Object

Representation ID: 16170

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Hook

SPECIFIC TO STONNALL ROAD DEVELOPMENTS WAH 237 & WAH 253
Why was the site WAH 237 not included in the list of large housing sites in the Draft Plan/Walsall Borough Summary as it accounts for a total of in excess of 350 new houses yet Pheasey Park Farm with 202 was. What was the logic/criteria for inclusion?
The site is in a Mineral Safeguarding Area and is additionally green belt land and consequently should be considered in accordance with the Council’s strategic priorities, ‘to protect and enhance the natural environment, biodiversity, wildlife corridors, geographical resources, countryside and landscapes.’ Walsall’s Site Allocation Document identifies managing and safeguarding mineral resources and specifically refers to sand and gravel extraction in Birch Lane.
Why has the land therefore been identified as a ‘Neighbourhood Growth Area’ , which appears to be a fait accompli, and not been classified as ‘protected’ where development would generally remain restricted, together with a presumption that top quality agricultural land will not be developed on? Both plots of land identified are currently used for agricultural purposes. In the post Brexit era can we afford to lose productive farm land?
In the Walsall Borough Summary the justification for removing sites from the green belt to provide housing in the proposed new Neighbourhood Growth Areas claims they, ‘are located in highly sustainable locations………where there are existing pedestrian and public transport routes and high levels of access to local services (such as schools or health services). The former are extremely debatable and the latter false and misleading in that local schools and health services are all oversubscribed.
The proposals are for an additional 400 houses in Aldridge, which will have a significant and detrimental impact on the dynamics of this rural community. Aldridge does not have the infrastructure to support such an increase in population and vehicular traffic.
Each household will on average have 1.3 vehicles, source NimbleFinns 2019, I.e. an additional 520 in total. This will have an adverse impact on noise, air pollution, road congestion and safety. Neither Birch Lane or Lazy Hill Road, which are both narrow country lanes, have the capacity for a safe significant increase in road traffic. In fact the junctions of these two roads with the A452 Chester Road are already dangerous accident black spots.
The proposed developments will therefore have an unacceptable highways safety impact both upon vehicular traffic, pedestrians and the wider highways network, specifically the Shire Oak crossroads, the A452 Chester Road, Walsall Wood Road and their junctions with Birch Lane, Stonnall Road and Lazy Hill Road all of which are already heavily congested at peak times.
The nearest town centres for shopping, Aldridge and Brownhills, have extremely limited capacity for parking and therefore any increase in vehicular traffic will not be manageable. Brownhills High Street is already a particularly congested and dangerous commuter/bus route even with parking only possible on one side of the road.
The additional housing will create an unprecedented demand on local amenities, schools, GP surgeries, dentists, leisure etc which is unlikely to be met with the finite existing facilities.
There is currently limited public transport available to support the locations of the proposed new housing developments.
The proposed development will lead to the destruction of habitat in the loss of fields and hedgerows, which will have a devastating impact on local wildlife, particularly small birds and mammals which rely on them for protection and food. Removal of hedgerows has been identified as a factor in the decline of many plant and animal species traditionally associated with farmland. Any removal will require permission from the local authority under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 which I hope will not be granted. Any widening of Birch Lane and/or Lazy Hill Road will exacerbate this problem.
It will also have a dramatic adverse impact on the landscape including the potential for the removal of mature trees and lead to a significant increase in light pollution.
The form ID10162 submitted by the respondent Rosconn Strategic Land states, ‘This site is available, suitable and viable. There are no known constraints other than its location within the green belt. Otherwise it is a very sustainable location, well related to the urban edge of Aldridge and can form a logically rounding off of this settlement and provide a new defensible boundary to the green belt, with minimal harm to the green belt purpose.’
I would have thought the fact that this site is located within the green belt was a major hurdle to development not something to be casually dismissed by the respondent as insignificant The existing boundary to the green belt does not require redefining. To accept their argument would create a precedent for developers to continually encroach on green belt land. How would the boundary be any more defensible if this flawed logic was applied and the development permitted? In addition they fail to mention the site is in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.