Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 11092

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracy Price

[No site specific reference given]

Wall Heath-Kingswinford-Wordsley is one large housing estate. Green space in k’ford is irreplaceable.

Comment

Representation ID: 11096

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Lars Nielsen

[Worcester Lane]

I am concerned about the capacity of schools and medical services, traffic congestion, public transport, and also whether existing rights of way will be preserved.

I am commenting about the Worcester Lane sites DUH206, DUH207 and DUH209.

The plan is to build 155 new houses, which will involve about 150 new cars. As petrol and diesel cars will be phased out soon after the houses are completed, the houses will need electric charging points.

This would provide housing for I assume around 350-400 people, including children. The nearest school is Pedmore Primary School. Does the school have the extra capacity? It's quite small.

The plan covers two public footpaths. Will these remain open as rights of way?

Both the Stourbridge GP practices, Lion Health and Wychbury Medical Practice, have too many patients on their roll already; for years local people have complained about the lack of availability of appointments. What will be done to increase GP capacity for 350-400 new residents? Similarly for other medical services such as hospitals, mental health - they are all already overloaded.

Where will the residents work? If they want to drive out to the M5 motorway, or towards Birmingham, they will drive either along Worcester Lane (B4187) through Hagley, or along Redlake Road to join the Hagley Road A491. Both Hagley high street and Redlake Road have serious problems with congestion already in the mornings. Extra cars will just add to the problem. What will be done to alleviate the additional congestion that these new houses will cause?

For public transport, there is no bus service currently along Worcester Lane. Hagley station is 20 minutes walk away. Cycling to Hagley station would be an option, but cycling along Worcester Lane is dangerous. A cycle lane should be put in place along Worcester Lane to Hagley, to enable commuters to cycle to the station, and for children to cycle to the secondary schools in Hagley.

Object

Representation ID: 11148

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Aston

The local authority should be concentrating more effort into the use of brownfield sites before contemplating use of the boroughs ‘green spaces’
There are numerous errors within the plan specifically for the Severn Drive area; 1. The location is nowhere near a canal !
2. The site is used for multiple activities contrary to any site survey of ‘points’ gathering comparing one site to another. i.e how can a green field compare to the likes of a park with its addition of specific services such as toilets.
Pensnett is gridlocked with traffic…enough is enough.

Object

Representation ID: 11155

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Dr Kerry Hadley-Pryce

[DUH217]
I am objecting to the destruction of the Wollaston Greenbelt, listed as site DUH217. Covid has destroyed the mental health of many and has made us value green spaces and our environment. This space is part of Wollaston's identity and history, more people walk and enjoy this space than ever. It forges community and kindness having somewhere like this to enjoy. It offers a peaceful interlude as well as connectivity. We care about our green spaces, especially this one. Consider our long-term psychological health before making this decision.

Object

Representation ID: 11160

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Wills

To whom it may concern,
Can I please state my objections to the proposed building on the green at Severn Drive. (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 alone adding more

Schools are oversubscribed and a promised doctors surgery has never materialised.

How will the drainage system cope with extra use?

King Regards,
Adrian Wills.

Object

Representation ID: 11162

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ann Griffiths

I object to proposal of building on green (DUH216).

Object

Representation ID: 11183

Received: 25/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sandeep Dhaliwal

no further pressure on schools/doctors/services
no further increase of traffic
preservation of local scenic, beautiful greenbelt land
keeping area quiet and private as it always has been, not busy.

Object

Representation ID: 11188

Received: 25/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Surinder Kaur

more traffic will spoil the area will need more school doctor will need more school places exiting doctors are already under lots of pressure will ruin the countryside scene

Object

Representation ID: 11190

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Orson Waller

DUH060
This space is unsuitable for new Housing due to a complete lack of any parking for new homes. I regularly have to park in an alternative street (including Foredraft Street) due to lack of parking spaces on my road.
Due to Foredraft Street being closed to traffic I beleive that the current access of all traffic entering through Highfield Road is potentially dangerous because it restricts the access of emergency vehicles. If Highfield Road is blocked in icy weather Coleman Hill Avenue is impasable to vehicle's and a fire engine wouldn't be able to access in any weather.

Object

Representation ID: 11199

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Tony Mackay

Infringement on my wellbeing as I use the path 4 to 5 times a day and have been doing so for 40 years. One of those times is first thing in the morning. To lose this area would be detrimental to my health. There is an abundance of wildlife including bats, foxes, numerous types of birds and . There is no mention in your plan and assessment about the detriment to nature and wildlife and there is a which is PROTECTED. Also the horses have been in the field for all of this time

Object

Representation ID: 11201

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Warren Knight

I object to DUH217 being changed from green belt to housing. Regularly walk through and is full of wildlife including a Also a family of foxes, horses etc.

