Object

Representation ID: 18221

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Colin Wilkes

I am writing to object to the proposal to reclassify sections of the Green Belt for housing and in particular the land described as the Calderfields site, in Walsall. My reasons for objecting are as follows:

1. Negative impact upon Walsall Arboretum: Two of the four fields of the Calderfields site abut the Arboretum and are pasture land rising up to a mostly open horizon. This is an important feature adding to the visual amenity of the Arboretum. It provides a skyline of green belt for walkers in the Arboretum as they move between the formal parkland and the more open and natural aspect of the Extension country park. Covid-19 has demonstrated the often-overlooked importance of parkland and large open spaces to the mental and physical health of urban dwellers.

Taken together, the Arboretum, which attracts users from across the region, and the adjacent green belt are probably the most beautiful parts of the Borough contrasting with the urbanised, industrial and post-industrial remainder.
It is hard to think of a more important portion of the green belt immediately adjacent to the urban area that deserves greater protection.

The Development of this site for housing would be an unforgivable loss.

2. Central Government Policy: The Government’s levelling up agenda and review of the planning process appears to be moving decidedly away from any relaxation of green belt development, eg:

“We will make it faster and easier to build beautiful new homes without destroying the green belt” (Prime Minister’s Conservative Party Conference speech 6 October 2021).

The proposal for allocating the Calderfields and the nearby Sutton Rd/Longwood Lane sites for housing risks establishing a dangerous precedent.

3. Central Government Guidance: Whilst Government guidance requires local authorities to determine a local housing need figure (2.1.4 BC Urban Capacity Review, May 2021), this methodology predates the significant socio-economic changes triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. One such change is an increased desire for people to relocate from high-density urban areas to smaller towns outside of the conurbation. This would seem to run counter to: “A key aim of the Black Country Plan is to plan to meet all of this housing need within the Black Country” (2.1.6). Accordingly, I suggest a greater reliance on the established principle of co-operation with the Staffordshire local authorities to meet more housing need particularly for families. This would be in line with the established reliance on this principle for the provision of some employment sites. This would reduce the need to consider development of (what would be predominantly) family housing on green belt land immediately adjacent to the existing urban portion of Walsall town.

4. The Walsall Town Centre AAP: A greatly unmet demand for housing is for singles and couples, often on lower incomes and in need of lower cost housing for rent and purchase. The current Walsall town centre area action plan does not adequately consider provision for town centre housing (3.1.29 BCUCR, May 2021). Consideration of the opportunities for additional town centre housing is essential given the pre-existing over-provision for retail and now a further significant decline in the need for retail sites resulting from the post Covid-19 retail environment. Furthermore, town centre provision with its greater density and easy access to public transport and services is much more likely to meet the housing needs of younger people than would developer-led green field construction on the fringe of town, skewed (as it would be) to larger houses and lower density.

5. Brownfield sites: Regional pressure upon central Government for financial resources to support reclamation of brownfield sites as part of their levelling-up agenda should provide increased opportunities to bring forward more cost-effective development opportunities for housing without recourse to use of the green belt.