Object

Representation ID: 14904

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Annette Cook

Black Country Plan: Draft Plan Regulation 18 consultation

Re: Strategic Allocation Policy WSA3, site WAH237 & WAH 235

I would like to object to the draft plan for the above sites as it is my considered opinion that it would have a negative effect on the local environment and contradicts principles laid out in both the National Planning Policy Framework and numerous Government documents concerning housing development and the environment. The land in question is, as you acknowledge, currently a green belt site and the development proposed is a 'large housing site' which will have a major impact on both the natural environment and the local community, in my opinion, a very negative impact.

The Plan states that removing this particular site and others from the green belt will not cause harm to the natural character of the Black Country. You do not state what criteria is used to make this judgement but, as we have seen in other areas, releasing green belt land for development is a permanent, irreversible and potentially escalating process which most certainly does cause harm to the natural character of a district.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2021) claims that the Government attaches great importance to green belts and that the "fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence." This development would add considerably and permanently to the built up area in Aldridge.

The Framework also states that
“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by
- protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils
- recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from
natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best
and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland
- minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity.”
These proposals would contribute to none of the above and would, in fact, do the exact opposite.

I believe that the area is in a Mineral Safeguarding Area as well as being used for agriculture. The Framework comments on the facilitation of the sustainable use of minerals thus; "It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. Since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation."
Long term conservation of this resource will not be ensured by this plan.

In the Government's 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (2018) the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, stated that "Our natural environment is our most precious inheritance. The United Kingdom is blessed with a wonderful variety of natural landscapes and habitats and our 25 Year Environment Plan sets out our comprehensive and long-term approach to protecting and enhancing them in England for the next generation. Its goals are simple: cleaner air and water; plants and animals which are thriving; and a cleaner, greener country for us all. By using our land more sustainably and creating new habitats for wildlife, including by planting more trees, we can arrest the decline in native species and improve our biodiversity."
Releasing areas of green belt land for building, when other areas are available, means that we are eradicating this 'most precious inheritance' for future generations. Each section taken is irretrievable, its benefits to the environment lost and its potential for improvement wasted.

The Nature Recovery Network (updated policy paper 2020) is supposed to be a national network of wildlife-rich places with the aim of expanding, improving and connecting these places across our towns, cities and countryside. How can building on green belt land help to achieve such aims? For documentation and bills to have any effect they must be put into practice, not be circumvented or ignored. If, as stated, we "need to do more to recover nature and increase the benefits it provides to our people and our economy" and are to "enjoy and connect with nature where we live, work and play - benefiting our health and wellbeing” then developers should enhance brownfield sites and areas in need of regeneration, not destroy the natural environment.

The Environment Bill (2020) highlights starkly that nature is in decline globally and in the UK and that species and habitats are being lost at an alarming rate. Biodiversity gain plans are theoretically positive, but as is often evident locally, developers' green promises often result in token gestures, broken agreements and detrimental action which cannot be undone. Swathes of farmland and countryside in Lichfield have been given over to development; it would seem that once one site is agreed, it opens the floodgates for others. Once gone, our countryside areas are lost forever.

The Government's Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution repeatedly stresses the importance of immediate action to "protect future generations from climate change and the remorseless destruction of habitats." It speaks of supporting Britain's farmers "so that, alongside producing high-quality food, we ensure healthy soils which will also retain and – over time – capture carbon." Building on green belt and agricultural land will do exactly the opposite. Farmers are surrendering and selling their land not because they no longer care about their industry but because of a lack of support and encouragement to sustain agricultural work. The British farming industry makes a significant contribution to the national larder, environment and economy, but making ends meet has become so difficult, they are being forced to sell land to developers.

Regardless of Party Politics and loyalties, it cannot be denied that we need policies and legislation to halt the destruction of the natural environment and, more importantly, we need to take immediate action. Extensive research has gone into each document, bill and plan cited here. To ignore it and erode the green belt scheme will inevitably have grave repercussions, both now and in the future.

As householders we are being encouraged to 'do our bit' for the environment by planting trees, retaining gardens rather than tarmacking over them, rewilding areas where possible as well as other measures to encourage wildlife and biodiversity. None of our efforts will be effective if planners are simultaneously destroying swathes of greenbelt land.

I find it very difficult to believe that in an area such as the Black Country there are not enough brownfield sites and areas which would benefit from regeneration, resulting in a need to build on valuable, irreplaceable green belt land. With so many local areas falling into decline, so many towns struggling to thrive, surely planners should be encouraged to bring life and rejuvenation to them rather than carving out and building upon farmland and areas rich in wildlife and beauty.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that to go ahead with plans to build on local green belt land is short sighted, immensely damaging and the thin end of a wedge which could cause massive, irretrievable harm to our countryside and the wider environment. I write not in a spirit of 'Nimbyism' but as one who cares for the future of our neighbourhood, our country and our planet. We need to act now to prevent permanent destruction to our world, and that prevention needs to begin with ordinary people standing against projects such as this. The Government has supposedly committed to "build back greener and leave the environment in a better state for future generations". Let's see evidence of this commitment here in Aldridge.