We have has nightly visiting us for thirty five years, their set is very close to this area of development. All these objections are reasons for NOT developing on this site.

Comment

Representation ID: 10959

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Sutton

Ancient hedgerows and biodiversity need protection
We need access to the countryside for our health and wellbeing
Too close to a busy school
Not enough services in the village to accommodate an increase in population
Concerns about traffic and noise

Referring to plan DUH217

I strongly object to any building work on the Wollaston greenbelt due to many factors such the fact that we no not have the availability of services to accommodate any more residents. Our surgery at lion health is becoming a joke. Too much traffic in the village. Also it would be awful for walkers as these routes offer a pleasant walk into the countryside and is a haven for wildlife, horses and dog walkers. We all have a right to access green spaces and this proposal would make it very difficult for us residents to continue to do this by foot as this is the main route into the countryside for many walkers.

Object

Representation ID: 10963

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Barry Richards

[25 new homes Guys Lane, Lower Gornal]

1- Over development in out area:-
Large housing developments have been completed or will be completed within a few hundred yards of guys lane. Notable both sides of Tansey Green Rd (Hundreds of houses) opposite these sites. The other side off Stallings Lane (Hundreds of Houses) together with sites built on the Fiddlers Arms and Factory opposite (Hopyard Lane/ Straits Rd)

2. Consequently lack of Transport Infrastructure.
Guys Lane is already a rabbit run for cars, police ambulances wishing to avoid five ways traffic lights and short cut between Cinder Road and Himley Road. This together with the many accidents which have taken place at the junction of Guys Lane, Brook Bank Road and Brook Bank Gardens should preclude any further additional traffic flow caused by developments
3. Environmental and Healthy Issues
The site proposed is home to Rabbits, Foxes, Bats and numerous species of Bird including Sparrow Hawk, Harris Hawk, Goshawk and Buzzard together with songbirds of all types. along with dog walkers/ horses grazing help the wellbeing and mental health of the mainly elderly residents.

Object

Representation ID: 10985

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Warren Matthews

Objection to DUH217 on a number of grounds. Firstly the site will take away local green space which we frequently use to access the canal network for exercise and mindfulness. The loss won’t only be for residents but also wildlife. There’s no obvious means of vehicle access and additions to the local population will increase existing transport network issues experienced at routes out of the area at the junction with the A449 at Stourton and down by Laser Quest in Amblecote. Traffic and air pollution from cars using Eggington Road as a cut through would also become worse.

Object

Representation ID: 10986

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pooja Chandrakanth

[DUH206-209]

Housing in this area can cause issues with security, difficulty in school admissions, greenery in the area is lost, the area will become overcrowded

Object

Representation ID: 10989

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Heather Lamming

This development will destroy a unique and important natural habitat that is accessed by a wide range of people within the community. There will be a negative impact on surrounding areas, roads and streets, which are presently quiet and safe to walk, caused by building work and access issues.
I am concerned about the increase in traffic around St James's school where there is already problems with congestion and the bus sometimes can't get through.
I use this area at least daily for walking and running which helps me to maintain a healthy mental health.

Object

Representation ID: 10990

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Lamming

DuH 217 It will destroy a green corridor & wildlife habitat between two housing developments used by myself regularly walking my dog, access to work & by myself & many members of my local running club ( Stourbridge running club ).

Object

Representation ID: 10993

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs JACQUELINE JOHNSON

SITE DUH217

Historic pathway with a wealth of wildlife. With concerns about climate change preserving greenbelt areas and wildlife is ESSENTIAL.
Provides access to the countryside and canal network along with a beautiful green space for people to exercise and also their dogs. Loss of the path would be detrimental to the many walkers, cyclists, runners etc and their mental wellbeing.
Generations have exercised and used this longstanding area.
The areas either side are densely populated and this provides a green oasis

Object

Representation ID: 10995

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Bowen

Under the 'Call for Sites' exercise currently being undertaken the 'Land of Viewfield Crescent was put forward as a strong candidate for the building of new housing stock despite its designated statuses. We would like to know where we could find a copy of your policy reference 'CSA1' and what it relates to. The reference of 'CSA1' is quoted along with the removal from Green Belt comment on the right hand column in the 'Draft' proposal document 'Call for Sites' (BCP SITE REF DUH210). Is the land in question already a 'fait accompli'? I and MANY of my neighbours object vehemently to this proposal. For the record many of neighbours are elderly and not able to download forms or register their views through your online portal. I enclose a secondary Letter with accompanying photograph which typifies this beautiful location. The letter was done by [name and address given] and his many neighbours who find your online system to difficult to respond through.

