Five Dudley green spaces saved from development after consultation

The five sites - in Kingswinford, Wollescote, Brierley Hill and two in Pensnett - were earmarked for redevelopment as part of the Black Country Plan (BCP).

But Dudley councillors have now deemed all five of the sites “not surplus to requirements”, meaning all five of them will be safe from the next stage of the plan. The decision comes off the back of an eight-week consultation conducted from August to October last year.

More than 20,000 people responded to the survey and a further 18,000 people signed petitions, with the majority calling for green belts and green spaces to be removed from the plan. As part of the BCP, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton have set a target of more than 77,000 new homes by 2039.

Council chiefs said: “The sites in the Draft Plan were identified through evidence gathering and through a ‘call for sites’ exercise, where submissions are invited from anyone who wishes sites to be considered for development as part of the new Plan.”

But, Dudley Council Leader Patrick Harley recommended that all five sites, including one from his own ward of Kingswinford, be regarded as “not surplus to requirements” following the results of the consultation.

Commenting on Lapwood Avenue in Kingswinford, Councillor Harley said: “I believe that the land at Lapwood Avenue should be kept as it is and not be included in plans but kept as a pleasant green area for children to play and residents to have the green and pleasant outlook. ”

The council-owned site at Seymour Road, Wollescote, was put forward under last year’s draft plan consultation. However, Councillor Richard Body said the site should be “saved for future generations”.

Councillor Body said: “My own personal view is every piece of urban open green space is much needed and must be saved for future generations. Taking away green space that has been there since I was an eight-year-old attending Wollescote Primary School, is something I cannot agree with.

“After consulting with residents who live in view of the public open green space, they are all in agreement, it should be kept exactly as it is. ”

Some areas were volunteered by residents because of the opportunities open spaces provide for fly-tippers.

But councillors were anxious about houses on sites that already suffered from over-parking.

Councillor Adam Davies said: “Some residents have expressed their support for the proposal at Bent Street, Brierley Hill, as they are tired of this small plot of land being misused by fly-tippers and those dealing in and taking drugs.

“But some are against the proposals as they, like me, value green spaces and do not want to see this small plot of green space being lost. Regardless of which side of the proposal residents sit on, they are all unanimously concerned about a lack of adequate parking capacity on Bent Street.

“The vast majority of homes in this area were designed and built at a time well before it was the norm for each household to have one or more cars, and therefore on-street parking is the only choice for most residents.

“Because of this, even before this proposed development of seven new homes, residents on Bent Street, John Street, Victoria Street and Adelaide Street face the daily struggle to park in front of or near to their own home. Therefore, with the concerns of residents in mind, my view is that this land should not be declared surplus and therefore excluded from the next stage of the plan.”

Asked by Council Leader Patrick Harley to vote on the future of all five sites, councillors unanimously agreed that all of the sites should be saved.

Councillor Harley said: “I think we’ve done the job of looking at the recommendations. We’ve gone for the second motion of 'not declared surplus to requirements' and therefore these items will be excluded from the next stage of the plan.”