Object

Representation ID: 11203

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Save wollaston fields

I am objecting to DUH217. My house backs on to the green belt and we regularly walk through. We have 3 there, one at the bottom of my garden with .
Kingsway is so busy and is a lovely area to sit away from the traffic. Great relief for mental health with all the wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 11206

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Patrick

I oppose to the building of 18 houses on the green space and car park of Foredraft Street and Highfield Road. The green space is used every day for dog walkers and it's the highlight of the school run for my daughter when she picks daisy's and pinecones. I can't imagine the nightmare residents of Highfield Road and Crescent we will be facing with building work going on, you can't fit two cars down the street at the same time at this present moment

Object

Representation ID: 11207

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mr A Britton

[Proposal to develop green land at Severn Drive (DUH222)]

I strongly object to this ridiculous proposal. I live within 100 metres of this GREEN OASIS and like many other enjoy it DAILY
The proposal is OVER DEVELOPMENT, ruins the LOCAL STREET SCENE, and deprives locals of an invaluable RESOURCE OF LOCAL BEAUTY.
The land in question was an integral requirement to not only the original Severn Drive development, but also subsequent development off Butterfield Road and recently Gibbons Lane (brown-field)
*What has changed this legal requirement*
1) Why 'Sell Off' the only Local Playing Field in the middle of a child obesity crisis?
2) Why destroy the centre if the local community, offering physical and mental welfare during a worldwide pandemic?
3) Why remove the only local wildlife sanctuary for long established , bats and others?
4) why not encourage development of brownfield Eyesores like Male & Sons opposite Sainsburys?
5) why not repair and re-purpose all of the empty DMBC owner properties?
6) Local infrastructure is already at breaking point, not least Russells Hall Hospital. I am [age] and remember six local hospitals!
7) with recent huge developments at Himley View, Catesby View, Gibbons lane; new sites at Ketley Quarry, Stallings Land, Himley Road, Sandyfields Road ad neighbouring Wombourne/ Himley Sites, When is enough ?
8) Have you people learned nothing from the recent pandemic? overcrowding is the major source of virus transmission and hospital deaths due to overloaded infrastructure.
9) Night time, aerial satellite photographs show 90% of UK population inhabits only 10% of the UK Land mass, This is absurd, and a breeding ground for inevitable future pandemics
10) Last week, our Scottish friends were incredulous at the development, and traffic problems we are currently ending.
In Conclusion, this proposal is WRONG on EVERY LEVEL. REJECT IT NOW.

Object

Representation ID: 11211

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr ian bayford

I can't understand why the proposal DUH060 has reared its ugly head again when it has already been successfully rejected by the tenants in the locality. What’s changed? Will the problems on parking, noise pollution, lengthy disruption, effect on the natural habitat, loss of a communal area largely used by an aging population, loss of natural light, business closures due to loss of trade through lack of parking been resolved, if this project goes ahead?

Object

Representation ID: 11221

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Shaw

I object for the following reasons to the development of the Wollaston Farm area DUH217.
1. Loss of Greenbelt, and halting of urban sprawl
2. Quality of life, the ROW in area in question is frequently used by dog walkers and ramblers. Developing green belt means loss of access to the countryside.
3. Impact on traffic and Transport, local gridlock already an issues without adding more houses, poor access provision.
4. Pressure on local facilities, local health and school are already oversubscribed.
5. Destruction of the local environment
6. Locally important greenspace, for flora & fauna.

Object

Representation ID: 11223

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Williams

Specific objection to proposed development of sites DUH206, 207 & 209 - but all greenbelt sites in the plan must be protected and be a development of ‘last resort’.

Object

Representation ID: 11226

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: mr mark winters

Objec to two developents on the gorunds of increased traffic and not suitable for curent amenties.

