Comment

Representation ID: 18454

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Anneka Ghofer

No text submitted

Object

Representation ID: 18544

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Judy Foster

The online consultation and related errors


The existing online and hard copy versions of the consultation were confusing and contained numerous errors. The online response documentation was also difficult to navigate and resulted in many Pensnett residents abandoning their efforts to make a response. Examples of errors for the Pensnett sites included;

• Conflicting information in documents about which sites are affected
• Difficulty in finding information about sites within the documents that councillors and residents understand would be affected
• Lack of clarity about which sites are ruled in and ruled out

Object

Representation ID: 18556

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Tim Crumpton

[Consultation Process]

My first comment is that the timing of the consultation has been ridiculous covering a period when we are still coming out of the pandemic with many people still extremely hesitant and downright frightened of meeting in any crowded place. My second comment is that there were many problems with the consultation documents resulting in errored data being issued to the public.

My third comment is that the internet consultation has been farcical with no notice that the consultation had been issued; the errata being hidden within the website and the manner of making comments being so difficult that many have simply given up.

As such the consultation on a far reaching plan has not been anywhere near as successful as it should have been as it has disenfranchised so many.

Why do we not have a credible plan that enhances our ward and our borough is ridiculous and the attitude of the Council and Government which denies our citizens full consultation means such a plan is unlikely to resolve our problems just as the current plan has failed so badly.

Object

Representation ID: 18570

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[Consultation Process]

Consultation Documents and Consultation process

There have been ongoing issues with the consultation process which have caused confusion and frustration for residents and councillors alike.


Timing and Duration of the consultation process


We have taken issue with the choice of date to announce the start of the consultation and the length of time residents have had to respond. It is
important to make the point that at no time before the consultation was announced have residents been officially informed which sites are at risk. The formal consultation that took place previously only developed policies that would determine choices and did not name specific sites. A number of committees held in public have discussed the plan and there have been various reports which have given an indication of which sites might be at risk but this information could not be relied on until the plan was signed off. Ahead of the consultation there are examples of councillors trying to alert residents near some of those sites that those sites are at risk, only for residents who have then enquired with the Tory
Councillors and/or their MPs that this is scaremongering, and those sites wouldn’t be in the final proposals, only then to find that the sites made it to the final consultation document. The consultation was then launched under the radar, during the summer months, omitting any direct communications with those affected so that many residents were not aware that those sites were at risk until weeks into the consultation period.


The Council has indicated that the standard consultation period of 6 weeks has been extended to 8 weeks, however this still gives insufficient time for residents with limited resources and often without access to IT and social media to get themselves organised and to mount an effective opposition to the plans. Councillors have seen those residents, especially those near to the affected sites, placed under extreme duress trying to organise campaigns during a period of the year where they are still battling with the impact of Coronavirus, are apprehensive about returning to “normal activities” and might still be working whilst also
trying to take holidays as well as having other pressing responsibilities such as childcare.


This unacceptable worry and pressure for residents could have been averted if the council had, in the first place, adopted a transparent process that was fit for purpose and had actively engaged with those residents most affected ahead of the publication of the proposals.
The online consultation and related errors


The existing online and hard copy versions of the consultation were confusing and contained numerous errors. The online response documentation was also difficult to navigate and resulted in many residents abandoning their efforts to make a response. Examples of errors included;



• Conflicting information in documents about which sites are affected
• Difficulty in finding information about sites within the documents that councillors and residents understand would be affected
• Lack of clarity about which sites are ruled in and ruled out


Also, while green belt sites at risk have been highlighted, equally important green spaces at risk have been difficult for residents to identify. The quality of maps has been poor and in many cases it has been difficult to pinpoint the exact locations of some of the sites. Many residents were also deterred from continuing with their response when required to provide an electronic signature. Some residents expressed this at the public meeting that was organised, and despite hearing this the Council has decided to continue – with no change at all.

Early in the process, including the day of the publication of the consultation, councillors received many enquiries relating to these errors. Consequently, a request was made to the Leader via the Chief Executive that the process should be paused then restarted when all were confident that the consultation was fit for purpose. The Labour group also proposed an extension to the consultation period of 4 weeks
to allow sufficient numbers of residents to respond and to be informed of any new information that might arise through the scrutiny process which
did not begin until September. The decision to extend the consultation needed the approval of the Conservative Cabinet and we are disappointed but not surprised that this request was rejected.


Finally, in regard to the online consultation we heard from CAPA at the scrutiny committee last Wednesday that just 10,000 unique visits were made from across the four Black Country boroughs to the online consultation. Considering this was their primary tool for collecting comments, it is another demonstration of how ineffective the Council has been in engaging residents.

In person consultation


Until the first scrutiny meeting took place which highlighted issues with the consultation process, there had been no in person consultation conducted with affected residents. Consequently, almost halfway into the consultation period, ‘drop in’ sessions were hurriedly arranged by Dudley Council, most taking place during office hours when the public were not available and therefore not surprisingly, attracting just 99 visits in total. Public meetings were better attended, but most of these were organised by residents and campaigners themselves, with differing degrees of formality, structure and support.