I would like to draw attention to the following details pertaining to this area of land before a legal battle between the local community and DMBC is very likely to commence. Be in no doubt that the community will do all its power to put a stop to this nonsense. Below I list many bullet points pertaining to the area in question, many of them raised and enforced by your administration historically relating to the sensitivity and safeguarding laws were also endorsed by the Inspectorate. I enclose correspondence which relates to previous limited development issues which pertained to this valued area of land, which are self evidence in its content as too being a high level of sensitivity and safeguarding of the land in question. These attributed are even more highly valued in to today's 'climate change' conscious environment. Recently published government guidance provides advice to councils and others on identifying and maintaining a network of areas such as this in the Birmingham and the Black Country. I also supply the views of our local conservative MP Marco Longhi which mirror our own views on this matter.

Another question I which I would like clarification is this area of land once had a designation of being a 'SINC' when and how did its designation become a 'SLINC' and on what basis? We would like to see the evidence please

Areas such as these with attached designated qualifications are protected from damaging development by local and national planning policy, so on what basis is the land even being put forward and being considered for the mass development of housing development? It beggars belief?

It is our understanding that within the Council's Adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for this area of land is designated Green Belt, a designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), it is also quoted as being a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and is located within a Landscape Heritage Area. It is also quoted as being a designated Wildlife Consultation Area. Why on earth is a wonderful and respected area situated at the heart and pinnacle of the Cotwall End Valley even being considered? What other Green Belt sites dismissed and scoped out of the exercise by DMBC have these designated hallmarks? Surly the term of 'absolute constraint' applies here, but has clearly not been applied here. It is a complete and utter travesty and a complete contradiction of terms. Looking at the photograph in the "Call for Sites" draft proposal document, where the area seems to have been assessed was taken at the bottom of Moden Hill, where there is a small area of flat grasses surface looking up at the few dwellings on the top in the background. Was this a deliberate ploy done intentionally to portray the land to look like the Green Belt area is already close to a built up area? I would implore you to compare this with the photograph portrayed on the second objection letter! If a proposed development is being considered here why did the photographs not depict the view from its majestic position at the pinnacle at the head of Cotwall End Valley with the panoramic views on offer here, not to mention the high pressure gas main and the shear slope of the terrain here? Instead you have taken the photograph from a country land totally unsuitable for vehicular traffic with the above mentioned behind them and out of site of the camera lens! The area is visually prominent with the wider countryside to the west, and development here would have devastating effect on the visual amenities of the area near and far.

Other Revised Deposit UDP's state that area is clearly within a designated Green Belt, within a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature and Conservation (SLINC) and within a Landscaped Heritage Areas also. Policy states that within Local Landscape Heritage Areas, the Council will resist any development or works taking place, which would be detrimental to the character, quality and historic integrity of the landscape. Policies within the LHA states that within SLINCs the Council will seek to maintain and where possible 'enhance' the quality, amount and distribution of the key habitat types and features.