Object

Representation ID: 11235

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Steele

Site Reference DUH217. We object to the development as this site
- provides access to green open space
- public authority has a duty to conserve biodiversity
- pathway to the countryside
- area forms a green boundary between Dudley and South Staffs
- Development of the area should not be approved as it is harmful to the green belt and would be inappropriate
- provides vital exercise space for local residents
- fantastic resource for wildlife
- loss of bridleways
- noise and pollution would increase

Object

Representation ID: 11237

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Sidney Millinson

We live at [Redacted-GDPR] and our bungalow backs onto the proposed site where the 24 dwellings are to be built, as the field [Redacted- GDPR] where the proposed accesses road for the 24 dwelling's if on a steep slope I feel we would lose our privacy with cars coming down the road especial at night with car headlights, myself and my neighbours feel that once there is an access road into Cotwall end Valley it will not stop at 24 dwellings there will be more.
We have lived in [Redacted-GDPR] years and have thought how lucky we are to have the wild life on our door step as in [Redacted-Ecology], and all the birds that visit our garden if the field is built on it will destroy all of their natural habitat for all this wildlife, I would rather look at a field of wild flowers etc. than a row of houses and a road.
As I have said we live [Redacted-GDPR] Moden Hill it is a rat run for cars to bypass Sedgley at certain times of the day, the roads in this area cannot cope with any more traffic trying to get out of the Ridgeway or Moden Hill can be horrendous which adds to more pollution, 24 new houses could be a potential for another 48 plus cars.

Object

Representation ID: 11243

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Diane Warren

I strongly object to the greenfield sites adjacent to Worcester Land being forward for housing development. If this proposal go forward it will destroy a natural habitat and valuable farmland. This will result in increased traffic increased population. Increased risk of flooding the local infrastructure will be to put under further strain schools dentists doctors. There proposals are totally out of keeping with the local area when other brownfield sites.
Whey have any greenfield sites being put forward when counsellors local MPs the West Midlands Mayor all agree that brownfield sites should be used before any greenfield site so why are the planners putting these greenfield sites forward.
It would also be a loss to all the people that sue the area for exercise and leisure

Object

Representation ID: 11244

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Warren

I strongly object to the greenfield sites adjacent to Worcester Land being forward for housing development. If this proposal go forward it will destroy a natural habitat and valuable farmland. This will result in increased traffic increased population. Increased risk of flooding the local infrastructure will be to put under further strain schools dentists doctors. There proposals are totally out of keeping with the local area when other brownfield sites.
Whey have any greenfield sites being put forward when counsellors local MPs the West Midlands Mayor all agree that brownfield sites should be used before any greenfield site so why are the planners putting these greenfield sites forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 11270

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Jukes

DUH008 - This is for 14 homes to be built at 116-120 Colley Gate, but there is no information available on the DMBC Planning website.

Object

Representation ID: 11271

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Ben Rutter

The “triangle” site (DUH211) is already a high traffic area at multiple times of the day from all roadways. Every road that borders the site is single lane and traffic backs up in its current capacity causing difficulties for the local residents. The same can be said for the Holbeache Lane site, where queues at busy periods can be 0.5 miles long in each direction. At least three days a week it can take 20 minutes to travel from Himley Hall to Lodge Lane. Adding this many houses to the area will send the roads into gridlock.

Object

Representation ID: 11291

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dale Field

Reference DUH217

I object as this land is precious green belt. There is already existing traffic congestion. The pressure on local services would increase such as GP surgeries (particularly Lion Health which is rated worst in the borough for appointments), hospitals and schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 11311

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Barrett

Regarding development DUH008 does this mean Nisa and The Chainmakers chip shop are to be demolished and replaced with dwellings if so I would not be in agreement with this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 11326

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Jackson

Regarding DUH217,the amount of house building in the past few decades in the Stourbridge area looks out of control with it becoming a mass of tarmac and concrete.Any loss of green belt is tragic but in this area people cannot see a doctor or avoid a traffic queue.Another worry with the increase of population will be the danger of the Western Orbital Road being resurrected

Object

Representation ID: 11368

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dorithea Hall

To introduce more housing to DUH217 with no plan for increasing already over stretched medical practices and schooling is a disgrace. From 90 homes this will equate to at least 180 additional vehicles with constrained access and egress from the proposed site. The infrastructure problems are unsolvable as existing road systems cannot be expanded e.g. Hyperion Road and The Kingsway. There will be loss of bridle ways and definitive paths designated by Law! Also loss of a valuable green space, trees and hedgerows possibly protected due to age and the number of species growing

Object

Representation ID: 11411

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr kenneth slater

[DUH210]

Moden hill area has no suitable road structure for more housing.To increase traffic in this area would cause problems on Moden hill which is designated unsuitable for vehicles and would become the shortest route to the local school.In the winter the hill is never gritted and several accidents have already occurred.

Object

Representation ID: 11416

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Gardner

DUH217. Objection on the grounds of impact to wildlife, varieties of insects, birds and other animals. Access to the land is problematic and will result in increased traffic in an already congested area. Lack of local amenities with schools and doctors surgeries under strain. Importance of the site for ecological balance and the communities mental and physical health. Lack of meadows and natural green spaces in the area.