Object

Representation ID: 14200

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Alan Darby

I object to the development of land north of Coronation Road and Mob Lane, High Heath. I believe WAH 238 and WAH 240 are the least suitable of the Walsall 'strategic' housing sites for both loss of Green Belt and transport sustainability, and that, except perhaps on the southern half of WAH 240 adjoining the established housing, development should not proceed. The proposal (especially as to WAH 238) would, if pursued anywhere near fully, destroy the character of the High Heath Green Belt, reducing it to a 'green wedge' like those between Heath End, Shelfield and Goscote which, although offering some break on urban sprawl, are too narrow and degraded by noise, light, litter and fly tipping to offer substantial amenity or any agricultural value. The Green Belt between Pelsall (village) and High Heath is rare in being wide enough to resemble a rural/natural area and so, apart from being viable agricultural land, offers major relief from urban life. Moreover, the field adjoining Coronation Road (central-west WAH 238) is crossed by very heavily-used footpaths, both formal rights of way and otherwise, and, functioning almost like a village green, constitutes a major and irreplaceable amenity essential for residents' physical and mental health. I do not accept that loss of trees and rights of way there can be 'mitigated for' (Sustainability Appraisal SA-0048-WAL refers). As to transport, nearby roads (notably Mill Road-Vicarage Road) are already unacceptably congested, as is northern Walsall's main road network (especially A461, A4124 and B4154), and expanding the key Shelfield (Mill Road/A461) and Pelsall Common (Vicarage Road/B4154) junctions is impracticable. Moreover, Coronation Road is congested by reason of narrowness and on-street parking, which impedes all traffic and in particular buses which are slow and unreliable. There being no nearby rail or other rapid mass transit service, heavy car reliance can be expected. WS2 refers to 'improvement' of Green Lane and Mob Lane, I infer better to accommodate two-way traffic with pedestrians and cyclists (there currently being a narrow carriageway and no footway). Any widening will destroy those roads' rural hedged character; it will therefore be anything but an improvement and must be ruled out. Furthermore, the narrower humped bridge in Camden Street, beyond Green Lane, is practically incapable of widening other than through full rebuilding. Better to close Green Lane to through traffic, converting it to a bridleway (and private access), routeing motor traffic to the main road network only via Mill Road/Fordbrook Lane/Vicarage Road (as during the recent sewer works closure) and limiting any WAH 240/WAH 238 development to the capacity of that route. ENDS