Horses have been stabled here and the meadow land has an abundance of other wildlife and flowers some of which are protected species also. At the bottom of the escarpment of this land, where water gathers and forms pools 'Greater Crested Newts' can be found here which are a highly protected species by law. The area of land basically consists of a steep escarpment and gives rise to a natural water course and even in the driest conditions water percolates from the top to the bottom of the escarpment to form small pools. The water course then runs across Moden Hill roadway in various places and continues into the Cotwall End Nature Reserve where larger natural pools are found with wild foul. Other water courses also feed into the Nature Reserve from Cotwall End Road and onward into the Straits area. During periods of even moderate rainfall Moden Hill can almost resemble an area of small rapids. Some local residents have spotted deer here and the escarpment with its wester facing high altitude generates a perfect haven for falcons and sparrow hawks to hover in search of prey and ornithologists can often be found here. There are also Hedgehogs present with the usual compliment of foxes. Many local people, ramblers and 'Friends of Cotwall End Valle' far and wide often congregate in Viewfield Crescent to take in the wonderful panoramic aspect on offer here. Sometimes artists can be seen here sketching also. All hedgerows and trees have preservation orders on them. Any historic development that have been allowed here have had to adhere to the strictest of terms and conditions that prevail and have been enforced here. these include Permitted Development Rights being removed from any dwellings in the proximity, and every slightest thing had to be landscaped and blended into the surrounding area, this involved something using special materials to blend into the area and to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to name a few. Public rights of way also criss - cross the said area. We will be contacting all the relevant Conservation Bodies and Trusts to inform them as to your proposed actions.

On a slightly different note major high pressure gas pipelines transit under this area of land, items such as these present a major hazard to any form of construction. The area also hosts the serving sewage pipes and other amenities such as gas and electricity serving the three detached bungalows located adjacent to this land and transit through it also. The large house to the north of the land is also vulnerable in this respect. Viewfield Crescent is currently grid locked with parked and cars, at certain times there seem to be more cars than people, parking is a nightmare. Traffic that transit through Viewfield Crescent in opposite directions often has to mount the kerb in order to pass each other, a clear health and safety issues. The Ridgeway, into which Viewfield Crescent leads, suffers from the same problem and has become a major 'Rat Run' from Gornal to Sedgley and vice versa. This proposed development will only compound the problem. The whole infrastructure is totally inadequate to support the vehicular traffic that now prevails without adding anymore to its volume. At certain times of the day you can wait to more than thirty minutes to access the main Dudley to Wolverhampton road from The Ridgeway, during the 'School Run' it can be much worse. Tail backs across The Ridgeway, can be horrendous; much of this is down to the wanton and reckless past housing development schemes that have been imposed on the area. Currently Himley is also being decimated by Staffordshire MBC which seems to be on a similar road map, this again will impact on our area. We all know there is already a major problem with places at local schools, doctors and dentists at a premium, where do you draw the line with theses prevailing issues? There is now hardly any open green space left in the area except from maybe Himley Hall. Himley Hall during lock down was absolutely rammed with people and cars looking for somewhere to enjoy, and on some days it was inaccessible. It is a fact that many more people were enjoying this area as an alternative option. head of the 'Friends of Cottwal End Valley Society' regularly organises and promotes a variety of different walks in the area, along with 'litter picking' days.

I would strongly recommend that this area of land is removed from the call for sites review with immediate effect. Legal advice has been sought at the time of writing and solicitors have already been approached and costed to undertake the exercise, and they are willing to do so, I confirm this in writing if you wish.

I will state with a great amount of certainty that is this scheme goes ahead it will culminate in a massive note loser for you and your administration going forward. I have personally knocked on many doors bordering the area and everyone is totally outraged by its audacity. Nobody knew about the meeting at DMBC on Monday 05/07/2021. A majority of people do not know anything about the issues as it appears to being done by stealth, however they are prepares to do everything in their power to stop it and at any cost, and no stone will be left unturned to achieve this outcome.

We need a speedy response on your intentions as the 'Window of Opportunity' is quite small for the local community give a comprehensive response on this major issue. Currently awareness is very low about the issue and even people who do know and oppose the development are thwarted from doing because the survey response mechanism requires an electronic digital response and many people are 'Not on Line' and are not 'IT SAVVY', many people do not have broadband and are therefore sitting in ignorance as to what is happening around them until it is too late. I believe the electronic survey is also 'flawed' in its design giving people multiple choice options on various sites but forward in this ludicrous process, all this will achieve is to create an 'us' versus 'them' mentality i.e. 'Not in my Backyard' approach when selecting the given options. there is also a danger of more populous areas painting an unfair picture of who wants what and where! Instead of plain common sense.

