Development Allocations

Comment

Representation ID: 11818

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Aysha Khan

*this is a historic Greenbelt Site with protected species that live on the area.
*These lands have been the natural habitat of among others Muntjac Deer, , Foxes, Pheasants, Moles, Crested Newts and Butterflies Bees and Dragonflys all who need there habitat protected in line with CSP1, ENV1,ENV2 and SLINCS and COP 26 policies
*This application is against Dudley Councils Brownfield first policies
*Vehicle access and a increase in the volume of traffic this development would cause to already congested road causing problems to residents, emergency and council vehicle access.
For these reasons I strongly Object to the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 11854

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Pankajrai Karadia

We believe that the greenfields around Worcester Lane, Stourbridge, is key for the wellbeing and recreation of the Stourbridge residents. Fields and walkways around this area always have walkers/hikers out and about, not to mention the area provides a natural habitat to many native plant and animal species. We feel our young children will massively benefit from having greenfields in their locality (during lockdown these walks were their only exercise/entertainment).

Object

Representation ID: 11860

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Delia Jones

Loss of the greenbelt.
This is useful agricultural land grade 3 and above
The visual amenity and character of the area would dramatically change

Object

Representation ID: 11869

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Pycraft

I object to the proposed development of housing using land at Worcester Lane, Stourbridge. Having lived in Pedmore for most of my life, I recently made the decision to move my young family to be closer to the green open spaces in the community, a core element of which is the Worcester Lane green fields and land. This is a really important part of our lifestyle come rain or shine (or even snow), encouraging our young boys to be active and appreciate open spaces and being outdoors. We implore you not to build houses on this land.

Object

Representation ID: 11895

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Male

Site Reference DUH217
Local Nature is at risk
Historical paths are at risk
The Greenbelt is at Risk
Clear Your Head Space is at Risk
Community is at Risk

Object

Representation ID: 11907

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr ian male

Site DUH217
Local Nature at risk
Historical paths and sites at risk
Greenbelt at risk
Beneficial open spaces at risk ,so important now
Community at risk

Object

Representation ID: 11909

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Redfern

DUH222 Objecting to development of Severn Drive green space
This green is the heart of our community, used on a daily basis by residents of all ages. It has been invaluable during the pandemic for our mental health, exercise & relaxation. Trees are established & a haven for wildlife enjoyed by all.
I am also concerned about traffic issues & the lack of facilities eg: Dr surgery, dentist, schools. Our roads are not equipped for any extra traffic & definitely not construction vehicles. The negative impact on the community far outweighs the benefit of 15 new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 11940

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Rakesh Kapila

BCP site reference : DUH206, DUH207, DUH209. Development of 115 Homes along Worcester Lane, Stourbridge.
We would like to oppose the plans stated as we feel the development is placed in an inappropriate location and would lead to an inefficient use of resources , cause traffic congestion and other environmental harm. This would damage green belt land that is used for farming , but add unacceptable pressure to our local amenities, such as schools, roads and healthcare.
In addition there is a railway running across the site that would require thorough structural surveys to be deemed safe.

Object

Representation ID: 11945

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Anton Porter

I wish to object to the Black Country Pan Site No DU217 for the development of the fields between York Crescent and the Kingsway in Wollaston and Hyperion Road in Stourton.
I live locally and walk the public bridleway almost every day. This year I have been recovering from a cancer operation and the easy access to green belt has been so very important . On my walk I meet many people who get great pleasure from access to our local fields.
Reasons for objecting are evident:-
Local peoples’ mental health .
It is an important wildlife corridor .

Object

Representation ID: 11978

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Edward Cook

Objection to site allocations:

1) Sites: DUH206, Worcester Lane North; DUH207, Worcester Lane Central
DUH209, Worcester Lane South; Objection to allocation because: Sites lie in an AHHLV. Adjacent to SLINC. Would constitute unacceptable harm to green belt.

2) Site: DUH217, Grazing Land Wollaston Farm. Objection to allocation as site: Should be used as a public open space. Falls in an area of high Landscape sensitivity. Should be protected due to Tranquillity.

