Question 7

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 384

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 8

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Mohammad Nouri

Representation Summary:

I have serious objection to policy SA3 (Land north of linthouse lane) as I know the site , I can't give opinion on the other sites as I have no knowledge about them but the land on linthouse lane is a land which needs to stay green , there is no potential in more congestion and traffic in the area , there are so many electricity piles in the land which will make the developing much more difficult and its not safe and healthy for the people to live so close to those piles .

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 21

Received: 02/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Hampton

Representation Summary:

As a Resident on Kitchen lane i'm against this development for the following reasons.
Local wildlife affect this will have.
Amount of more traffic this will cause roads are already notorious for accidents.
Devalue to our properties as when one becomes available they are sold with countryside views & get snapped up quickly due to this.
Local people will suffer as they use this area for walks.
We are being told to reduce carbon emission to save our planet & you want to build 1000's of homes on Greenbelt?

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 39

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Whale

Representation Summary:

You are destroying the area where I live and work,
We farm it, for 70 years,
And intend to carry on,
Taylor wimpey have been holding this land for 20 years,
We’ve been trying to buy it for years,they wouldn’t sell, so we had to pay exceptional rental fees,
We were here before anyone else, dark lane is there only for our cottage only originally , same as the water, electricity,
[redaction].

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 45

Received: 04/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Jordan Terry

Representation Summary:

Because these projects are going to destroy numeeous acres of greenbelt land when at a time where farm land is needed and brown field sites grow. Its despicable that greenbelt land is being used for housing, it destroys green space, useable farm land, and destroys habitats of our wildlife. This should not even be considered it should be a resounding no

Support

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 55

Received: 05/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs K Edwards

Representation Summary:

lots of open space. smaller sites not so much upheaval on local transport/communities

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 58

Received: 06/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Cannon

Representation Summary:

We moved into this area precisely because of the green land being proposed and are strongly against this being used for development. As well as this loss of green land the increased traffic and the added pollution that this will bring will be detrimental to the area.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 63

Received: 08/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Kelsey

Representation Summary:

I live close to SA3 and this will be a colossal hit to the local area and the wildlife that thrive on that space. It will destroy what is a fantastic part of the area and it will mean a huge increase in traffic for an area that is very busy as it stands. I fully oppose the plan.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 64

Received: 08/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs J Harrison

Representation Summary:

Site SA3 borders immediatey upon the Wednesfield/Ashmore Park area of Wolverhampton. There are already thousands of homes on the Wolverhampton side of the border using the existing local infrastructure and facilities. The impact of further housing on roads, drainage, sewage, shops, schools, traffic flow, pedestrian acess, mental health and anything else affecting the the quality of life of those already living in the area would be unacceptable.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 76

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr James Aust

Representation Summary:

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

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 99

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Darren Imms

Representation Summary:

Again no and no. You are looking to build more properties in South Staffordshire when you have already stated it is 80 % green belt and is a unique county one which people enjoy to visit yet you wish to completely change its identity. We do not need anymore houses built at all

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 112

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Amanda Griss

Representation Summary:

I'm only famiar with Wombourne so cannot comment.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 120

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Mr ALFRED VAUGHAN

Representation Summary:

The increase in traffic on Linthouse lane and local roads will cause more congestion than we experience now at peak times. The loss of green belt land results. in wednesfield and essington merging into one community losing thier village identities.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 129

Received: 12/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Luke brady

Representation Summary:

We are buying an old house in wombourne and our main reason for buying is the beautiful countryside surrounding the village. Removing that wildlife will no doubt ruin the village over time and lose that appeal which we love.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 156

Received: 16/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Simner

Representation Summary:

This is for the proposed development of new housing in Wombourne. There will be more traffic, more pollution including noise pollution , more strain on services which is already under pressure, more risk of flooding, the potential loss of village status, more crime, more development can have a negative effect on the environment, loss of green spaces, loss of wildlife habitats and an impact on fauna, massive impact on mental health for existing residents, potential to be swallowed up into Wolverhampton city

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 174

Received: 17/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Graystone

Representation Summary:

Too many houses already. Building on green field sites is not acceptable

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 198

Received: 20/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Rachel Crowe

Representation Summary:

The proposal to build on the green belt land on Linthouse Lane is unreasonable and will put undue pressure on local publis services, as well has having an enormously detrimental effect on local lives. Please reconsider this plan, to which I object in the strongest possible terms for a number of reasons.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 215

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kay Jewkes

Representation Summary:

While this land may be under the jurisdiction of Staffordshire, it will be the adjacent areas of Wednesfield that will be impacted negatively by building here. Several parts of this land already flood nearby linthouse Lane and the land serves as the only large green space Wednesfield has nearby. It's loss will be hugely detrimental to the people living here. Meanwhile, Staffordshire receive the benefits of taxes, Wolverhampton bears the brunt of additional pressure put on our already strained services e.g. nearby hospital, surgeries and primary schools. Not to mention the additional traffic on our roads and carbon emissions emitted.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 216

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Dawson

Representation Summary:

Keep the land green belt,
This is farm land it should stay that way.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 217

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: A G Morris

Representation Summary:

There is no reference as to why the Linthouse Lane site was chosen above the redevelopment of brownfield sites.