We await your comments.

Object

Representation ID: 10997

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma French

I am objecting to plans to build on DUH217. This is green belt space and contains a historical footpath and rich and diverse wildlife. We have used this footpath and green space and we would lose this vital piece of our countryside that we use for exercise if it was built on. There is an anceint hedgerow here that is home to many types of wildlife that are so key to our health and wellbeing and the health of our future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 11006

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Brookes

[Worcester Lane]

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the above proposal currently being
considered.
Whilst I am pleased to see the developments in Pedmore Hall Lane and Bromwich Lane have been withdrawn I was disappointed to see that the above proposal has been increased by a further 17 properties, to, I understand 115.
This raises real concerns from local residents who already struggle to get spaces for their children in local schools as well as the inability to obtain Doctors Hospital and Dental appointments. If you estimate 2 adults and 2 children per property you are looking at a minimum of 460 new residents who will require these services. How on earth will the area cope while the basic infrastructures are put in place for the necessary utilities.
My wife has been shielding for over 16 months now due to [x]. I believe the large increase in the number of homes being considered is likely to add a further 200/300 cars to the local road network. The air quality in the area only improved during lock down and would be
significantly increased pollution if these plans are passed, not to mention a huge increase in congestion. There is already an obnoxious smell as you walk along Worcester Lane in front of the proposed site. This has been the result of many complaints from residents in Bell Meadow and the immediate local neighbourhood. I have been told, by more than one workman , it was
not a Gas leak , but the resulting smell from the nearby underground reservoir and sewerage plant. I notice also that major work is underway in Hagley village at present, already causing traffic chaos in the area and I can only assume that this will also facilitate the building of
these new dwellings, even though I believe that area comes under Bromsgrove rather than Dudley.
How will all these addition cars access Worcester Lane ? There is also a long standing and very well used Bridle Path between the 2 plots of land, over a railway bridge , leading onto Quarry Park Road. Any proposals to stop this right of way or to try to reroute it would result in strong opposition.
The ability to access local open green spaces influenced us to buy our own property [x] and buyers have paid a premium for this. I am also mindful of other plans in Wollaston, again public open space. Once this land is gone it will be lost to not only us but future generations forever.
I trust these concerns will be taken into account and the Boroughs many brownfield sites will
be considered first.

Object

Representation ID: 11012

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Clara Wood

1. Destruction of nature - trees and hedgerows would have to be felled for access from Hyperion Road and/or Kingsway
2. Substantial change to environment of existing houses in Kingsway
3. Loss of amenity bridle paths and definitive paths (rights of way)
4. Lack of local infrastructure to support the new residents
5. Increase in local traffic in a densely populated area
6. Risk to children from traffic at St James's School
7. Disruption by building work noise, dust and contractor traffic
8. Loss of a well-used and well-loved green space

Comment

Representation ID: 11024

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs JACQUELINE JOHNSON

DUH217
With concerns about climate change preserving greenbelt areas and wildlife is ESSENTIAL.

Comment

Representation ID: 11038

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Jones

I wish to lodge my objection to any thing being built on the Green belt around
Halesowen. When it has been proven that there is enough brown site to
accommodate any house building requirements. The green belt is a precious space in
a time when when we are fighting climate change. Green spaces help improve air
quality and help to stop green house gases. Our green belt is full of precious wild
animals that call it home. There is not enough resources to provide people with
Schools, Doctors Surgeries, defiantly not enough Police to cope with the population of
Halesowen. The info structure the roads in and out of Halesowen are already running
well over full capacity. Rush hours are a nightmare. So yes I object to any building on
our precious beloved Green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 11041

