The controversial Black Country Plan, which will see more than 75,000 homes built across the region by 2039, was discussed at great length at a Future Council scrutiny committee meeting on Wednesday.
And Andrea Smith from Wall Heath – which has two large sites earmarked for housing – said people in the town didn’t understand what the Black Country Plan even was and called for a ‘plain English’ approach to the consultation.
Opposition Labour councillors also said the documents were riddled with errors while the website was difficult to navigate.
The authority’s regeneration chief Councillor Simon Phipps and officers said improvements were being made and errors being corrected as they come to light.
In total, Dudley’s contribution to the draft Black Country Plan is to build 13,235 new homes and 22 hectares of employment land by 2039.
Andrea Smith said: “Consultation is any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. I think Dudley Council is failing in that. I’m sure if you spoke to loads of people on the street they would not understand what the Black Country Plan is. As an authority, I feel you have an entitlement to put it into plain English terms. We talk about plain English but that is not being projected by Dudley Council. I feel you are heading for a judicial review regarding the BC plan and how you’ve consulted. Residents have not been written to saying where the actual sites are. I registered to find out about it and have not received anything from the council. Quite a few residents on my estate have done the same. I would like to know why I’ve not received any further information and why residents are not being written to individually to say why the ‘Triangle’ and Holbeache sites being proposed for housing. Lots of people don’t understand the Local Government process. You have failed on how to consult with residents. You’re talking about changing the road structure, a new primary school, Wall Heath will not be a village any more. When I’ve spoken to people, they do not know those sites have been proposed. So you’re not getting out there and addressing the people.”
In a statement, Labour group regeneration chief Khurshid Ahmed said: “We cannot expect people to provide a response based on a consultation document that contains so many mistakes. How can we take this seriously? It is nothing more than comical and buffoonery. Surely the minimum that local residents can expect is accurate information on which to respond.”
Helen Martin, Dudley Council’s director of regeneration and enterprise, said the consultation process was tightly set out in law which they had to follow.
She added: “Above and beyond that, we’ve done a slightly longer consultation period, two weeks longer than we are obliged to do and we are trying to do a range of events to reach out to as many people as possible. We have had some feedback on the website and we have already put in place some improvements to that. If there are specifics, more than happy to look at that to see what further improvements can be made.”
Councillor Phipps said improvements had been made to make it easier for people to be able to access the consultation on the website.
He said he had also ensured leaflets had been delivered to all residents in his Belle Vue ward and encouraged others to do the same.
Councillor Phipps said: “The website is one of the preferred ways we’d ask people to comment but we know not everyone would be able to do so. I acknowledge things need to be taken on board to improve the experience for people. There is always more than can be done and all the comments made will be taken on board.”
Article originally appeared on the Express and Star.
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case