Also, the Black Country and Andy Street, Mayor of West Midlands, also state that there enough brownfield sites to meet the housing demands so why is this scheme needed?

You have not provided enough evidence of the above.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 218

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mr James Clarke

Representation Summary:

The plan for the Linthouse Lane site will negatively impact the local area, both on the south staffs and Wolverhampton side of the border.

This stretch of greenbelt is well loved and well used by local people and represents one of the few green boundaries of Wolverhampton & South Staffs. The area is full of wildlife which is enjoyed by residents of all ages and given the climate emergency we are in, surely building on greenbelt should be avoided at all costs?

In addition to the environmental impact the effect on infrastructure cause problems for residents.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 222

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Rogers

Representation Summary:

Land North of Linthouse Lane is designated Green Belt, and as such should not be developed for housing.
Brown-field sites should be considered before any Green Belt land.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 225

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Sutton

Representation Summary:

Too many houses having a negative effect on mental health, congestion and loss of open countryside.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 233

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Emma Preece

Representation Summary:

We need to stop building on green belt. Essington has already supplied a large amount of housing quota for south Staffordshire.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 235

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Everall

Representation Summary:

I object to this land being used for building on.Gradually all our green land is disappearing and I do not believe there is not enough brown sites or derelict factory sites that could be used,I don’t believe you’ve looked hard enough.
Will the houses that you propose to build be affordable or will they be 4/5 beds luxury houses,and is that the reason they are being built on green fields?
The roads around this area are congested enough and this proposed housing site will only make it worse.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 236

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dearnaley Joanna

Representation Summary:

This land although under south staffs is next to Wolves and means people will utilise wolves facilities like schools, doctors etc and they're already oversubscribed. The area off linthouse is prone to flooding so will be far more devastating to lose the sponge that is this labd. Build on brownfield,do not destroy our little wildlife locally. If you're committed to the environment as a council, you need to build on brownfield first.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 238

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Green

Representation Summary:

I object to the policy SA3 for a number of reasons. 1, The current road infrastructure in the area would not support the traffic that these homes would bring with extra residents alone. An extra school would make it virtually impossible to travel around the area, as the area is already congested at rush hour and school entry and exit times. 2, The land is currently green belt and would destroy local wildlife in the area which is essential to walkers in the area for exercise and metal health relaxation.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 239

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Fisher

Representation Summary:

I oppose the developments SA3 Linthouse Lane. The main opposition is on the grounds of: loss of countryside and scenic views, loss of farmland used for crop production, distruction of habitats for wildlife, the loss of this farm will negatively impact environment through additional CO2 output from upwards of 2000 vehicles and I also have concern of how the the severn trent water surface drainage network would cope with the additional water, where are upwards of 2000 children going to school, medical services and hospital slots. This local area struggles enough on education and medical matters at this time.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 240

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Ian Turner

Representation Summary:

Given Wolverhampton’s extensive industrial past, there are plenty of brown sites available, which would accommodate more housing. Refurbishing old factory buildings, warehouses and industrial sites will not only maintain Wolverhampton’s rich heritage, but will prevent precious green belt land from being lost for future generations. The reacquisition of brownfield sites will also bring a distinctive charm and attraction to the city.

I understand that the need for extra housing is severe but it is equally met with the need to protect and preserve our historical sites too.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 241

Received: 22/11/2021

Respondent: Mr David Horobin

Representation Summary:

Area is one of few open spaces in locality, and I moved there specifically to enjoy access to it for physical exercise and positive mental health benefits. There is no infrastructure to support so many new homes with roads (e.g. High Hill) already struggling at peak times, in constant need of repair (Kitchen Lane) and other services meagre. The location on Linthouse Lane frequently floods - more concrete can only worsen this.

Object

Preferred Options November 2021

Representation ID: 247

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alex Fenlon

Representation Summary:

This would directly impact the green belt to the north of Linthouse lane which I strongly object to. I also feel that the proposal is far too vague about sustainable transport options - have you spoke to the bus companies to see if they will actually increase services or not? Otherwise you are paddling up the creek without a paddle. Short Sighted and I urge a rethink - there are other spaces available.