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Paulette Wooldridge

I am writing to you to object to the proposed planning on Severn drive Pensnett. My concerns are overcrowding on road ,parking dangerous for children ,sewage we already
have problems down our road, with sewage. Lack doctors in the area already one closed on high oak
How are the schools going to cope with the extra children., We've already got a big site due be
developed up the road on the high street ,roads in our area are not built to take the volume of traffic
taking a short cut through our estate from Merry Hill. We also have bats in our area ,and are often seen on the green along with birds of pray. Surely there lots of ground fill area that can be used instead of taking away our only green land that is used by everyone Including our local dog groomer Mark who is seen at least twice a day training his dogs, also half of our community are elderly and never go out ,but to look out of their window and always see someone on the green surely helped with mental health. I am asking you to reconsider ,and take our green out of your plans

Object

Representation ID: 11052

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Wills

[DUH222]

The green is well used by the local community for various activities such as dog walking and by children of all ages for a multitude of recreational purposes. It is also very important for mental health that we have these open spaces highlighted by the effects of the recent pandemic.

It has become a haven for wildlife over the last 20/30 years with several types of bats, barn owls and buzzards.

Several residents including myself do regular litter picks to keep the area tidy.

Pensnett people feel they have given up enough land over recent years it should be brownfield sites and local eyesores that should be used and not our green. Generally locals feel that they are looked down upon by the more affluent areas such as Stourbridge and Kingswinford.

The roads are congested at all times of day/night and can't cope with the present traffic let along adding.

Schools are oversubscribed and a promised doctors surgery has never materialised

How will the drainage system cope with extra use?

Object

Representation ID: 11056

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam King

I object to the proposals for the release of greenbelt of DUH206, 207 and 209. This would be very bad for the local area, destroy green space and put pressure on the roads and local services.

Object

Representation ID: 11065

Received: 18/08/2021

Respondent: Klair Norton

No one seems to think that if you build more homes, these will need to be a LOT more doctors and dentists as well!
In recent years in Brierley Hill/Stourbridge area, so many GP surgeries have closed and not been replaced. In Stourbridge there are only two GP practices and it is impossible to get appointments. Everyone I know discusses endlessly how scary it is that we do not really have medical care unless we go to the A&E walk-in centre, because even getting through to our GP on the daytime enquiries line can take longer than an hour and at the end of it you are no closer to getting any advice or help. Recent housing development on the old Longlands School site and along the river stour in Wollaston, have added and will be adding more and more to the close to 30,000 patients registered at Lion Health - how can they expect to be able to tend that number of patients?!

There should be some rule about how many GPs you have to have per head of the population to avoid this ridiculous situation! It is NO GOOD simply building more and more homes without having doctors who can serve them.

Object

Representation ID: 11066

Received: 18/08/2021

Respondent: Katherine Baker

I strongly object to the inclusion of any of the boroughs green spaces being used for building.
Developers should be made to use brownfield sites first.
We all know the reason that they prefer green spaces, as they are usually cheaper to develop as they haven't been used previously for possible harmful processes, or have chemicals leeched into the ground, which has to be tested.
The lockdowns that we have had to endure, surely has taught everyone the value of our green spaces even small ones like on Severn drive. I live round the corner in The Plantation and know that this space is well used especially by the children that live in the area.
But for spaces like these a lot of people would have really suffered during lockdowns. We urgently need to save these spaces, I am aware that the government require houses to be build, but the existing houses need to have spaces between them so they are pleasant places to live and don't become concrete jungles, where nothing, not humans or wildlife thrive. We don't just want to survive, we have a right to be happy. this spaces make us happy.
Don't destroy them please.

Comment

Representation ID: 11067

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Denise Hudson

I wish to advice against the building of houses on lutley, foxcote and hawne basin in the Halesowen area. I wish to support the council who advise to use brownfield for development instead. I have used the green belt sites mentioned for many years walking the paths and feel they are invaluable to local people's mental health and physical health and of course to the look of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 11068

