You do not have sufficient permissions to access this data.You do not have sufficient permissions to access this data.

Cllr Andy Cartwright has set up a petition against the development of North Worcestershire Golf Club in Northfield for housing.

If you agree, you can sign the petition below.

Bloor Homes withdrew a planning application for a development including 1000 homes last week. The developers will be submitting new plans – which they claim address the issues raised by council officers – for approval soon.

Consultation: Bloor will be presenting new proposals at a public consultation event at the Hollymoor Centre on Thursday 16th March between 1-7.30pm where you can view the new plans and submit your views – positive or negative – on the development.

Image: Residents’ protest last year | Cllr Andy Cartwright

Petition against creating a housing development on the site of the former North Worcestershire Golf Club in Northfield, Birmingham.

Lead petitioner: Cllr Andy Cartwright
Petitioning: Birmingham City Council & shareholders of North Worcestershire Golf Club

We, the undersigned, ask that Birmingham City Council refuse any planning application by Bloor Homes for a housing development on the site of the former North Worcestershire Golf Club in Hanging Lane, Northfield.

We also ask the shareholders of the golf club to consider the effect that a housing development would have on the local area and to consider alternatives and open up negotiations with other parties interested in the site.

Building up to 1000 homes on the site, as plans have proposed, will put more strain on local infrastructure: road network, schools, GP surgeries and so on. The land has been ruled out for housing development under the Birmingham Development Plan and the government’s chief planning officer has said it should not be developed.

Sign the petition:


There are  signatures on this petition.

Signatories:

6 COMMENTS

  1. Given how much green space has been lost in the local area already, the outright objections to this development are a little odd to me. It doesn’t matter what plans Bloor Homes put forward, they look set to be rejected, come what may.

    It seems, it’s fine to develop the green spaces that the general public could access for free, but not this green space, which only members can currently access. It would have been nice, if more was done to protect the green spaces where kids once played freely, as is being done to stop this development, where no kids play.

    I hope, this isn’t just a case of trying to out do ones political opponents. If party ‘x’ is against this development, then party ‘y’ has to be too, and they need to be seen to be as well.

    Unlike some, I look at this site with an eye on how it could be used to improve the area. Is it not possible, it could draw in extra funding to alleviate those strains that people fear?

    From my perspective, the number of developments that have gone up in the local area, have caused more problems than this development would do. I suspect, more homes have been built, cumulatively, on smaller plots in the area, than proposed in this development… But then, I think, those smaller plots of land did largely belong to Birmingham City Council, who gained, financially, by flogging them off…

    Cynical? Yeah.

  2. Too little open green land in our area – no good having a “green corridor” through a housing estate. Most animals won’t use it so close to people. Already a huge housing estate at Long bridge. Too much strain on local services

  3. There has been more than enough residential development in this area over the last 10-15 years. Another 950 houses = approx 1,500 extra cars

  4. Road infrastructure is my main concern as Longbridge lane is a nightmare now. How many more houses do we need. Isn’t there anywhere else to build houses but Northfield. Green open space is what we need not more housing.

  5. Need infrastructure and additional facilities that this many houses will need such as school places and doctors. There are plenty of brownfield sites that could be built on first.

Comments: