Question 4

Object

Representation ID: 5

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

Any type of constructions in green belt will damage it and will destroy it , in every single part of the town we need some green area to let the town breath otherwise we will damage our nation in long term by surrounding them with congested houses , roads ,.....
so I agree to use the green belt and brownfields inside the town for the same purposes which will help in a green way but don't agree to kill our green belts to develop houses and roads .

Object

Representation ID: 17

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Ms M Collins

Stating will only use land of open countryside or green belt in limited circumstances. Some of the SADs particularly in Kinver do not meet these exceptions

Support

Representation ID: 22

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: N/a

the new housing targets for the authority and unmet need from neighbouring authorities is unlikely to be met without utilising appropriate green belt land for development. there is not enough brownfield land to meet targets

Object

Representation ID: 28

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Barnsley

I do not support the policy that allows the building on the greenbelt. I do not think it should be considered until the ecological and biodiversity enhancement has been proven to outweigh the damage caused to the fragile and unique ecosystem.

Object

Representation ID: 37

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Whale

Stay off the beautiful green spaces,
We need more not less
You are hypocrites, going on about climate change
Absolute disgrace , you don’t work for local residents
And I declare
You are not fit purpose

Object

Representation ID: 59

Received: 08/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Kelsey

This type of land is precious and should be left alone as there appears to be lots of brownfield sites to build on.

Object

Representation ID: 67

Received: 08/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Boucher

There is too much building on greenbelt already when there is so much industrial and waste land. Linthouse Lane and Blackhalve Lane are already busy roads and creating a new estate is only going to cause congestion, noise and pollution even more. I strongly object to beautiful countryside being turned into concrete jungles disrupting the homes of what beautiful creatures we have left. Before long there will be no greenery left in England, we are supposed to be thinking of climate change how can creating a new estate be a good thing and getting rid of trees and open space.

Object

Representation ID: 73

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr James Aust

I fully disagree with the proposed plans to build more houses in Wombourne

Object

Representation ID: 86

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Broadbent

There are enough brownfield sites around.
1930 law to prevent such urban sprawl especially as Wolverhampton council will be part of SStaffs as the border is being crossed .
With all the climate issues we have this would be better served as a new forest , or a solar farm . This land suffers greatly from flooding , this will just have an adverse effect

Object

Representation ID: 91

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Price

I do not agree with building on green belt land in Wombourne. You are stripping away what makes this a beautiful village and killing habitats for the sake of housing which can be built on many brown sites.

Object

Representation ID: 95

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Imms

Your explanations above are set out to trick people. No housing whatsoever should be built on green belt land be it avoidable housing or otherwise. Green belt land is to remain untouched and never built on. It is not a difficult question to answer as this question should never be asked.

Object

Representation ID: 96

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Imms

Your statement is set out to trick people. At no point ever should green belt land be built on. Green belt has to protected at all costs. The policy should be amended to read this and the question to build on green belt should never be raised

Object

Representation ID: 109

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Griss

Your wording tells me you will do whatever you want if you believe it's necessary. The Green Belt is not protected & neither are the people that live here & can't get good heakthcare or public transport or good roads. I do not agree.

Object

Representation ID: 122

Received: 11/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tonya Hollinshead

I do not believe we should be building on the Greenbelt at all as it will destroy our countryside and villages for ever and is not sustainable.
We should be using brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 126

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Taylor

the term affordable housing is non specific and therefore open to interpretation by developers e.g Affordable for whom?
Evidence that development on all brown sites/scrub land in towns, cities, villages, hamlets etc have been exhausted needs to be the overiding rule in any housing policy before green belt/green spaces are built on. Policy should place more emphasis on extending and creating green sites, not on ways to waiver greenbelt protection..

Object

Representation ID: 135

Received: 14/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Longman

Brownfield sites should only be used to protect green belt and any further development. Improvements can be made to other areas in neighbouring towns of Wombourne and in Wombourne if brownfield site by developing their brownfield sites and unfit housing. Policy should be that a standard is set to improve locations, ‘modernise’/make homes eco friendly, thus improving areas; grants/loans to improve structure. Regeneration of brownfield/poor housing should be ongoing and be sustainable. Facilities/infrastructure still need to be addressed.
Neighbouring towns must take responsibility for updating their housing to ensure social/health care does not cross into a new area.

Support

Representation ID: 139

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Flavell

Policy DS1 states that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate with exceptions, the major of these is 'limited infilling in villages'. The development at Billy Buns Lane can in no circumstances be described as limited and therefore fail this test.
If the development is considered as part of DS2 it fails all the stated categories of development and must therefore be carried forwards as part of the catch-all 'case by case'. It still fails these tests and should be reconsidered or substantially scaled back. At the very least, a safety element should be factored in.

Object

Representation ID: 151

Received: 15/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Carl Harper

No.

Object

Representation ID: 165

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Carpenter

Green Belt and Open Countryside should only be developed as a last resort when all brownfield sites/derelict land in the country have been converted to whatever is required to meet the needs of the local authority. South Staffs needs to provide 4000 homes for Birmingham, by providing this on open countryside, has all land in Birmingham been re-developed and this is the only solution. if not, that is what should be done first before ruining the countryside. We need space to grow food!

Object

Representation ID: 171

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Graystone

Green belt should stay as green belt without more houses!

Support

Representation ID: 188

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr K Lloyd

Can you clarify what improving access to the countryside means, does this mean new footpaths? In Bilbrook, an existing footpath from Barnhurst Lane to the railway line could be enhanced by the creation of a new footpath to Dam Mill. This would provide a safe route across the south of the village as well as more recreation for the residents. I have attached an image of the current path in red and proposed extension, in red dots.

Object

Representation ID: 203

Received: 20/11/2021

Respondent: Mr David Jackson

The Policy DS1 and DS2 are perfectly correct.
This proposal then ignores DS2 in particular.

The South of Wildwood Stafford proposal completely ignores
1) landscape character and assets
2) ecological assets and biodiversity
3) recreational assets
4) sustainable travel requirements

Object

Representation ID: 212

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: A G Morris

There is no evidence that you have presented that you investigated all of the brownfield sites in South Staffordshire.

We should not be building on Farmland or demolishing forests as a matter of principle.

Building on Farmland diminishes our national food security, something you haven't taken account of.

Climate change means that food will be in high demand as other areas on the earth will become unproductive so we need to grow as much food as we can in our own country.

Object

Representation ID: 227

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Sutton

What does 'limited infilling ' mean? There is no definitive factual criteria for that - again it can mean anything and is certainly no protection for our semi-rural environment.

Object

Representation ID: 257

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Jones

Protection of Green Belt and Open Countryside should be just that. It should not be subject to National Planning Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 264

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Davenport

As Wolverhampton is on the edge of the West Midlands conurbation there is precious little green space. Wolverhampton is already densely populated. Please do not build on the Green Belt in Wolverhampton.
If the Green Belt is to be built on then this should take place on those areas with the greatest areas of Green Belt land.
Your consultation is over-complicated and difficult to access. I suspect that many will have been put-off and will not be able to voice their opposition. (Was this your intention?)

Object

Representation ID: 265

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Stewart Revitt

The local infrastructure in Wombourne is already strained and the building of new homes would make this untenable. Doctors, dentist, schools are already struggling to cope.
The road infrastructure is also inadequate to cope with the additional traffic that will result from new houses. The village green will gridlock and School Road will become a safety hazard outside St Benedicts school.
This area is also prone to flooding on a regular basis even with the green fields. Building on these fields will increase the problem.
The loss of green fields would have an adverse effect on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 279

Received: 24/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Angus Hughes

The proposals appear to contradict the wording of the policy by removing greenbelt and open countryside. This will adversely impact the present wildlife and ecosystem and does not contribute towards climate solving initiatives. Instead of reducing these open areas attention should be diverted towards to existing brownfield or derelict sites which can be more suitably re-modelled, or providing additional infrastructure facilities to meet the needs of existing populations before introducing new developments which increase local pressures. Recent developments in Wombourne certainly don't appear to have met the requirement for a diverse housing mix or improvement to recreational assets

Support

Representation ID: 292

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Brewood Civic Society

No comment.

Object

Representation ID: 313

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Jacquie Leach

The Policy is vague about biodiversity. Penkridge has a record of 12 red listed bird species, there are great crested newts and other species that are endangered. Migrating birds and animals also use Penkridge as a "stop off". Insects and plants also need to be considered. In the future an increased need for home grown produce could be facilitated by poly tunnels where produce was once grown.
Penkridge has a fantastic history, a recent project involving intact Victorian prison cells is ready to be run. The Centre of the village needs to be preserved as it is.