Object

Representation ID: 14863

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ann Burton

WAH242
Although I no longer live in Walsall it was my home for many years and I continue to visit to see friends. Over the years it has filled me with sadness to see the decline in the town centre.
I heard about the Black Country Plan through a friend. However, I found finding the plan rather confusing, initialy I could only find the plan on the 'dudley.gov.uk' website,,,,not where you would naturally go to fnd details for Walsall and the other Black Country areas included in the plan. This suggests to me a lack of transparancy and openess in the planning process and indeed the desire to recieve feedback, comment or objections.
There are infact areas of land included in the plan that don't even meet the methodology requirements set down by in the Black Country Plan. For example: The draft Black Country Plan Site Assessment Report: Assessment and Selection Methodology and Results . Aug 2021, Chapter 3, 5 states: 'Sites located in areas where development is likely to cause very high harm to remaining green belt and where landscape sensitivity to development is likely to be moderate-high or high have been considered not suitable for development'. Then in Appendix C-4, Sites Assessed for Housing and Selected (Walsall), there are, for example, sites that are rated 'Green Belt Harm: North East Very High Harm, West High Harm = Red, Landscape Sensitivity: Moderate High = Red'
According to the Black Country Plan's own methodology these sites are not suitable for development. Why have they been selected as suitable?
This also applies to WAH242. where had a Wildlife Assessment been undertaken wildlife identified in the area would have precluded it's inclusion in the plan. This also appears to be the conclusion of the BBCWildlife.org.uk response to the plan for this site.

In summary I object to the proposed development WAH242 on the basis that
1. there is a lack of transparancy in the process - until very recently, and I suspect because of all the objections to the plans, many people where not aware of the existance Black Conutry Plan
2. it appears that the methodolody defined in the Black Country Plan has not been adhered to - where a RAG status is red or Harm levels are deemed to be moderate-high or high, sites have still been included in the plan
3. The wildlife impact on site WAH 242 to, [Redacted-sensitive information] populations etc. should have been assessed prior to inclusion in the plan. As this was not the case they should be undetrtaken as soon as it is appropriate and this site removed from the plan on the basis of the findings.