Table 4 – Black Country Sources of Housing Land Supply and Phased Housing Targets for BCA 2020-39

Object

Representation ID: 10647

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Charlotte Edmunds

I object to the release of greenfield sites in Dudley, there are very few already and are part of the reason that areas are desirable to live in, the attraction of being on the edge of the countryside is why residents have paid so much to live here. There are not enough schools, drs, etc to support the extra people in Wall Heath, impossible to get appts already. Develop brownfield, don’t build on green. Hundreds of homes have just been built round the corner at the top of stallings lane which have already increased the traffic in the area!

Comment

Representation ID: 10767

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Batchelor

The amount of greenbelt to be built on seems dis proportionally in the Aldridge / Brownhills parliamentary constituency. The area around Sandhills Farm in particular would urbanise a quite rural area. I understand the urgent need for more housing but this needs to balanced with protecting our precious greenbelt. I would absolutely urge that brownfield sites are exhausted before any consideration is given to building on the greenbelt. Nimbyism must be ignored at all costs too and any decisions are based purely on facts and need.

Object

Representation ID: 10771

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: NXD Consulting Ltd

One of the keys things highlighted by the recent COVID pandemic has been the huge benefit of green spaces to the physical and mental health of Dudley Borough residents. To even consider building on such green belt sites such as the Lodge Lane/Swindon Road triangle in Wall Heath/Kingswinford and the fields at Holbeache would seem to be nonsensical at the very least. Such developments would swamp existing infrastructures and increase traffic to a point which would cause major issues in terms of volume and pollution. We need to protect the green lungs of the borough not destroy them.

Object

Representation ID: 10984

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Westwood

With reference to site DUH217.
Green space for mental well being and wildlife interaction is crucial . This Bridal path is used by thousands of locals and people travelling along the greenbelt to exercise, pick blackberrys, apples, elderberrys, and sloes. It played a vital role during the pandemic for people who could not travel out of the area. We need these small and beautiful places to intersect urban spread.
From a wildlife point of view, this site is home to plenty of creatures including bats, foxes, , toads, hedgehogs, green woodpeckers and tawny owls.
Shame on Dudley council !

Comment

Representation ID: 10992

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Bickmore-Green

No greenbelt land should be used there are lots of brown land areas that should be looked at first. We must preserve as much green land as possible for the sake of the planet and wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 11381

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Miller

We should not build 1,117 houses on the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 11454

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Charmaine Stint

Walsall is already an incredibly highly populated area yet there appears to be more allocated existing planning or proposed planning sites than in surrounding areas such as Sandwell or Wolverhampton.

Object

Representation ID: 11478

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Beddow

no greenbelt
brownfield sites allocated are a joke and on green belt
the builders only want to build where lucrative and you are taking their money and ploughing through the green belt until there is none left
no one in the country besides builders want the green belt touched for obvious reasons

Comment

Representation ID: 11767

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Banks

I object to the proposed building on what was Brandhall golf course. It is one of the very few bits of green space left in the area. The effect on local traffic and facilities such as doctors surgeries and schools will be deleterious. At a time when the environment is being seen as more and more important it is a big backward step to concrete over one of the few bits of open space in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 11790

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Sam Collenette

I object to building on the greenbelt under any circumstances. 171 houses should be factored in by increasing the density on brownfield sites. Redrawing the boundaries is not a sustainable or justifiable option. I object to the complexity of this consultation. I expect my comments to be taken as an objection to the whole plan not just this chapter. You have not made it as easy as it should be for concerns to be raised and objections submitted.

Object

Representation ID: 12105

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Powell

It's upsetting that there are such a lot of homes planned for greenbelt land in Walsall. My first concern is for wildlife and our eco-diversity which needs sustaining.

My second concern is the huge amount of housing planned on the land between Aldridge Road and Doe Bank (from Queslett Road to Barr Beacon) will result in an excessive amount of traffic on Aldridge Road which struggles to keep cars moving as it is.

My third concern is overcrowding of schools in that area as the schools nearby are already oversubscribed. School parking is an issue on Aldridge Road too.

Comment

Representation ID: 16364

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Phillips

I feel that the Council should not build homes on the areas indicated on the leaflet provided. Wherever possible housing should be built as close to the city centres, I know this may be some high rise building.

By building more and more homes outside the inner city centre areas will only make the situation worse. Homes built in areas outside the town only leads to the death of the city centre (no M&S, BHS and possibly Debenhams) in the future means no need to go to Walsall. Also look at the death of the once thriving Walsall Market, all due to people preferring to travel to the out of town shopping centres, causing more longer journeys and pollution.

"Reconsider building more good homes, towards the city centre."

Comment

Representation ID: 22158

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

. We note that in Table 4, there has been a lapse rate allowance of 10% discounted to allow for some sites which may not come forward over the course of the plan. We would like to know whether this truly represents the historic lapse rate pattern, as we are aware of a substantial number of sites within Dudley Borough that have not come forward because of persistent viability problems associated with heritage, site contamination and other issues which include tensions between commercial/industrial land values being similar to those of residential (post• remediation). We are not clear whether this has been considered carefully enough.

Further, the BC authorities propose to 'export' 28,239 dwellings outside of its boundary- but as South Staffordshire Council have just publicised their preferred options Local Plan, it remains the case that they propose to take c.4,000 dwelling as (unmet need), but it is not clear whether this is unmet need from the GBSLEP area, or the Black Country. This needs clarification.