Other communications


Following the first scrutiny committee, one of the measures proposed was to alert members of the public to the fact that the BCP proposals had been published and to encourage them to respond. Just 2 weeks before the closing date for the consultation, an A5 leaflet was posted to households, many wrapped in other unrelated commercial materials delivered at the same time. An opportunity had also been lost through the way in which the issue featured in the August edition of My Home magazine. CAPA explained that the magazine had to go to print before the consultation was launched which is why it didn’t contain much detail about the BCP. However, this does not explain why the article did not feature more prominently in the magazine, which on page 14, half way through, risked most readers not reading it.

Object

Representation ID: 18572

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[EIA]

Equality Considerations


The Labour group is aware that since 2012 there has been no requirement for Councils to conduct full equality impact assessments (EIAs) when developing policy or making decisions. However, there is
an expectation that if a full EIA is not conducted, there is still evidence to show that the protected characteristics (as per the Equality Act 2010) have been properly considered.


There is no evidence of any assessment in the BCP proposals of the disproportionate adverse impact on certain groups that the proposals will have and this includes the particular impact on children and young
people and on those with mental health and well-being concerns. If a competent equality impact assessment had been carried from the beginning as it should have been, it is almost certain that the green belt
and green spaces that we oppose development of would not have been included in the draft plan.


If these equality considerations continue to be ignored then the council is leaving itself open to the risk of initiation of Judicial review proceedings
in this matter, as it is currently in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Object

Representation ID: 18577

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dudley Labour Group

Agent: Councillor Qadar Zada

[Loss of the Green space - general]


Health and well-being


Reference has already been made to the lack of consideration given to equality of protected groups. There are actions within the public health arena under the Health and Well Being Board’s aims and objectives,
including the need to reduce health inequalities throughout the borough and particularly in those areas showing high levels of deprivation.


What we know about the population of Dudley is that it is the 164th most deprived borough (out of 337 boroughs) in the UK, where 28% of residents live in the 20% most deprived wards, and where, according to the Director of Public Health’s report for 2019/20, the life expectancy for men is 9.2 years less and for women 7 years less than the national average. Rates for obesity, alcohol related harm, self-harm and physical inactivity are high. Therefore, to improve this situation for Dudley people, green spaces for exercise, leisure and general well being are essential.


This is supported by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health which concluded up to 43,000 deaths each year could be prevented if areas followed World Health Organisation guidelines that no one should be more than 300 metres from a park or outdoor space.


The study describes the health benefits of green spaces as including lower rates of mental health problems, reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases, better brain function and a longer life expectancy.


It says that spending time in nature not only benefits our health and provides us with opportunities for physical exercise and social interaction, but it also helps to mitigate air pollution, heat and noise levels, all while reducing the planet’s carbon footprint.


The study, published in The Lancet Planetary Health journal, looked at
1,000 cities in 31 European countries.


Study lead author Evelise Pereira said: “Our findings show that green space is very unevenly distributed across European cities, with mortality attributable to insufficient exposure to green space.


The National Planning Policy Framework also states open space should be taken into account in planning for new developments and considering proposals that may affect existing open spaces, which can provide
health and recreation benefits to people living and working nearby, have
an ecological value and contribute to green infrastructures as well as being an important part of the landscape. So, there will be a detrimental effect of losing green space to development, particularly for children and young people and the local community by taking away valuable green spaces which currently allows us to breathe clean air, to relax and unwind and generally support our well-being.


Countless other studies show the multiple benefits of local green space to communities, including:
• improved public health, physical and mental
• Reduced stress and improved wellbeing
• Healthier early years and childhood development
• Reduced health related costs to society
• Increased social cohesion within and between communities


As well as these benefits, Natural England guidance states that everybody should be within 5 minutes’ walk of 2 hectares of green space.


Finally, pages 246 – 251 of the BCP states ‘Development that would reduce the overall value of open spaces, sport and recreation network in BC will be resisted’. Page 277 also refers to air quality and how poor it
is in many places. There is a proven correlation between the quality of air in overdeveloped areas and the health, well-being and economic security of people living in them. The loss of these green spaces could have a further detriment to Dudley people.

Object

Representation ID: 18584

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Friends of Homer Park and Cradley Then and Now

Number of people: 364

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18590

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kelly Stockford

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18596

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Alan Jones

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18602

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Marie Cotton

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18608

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Tracey Bofrey

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18614

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mick Poultney

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18620

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L Grundy

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18626

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: J Taylor

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18632

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: C Beale

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18638

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: D Bloomer

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18644

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L Whitehouse

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18650

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: D Hewins

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18656

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: C Cole

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18662

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: M Bills

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18668

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Sarah Wilding

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18674

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L Wooded

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18680

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mary Whitehouse

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18686

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Marie Hughes

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18692

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: . Snook

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18698

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: S Ward

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18704

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: . Round

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18710

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Linda Poultney

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18716

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: E Bills

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 18801

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: R Heard

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.