Received: 17/08/2021

Respondent: Christine Elliott

I would like to register my opposition to the development of the green belt generally, and around Halesowen specifically, in the Black Country plan.
The green belt land adjacent to the A456 in Halesowen is historic land which has been traditionally used for recreation by the local people and needs to be robustly protected.
I have read that Dudley council declared a desire to develop brownfield sites first. Why can't the council declared a definite and steadfast plan for brownfields first rather than an ineffective "desire" which will inevitable be overridden by developers.
I also note that only previously identified brownfield sites are included in the calculations without allowing for the inclusion for future sites that will naturally come into play, especially following the massive changes in working practices that have occurred since Covid.
Would you please reply to confirm receipt of my concerns

Object

Representation ID: 11069

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Chad Rhodes

[Viewfield Crescent]

I understand that a proposal has been made as part of the Black Country Plan to remove Greenbelt status of a substantial area of land off Viewfield Cresent, Sedgley for the purposes of housing. I am writing to object to this development and agree with our Local Councilor's reasons for refusal and wish to add more:
The Black Country Plan has identified a number of areas with little consideration for local residents, the wider community and wildlife.

The first question that must be asked is why reduce the already shrinking Greenbelt Land we have in the Dudley Borough when there are ample amount of Brownfield sites seeking development and will help rejuvenate eyesores across the borough, is this the part of the process in our bid for city status to rid the areas of green space?

Housing developments should be considered to meet the demands of an area, where has the demand for 24 'exclusive' homes been identified? As the houses will be built to attract the exclusive buyer surely this development is being consider for monetary purposes and not to support the growth of the local community.

The development will have detrimental effects on local residents increasing both noise and light pollution. The development will be in eye-line of my residence and many others, a feature of many of the local houses, how will local residents affected be compensated? Sedgley's infrastructure already finds it difficult to cope with the congestion with its already established residence let alone the vast numbers of individuals who use A459 to commute between Wolverhampton and Dudley, further residency will overwhelm the roads.

The harmful impact on local wildlife will be irreversible. Cotwall end Nature Reserve is host to an array of birds and mammals, reducing their habitat further will drive said wildlife away or lead to their death.

The IPCC has clearly identified that Green House gases are unequivocally driving the rate of Global Warming at an unimaginable rate. The impact of building a further 24 homes at the cost of reducing our Greenbelt Land is criminal following said report.

Object

Representation ID: 11076

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Paul Nash

I would like to object against the proposed building of 115 properties in Worcester Lane for the following reasons:
1. Obviously the type of houses to be built would be inappropriate to the area.
2. It is taking away green belt land when climate change is a major issue. Surely, there are plenty of unused brownfield sites within the black country area.
3. The land is currently well used by public for recreation

On a more practical note, I respectfully suggest that instead of just looking at plans, you visit Worcester Lane and observe the traffic especially at peak times. By increasing the size of the residential area as proposed would only add to the volume of traffic.

Furthermore, the 'already oversubscribed' local schools and doctors surgeries would not be bale to cope!!!

Some of the above issues are still being experienced as a result of the Cala Homes development in Hagley.

Object

Representation ID: 11078

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Jane Wolley

I live on the Crestwood housing Est and use the green field site proposed for planning twice a day to walk my dog, As a woman walking my dog on my own, I feel safe in the open space as it is well lit and feel that once this area is developed, I will not have any area that is close and safe for me to walk in.

This area should and needs to be protected - have all the brown fields sites available in DUDLEY been exhausted?

The number of houses on the estate is already high and this is the one and only open area of land on the whole estate, and is already used by many people at the same.

To build even more housing on the estate would put a huge environmental pressures on an already cramped estate and cause a long-term increase in noise and air population to residents along with disrupting the existing landscape and pleasant open space currently used by children as the only area to play on, walkers and local wild life. 200 yards away you have planted 100 trees and yet you want to cut down the existing trees here on this land, this does not make sense???

My big concerns will be regarding
1. The increase in the long term traffic congestion, pollution and noise within the area;
2. Leaving the existing people of the estate with insufficient green space and a total disregard for the existing people of the estate and their needs;
3. Reducing the ability of people and children to have access to a safe open space and being unable to walk and play in an open safe lit area, thus any effect on mental health;
4. Building on greenfield site when other brown sites are available.