3) Site: ID 10511, Three Fields. Objection to this site not being designated as a Local Green Space: Meets criteria for LGS. Designation would demonstrate significance to the community.

Object

Representation ID: 11991

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lydia Ellis

[No specific site reference given]

Need to look PROPERLY at reclaiming brownfield land first. Need to look at the realities facing Dudley - not on a mainline station etc. Do not need to eat up Greenberg for housing crisis when there is substantial brownfield land. Housing built on this land rarely turns out to be truly “affordable”

Comment

Representation ID: 11996

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lydia Ellis

[No site specific reference given]

Still should be Brownfield first. An area behind my house that is proposed is habitat to deer, rabbits, foxes and multitude of other wildlife you cannot destroy this. How is this environmentally friendly and supporting a positive climate change agenda?

Object

Representation ID: 12025

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Moon

GREENBELT SHOULD BE JUST THAT. We have under 20% of each greenbelt/open space. Losing any of this will have a detrimental effect on mental health of residents, especially following COVID. The A491 already has constant flow outside rush hour.
Already have a number of new housing developments within area eg. 1000 more houses could mean 2000 more cars and 1000 more children. Not enough schools/GP Surgeries to absorb these numbers. The Dudley group of Hospitals is already under pressure. Road flooding already an in issue - where will the excess water go? We need to consider the warning on bio-diversity!

Object

Representation ID: 12036

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Hunt

I live on Crestwood Park Estate and have done for many years. The green off Fitton Avenue and Lapwood has provided many hours of safe play and activity for families and their children also dog walkers on the estate. We must preserve our local green spaces for future generations There are more than enough brownfield areas for extra housing which I agree is needed but not at the expense of what little green space we have in built up areas. I strongly object to the use of these areas especially as the area as a whole has many derelict sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 12050

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Thompson

DUH006 = object: Site is part SLINC, part PSI and adjoins a SINC.
DUH009 = object: The site comprises a significant area of semi-natural habitat
DUH010 = object: The site comprises a significant area of semi-natural habitat
DUH011 = object: The site is a SLINC
DUH210 = object: The site is a SLINC
DUH211 = object: The site includes a SLINC
DUH217 = object: Site has been identified as Potential Site of Importance (for nature conservation)
DUH218 = object: Site has been identified as Potential Site of Importance (for nature conservation)
DUH221 = object: public open space

Object

Representation ID: 12052

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Natalie Hunt

The area is already overpopulated. Schools are full. What are the employment prospects for people living in these additional houses- FSM are already above the national averages in most local schools? Green spaces are essential to healthy living and protecting air quality. Traffic in the area and surrounding area is already problematic.

Object

Representation ID: 12054

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Milhan Chungh

[No site specific reference given]

There'll be a bad impact on the natural environment. Bad habitat for wildlife. More traffic congestion which will in turn pollute the air. Flooding issues will occur. Overcrowding will be an issue, this will cause parking issues, difficult accessibility for medical services.

Object

Representation ID: 12059

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Bally Chungh

Objection to Worcester Lane site being in the Black Country Plan as Loss of Green Belt will lead to loss of natural Habitat for Animals and plant Life.
The site is used by People from all over the Dudley Borough as it is part of the Black Country Route walk.
With the government encouraging health and mental well-being in a “New World of increase Home Screen working” the use of green belt land for building is totally without merit and will lead to more pressure on the NHS.

Object

Representation ID: 12077

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laura Rollins

1) Sites: DUH206, Worcester Lane North; DUH207, Worcester Lane Central
DUH209, Worcester Lane South; Objection to allocation because: Sites lie in an AHHLV. Adjacent to SLINC. Would constitute unacceptable harm to green belt.

2) Site: DUH217, Grazing Land Wollaston Farm. Objection to allocation as site: Should be used as a public open space. Falls in an area of high Landscape sensitivity. Should be protected due to Tranquillity..

Object

Representation ID: 12078

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Chloe Lansbury

1) Sites: DUH206, Worcester Lane North; DUH207, Worcester Lane Central
DUH209, Worcester Lane South; Objection to allocation because: Sites lie in an AHHLV. Adjacent to SLINC. Would constitute unacceptable harm to green belt.

