Object

Representation ID: 6

Received: 13/11/2023

Respondent: Mrs Shameem Akhtar

My comments are specifically in relation to the proposal to have 280 houses for the Portersfield site on Trindle Road/Hall Street.

The site is adjacent to North Street & surrounding areas, Dudley which already experiences considerable problems in relation to traffic control, pollution and issue with subsidence.
The increased level of traffic arising from 280 home which will have on average one vehicle each will impact adversely on the following:

level of pollution in the area
detrimental impact on air quality
Increased congestion and waiting times
Reduced traffic flow
Impact on parking issues
The overall scale, mass and design of the extra 280 homes is out of keeping for the area.
The area will become heavily congested with a strain on existing and proposed infrastructure.
reduced enjoyment and wellbeing of current residents in the area

There is a potential community tensions in relation to previous application for a mosque being refused

Object

Representation ID: 7

Received: 13/11/2023

Respondent: Mrs Shameem Akhtar

My comments are specifically in relation to the proposal to have 280 houses for the Portersfield site on Trindle Road/Hall Street.

The site is adjacent to North Street & surrounding areas, Dudley which already experiences considerable problems in relation to traffic control, pollution and issue with subsidence.
The increased level of traffic arising from 280 home which will have on average one vehicle each will impact adversely on the following:

level of pollution in the area
detrimental impact on air quality
Increased congestion and waiting times
Reduced traffic flow
Impact on parking issues
The overall scale, mass and design of the extra 280 homes is out of keeping for the area.
The area will become heavily congested with a strain on existing and proposed infrastructure.
reduced enjoyment and wellbeing of current residents in the area

There is a potential community tensions in relation to previous application for a mosque being refused

Object

Representation ID: 75

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Mark Andrews

I would strongly object to housing being built on this site unless it was to underpin a retail or commercial development.
Dudley has been failing in its function as a town centre for some years, and allowing an important site such as this to be used for a housing-led scheme will be baking in this failure for future generations.
Whilst recognising that shop retail is a shrinking market at present, I would suggest that the parlous state of Dudley town centre means it is necessary for the town to be given a greater share of this shrinking market.
One of the major obstacles to regeneration in Dudley at the moment is the absence of the type of shop units required by modern retailers. The retail units that do exist in Dudley are predominantly smaller, older units with poor access. Dudley needs large retail units with easy parking, and good pedestrian links to the existing retail outlets to attract good-quality retailers, and bring in visitors from the outlying (and more affluent) areas within Dudley's catchment area. This site is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver that, and it would be a crime to see it instead being used mainly for housing.
This plan identifies the demand for a major food retailer in the town centre, but fails to make provision for this. I would request that this need is addressed as a greater priority than merely meeting housing quotas. The report also identifies the changing role of town centres as places where people meet for leisure purposes, and a growing need for food-and-beverage retailers, but does not earmark any site for any significant development of this nature. The plan also makes no provision for the retail floorspace which has already been lost at this site as a result of the demolition of the former B&Q building, and the impending demise of the former C&A/Farmfoods unit.
I do not object to housing per se, but it should only be permitted as part of a scheme which includes significant retail and/or leisure use, and should ideally be restricted to first-floor level and above.
I would request a sequential test be introduced that gives priority to schemes with significant retail development, and then to those which focus on leisure use, such as food-and-beverage retailers, and visitor attractions. If housing forms part of such schemes, that is acceptable, but there must be strict conditions to avoid the proliferation of residential development. If such uses cannot be found, it would be better to - at least on a temporary basis- give the site over to car parking or as a box-park or exhibition ground.
The town centre exists to serve not just those who live in its immediate vicinity, but also those who live in its outlying suburbs such as Sedgley, Gornal, Wall Heath, Himley and Swindon. At the moment it is failing to do so. Allowing unfettered housing development on this site will not address this deficit.