Object

Representation ID: 13462

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Christine Hammond

In relation to the proposed development of Great Barr conservation area please find below the reasons why I object to the development


1. The impact on local wildlife would be disastrous. I have been made aware that the area is known to house 11 RED LISTED BIRD SPECIES on the proposed footprint: [Redacted-sensitive information]. [Redacted-sensitive information] also frequent the area. Also noted in a half mile radius are: [Redacted-sensitive information] plus many more. [Redacted-sensitive information]are also frequently spotted in the spot but [Redacted-sensitive information] origins are unknown and this needs to be investigated. Chris Packham, writing for The Guardian on 19th September 2018, stated that "according to the definitive State of Nature report, between 1970 and 2013 56% of UK species declined, and 15% are now threatened with extinction. Of the 218 countries assessed for “biodiversity intactness”, the UK is ranked 189. We are among the most nature-depleted countries in the world". A CPRE report in 2014 found that there are enough Brownfield sites in the UK to accommodate at least one million new homes. It is not defensible to eradicate areas with so much biodiversity when it is completely unnecessary. Once the sites are gone we will not get them back. We are all aware of global warming, the proposed development area also contributes to capturing carbon and reducing pollution. We need to be protecting our planet not contributing to further global warming. This alone should prevent the conservation area being changed without full investigation as that would breach national and local policies.

2. Green Belt serves 5 purposes:
(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
(d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Building on the proposed land would contribute hugely to urban sprawl and merging of areas. There would be no defining difference between Great Barr and Streetly. This would lead to a reduction in community spirit. Streetly has a wonderful sense of community, for example, local people take responsibility for picking up litter and work together to reduce crime in the area. I am sure that people in other areas affected do the same. A sprawling, not clearly defined area will diminish this entirely and will may have financial implications for the local council.

3. The proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact on the mental health and emotional well being of existing locals. Having access to green spaces is incredibly important for our physical and mental wellbeing. Living in areas with green spaces is linked to lower risk of various health conditions and is associated with better mental health. At a time when access to health services is limited and services are stretched, we need to promote the wellbeing of people and encourage people to enjoy nature, not build on it. Local people have enjoyed the views of the proposed development for literally hundreds of years (I believe the fields have remained as they are for nearly two hundred years), to destroy this and replace it with houses would be disastrous for local people. Not to mention the short term negative impact on wellbeing that the noise and dust that the building work would have.

4. The dust and pollution caused by the building work and then the significantly increased numbers of cars and delivery vehicles in the area would have a huge detrimental impact on local people's physical health. The local school, Lindens Primary School is situated next to the proposed development. Traffic along the Aldridge Road is already high in the area. Increased traffic would have a hugely negative impact on the health of the children who attend the school and who play in the playground next to the road. The impact of traffic infrastructure and associated services has not been considered. this forms part of the national policy referred to in the consultation and should be investigated with a full report.

5. Local services are stretched. As a resident of Streetly people struggle to get a doctors appointment. The catchment areas of local schools are very tight and schools are over subscribed. I know other areas around the proposed development have the same problems. By building such a large number of homes very close to the local primary schools, children whose parents have lived in the local area but slightly further out will not be able to get their children into our local schools. What schools will the children go to? What will be the environmental cost of them driving to schools further away? I can only foresee a negative impact of the proposed development for residents of roads around local schools in terms of parking, air pollution, and keeping our children safe from road traffic accidents. How will so many people in the proposed development register at a local GP surgery, and if they do how will anyone ever get an appointment? Local supermarkets are busy most of the time at the moment and parking can be difficult. Where will people from the new development do their shopping?

6. The land proposed for development is currently used for farming. As the UK is an island and has now left the European Union and as we notice the effects and threats of shortages of various products in the UK it does not make sense to build on land that we use for agriculture. When the land has been built on we won't be able to turn it back into farmland. Has the consultation considered the national policy and guidance on farmland the need for such services.

7. Traffic in the area is high at the moment. Traffic along the Aldridge Road towards the Queslett Road is at a standstill at peak times. Traffic around New Oscott and Great Barr is also very heavy. The area cannot accommodate an extra 1,800 cars (if each household has two cars), with potentially an additional 1,800 people travelling at peak times to school and work. Local roads would be gridlocked, especially at peak times.

7. The proposed land for development is reportedly an emergency landing/flight path & therefore should not be built on.

8. There is an underground overflow gravity water pipe running parallel with Doe Bank Lane. This comes off the reservoir on top of the Beacon and runs into Kingstanding for when (as it has done in the past) Kingstanding runs dry. It is reported that it can be used to drain Beacon Reservoir in an emergency. What impact would the development have on this?

9. The land in question must absorb and hold a significant amount of water from rainfall at present. If the land is built on will local existing houses be at risk of flooding, especially as the area is very undulating.

10. Walsall, Great Barr and Sutton Coldfield are areas of natural beauty. We are proud and grateful to live in areas with green space. Our green areas should be a source of pride, we should be protecting them at all costs, not building on them.

Para 6.16 specifically confirms further investigation is required to determine the local interest and historically significance. The plans make no further reference to any such investigation and therefore by their very nature are contradictory in form. How is it possible to recommend further investigation yet ignore that recommendation in the conclusion section.

The council may be acting ultra vires. They have not ensured that all local residents, both in their boundary and in neighbouring council boundaries have been consulted in regards to the consultation. Therefore the consultation plan is specifically flawed and is not legal. This is subject to a current FOI request which is outstanding.
The council may also be acting ultra vires in ignoring it's own policy, referred to at paragraph 2.23 which

The council is also seeking to consult on the amendment of a conservation area at the same time as a consultation on the black country development plan to build on the same land. The council is therefore potentially ignoring their own policies and national guidance in favour of amending the conservation area with the sole intention to then press ahead with development. I consider this to be an influential factor and any such need for development of land should not be taken into consideration when considering the consultation to amend a conservation area. This is also subject to an FOI which is outstanding and the council should consider if they have not chosen to amend the conservation area for many years why now? To make profit from building houses to meet an objective that can be met elsewhere without affecting a conservation area.