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

I object to the allocation of these three sites for development for the following reasons:

Area of High Historic Landscape Value (AHHLV): These sites lie in an AHHLV. Strategic Priority 12 is to “protect, sustain and enhance the quality of the built and historic environment”. See also Policy ENV5, p. 230. All three are green field sites with grade 3a agricultural land situated in a strongly rural landscape and contain public Rights of Way. Given the emphasis in Policy CPS3 on “heritage, recreation, agricultural and nature conservation value”, these sites should not be allocated.

Proximity to Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC): There is a nearby SLINC, as well as mature trees and hedgerows, and there is no sustainable mitigation for this.

Green Belt harm: I disagree with the Green RAG rating of low/moderate for Green Belt harm for these three sites. There would be no clearly “defensible boundary” to this development (Policy GB1, and para 3.16). Development would also encroach on the open countryside between Hagley and Pedmore, going against at least three of the five purposes of the green belt (para 138 of the NPPF): (a) checking unrestricted sprawl, (b) preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another, and (c) safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

Object

Representation ID: 12088

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Davis

DUH008 - It is pointless removing a local store, Chemist and Chip Shop unless the proposal is also to remove the eye saw that it the abandoned shops. Also building 14 homes that does not have the infrastructure to support i.e. Doctors Surgery and local schools

Object

Representation ID: 12089

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Davis

DUH008 - Pointless approving and removing a convenient store, Chemist and Chip without removing eye saw of abandon shops. Also the area does not have the infrastructure of school, doctors to support the existing number house - so why build more

Object

Representation ID: 12112

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Burgess

I object to the removal of land from the Green Belt - particularly given the recent statement by the Prime Minister that development should take place on brownfield sites. Development should be prioritised on suitable brownfield sites and/or previously developed land, provided this is not of high ecological value. With regard to the housing numbers used to justify Green Belt release, please see this report from CPRE: https://www.cprestaffordshire.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2020/01/BC-core-strategy-urban-capacity-and-green-belt-including-appendix-final-GK.pdf

Object

Representation ID: 12113

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Burgess

I object to the removal of land from the Green Belt - particularly given the recent statement by the Prime Minister that development should take place on brownfield sites. Development should be prioritised on suitable brownfield sites and/or previously developed land, provided this is not of high ecological value. With regard to the housing numbers used to justify Green Belt release, please see this report from CPRE: https://www.cprestaffordshire.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2020/01/BC-core-strategy-urban-capacity-and-green-belt-including-appendix-final-GK.pdf

Object

Representation ID: 12116

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Barnett

With regards to allocation DUH038, Copse Road Netherton. This site has been incorrectly designated as brownfield.

Object

Representation ID: 12121

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Chris Barnett

DUH038 Copse Road Netherton has been incorrectly designated as brownfield.

Visually, the site features amenity grassland and native scrub. There is no visual evidence to support this site as "Previously Developed Land".

In the consultation document this valuable, public amenity green space is incorrectly designated as brownfield.

Comment

Representation ID: 12123

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor David Borley

DUH 212 - Lewis Road

I object to the plan for housing on DUH212 as this is a
greenspace area we for leisure well used by the local residents. This was a refuse site many years ago and has known mining shafts and unsafe gases underneath.
Also the issue of access and being opposite a Primary School that would increase traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 12127

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor David Borley

DUH 023

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

Object

Representation ID: 12135

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Julien Blakeway

No development on greenbelt
Increased Traffic
Pressure on Local facilities

Object

Representation ID: 12136

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Tom Homer

I wish to object to the proposed development of sites DUH208 and DUH211. Just the wording "site removed from green belt" in your document should be enough to make you stop. The Holbeach site is prime agricultural land which is surely much needed, as well as being vital for local wildlife. The A449 is already tremendously busy and noisy. Local services were strained before Covid but schools, doctors and dentists could not cope with the added influx of residents. I fear the wait time for a doctors appointment is already potentially dangerous. Please, your actions cannot be undone.