Object

Representation ID: 19355

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Miller

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?