Object

Representation ID: 22387

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association Lichfield

Policy HOU1 - Site SAH226 - Land to north of Painswick Close substation, Sandwell

This site is an important area of countryside alongside the Rushall Canal. It is part of the West Midlands Green Belt which serves to check the sprawl of built-up areas, to encourage the regeneration of urban land, and to safeguard the countryside. Its proposed removal from the Green Belt would undermine those purposes and damage the setting and economy of the canal. Therefore, IWA objects in principle to its allocation for development. However, if exceptional circumstances can be proven then it is important that the adverse impact of development on the canal is limited and mitigated by sensitive layout, design and landscaping.
The Rushall Canal is a historic waterway and a valuable amenity and recreational corridor, providing leisure boating, walking, angling, cycling and nature conservation benefits to the area. It is part of the national waterway system which attracts millions of visits each year from local people and holidaymakers from home and abroad, and is a major component of the nation’s tourism industry.
The rural environment of the canals plays a vital role in attracting and sustaining the recreation and tourism use of the whole canal system, which contributes to the visitor economy and helps support local businesses. The income from boating activities provides a major part of the funding necessary for the Canal & River Trust to maintain the canals for public use and enjoyment.
Although much of the canal network in the Black Country is urban or suburban in character, the northern parts of the system in Walsall in particular include several attractive countryside sections. Because of their limited extent, these are of particular value to sustaining tourism as well as an important amenity for nearby residents.
However, major built developments in the countryside adjacent to the canal system destroy the rural setting that contributes to their heritage interest, wildlife, amenity value and recreational use. Visually intrusive built development alongside the canals damages their tourism potential and economic benefits.
The Rushall Canal currently enjoys a pleasant open rural outlook across this site that enhances its attractiveness for recreational use. The canal towpath is open to the public and provides an accessible footpath. However, the attractive countryside setting of this section of the canal will be largely lost by this proposed allocation. Whilst the canal corridor will provide an amenity for the new residents, its overall value to the local community and the visitor economy would be diminished if the development is visually intrusive.
It is therefore important that the visual impact of the development on the canal is limited by sensitive design, layout and landscaping of the site. The site includes a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) which the canal contributes to. This should be preserved and enhanced by setting back the built development behind a broad buffer zone alongside the canal with only limited built development forming a corridor of open amenity land to help preserve and enhance the canal environment. This corridor could encompass Public Open Space, parkland, woodland, wildflower meadows, sports fields, children’s play areas or informal recreation space.
This will be in line with the aspirations of Policy ENV7 – Canals, that development affecting the canal network should (1) “deliver a high quality environment”, (2e) “protect and enhance its visual amenity, key views and settings”, (3a) “enhance and promote its role in providing opportunities for leisure, recreation and tourism activities”, and (3d) “positively relate to the waterway by promoting high quality design, including providing active frontages onto the canal and by improving the public realm”.
The comments in Table 22 (page 446) recognise the Rushall Canal as the greatest asset of this site, but the suggestion that heights of buildings overlooking the canal should be raised is fundamentally misguided. This may provide a few residents with better views, but at the expense of a more visually intrusive development as seen from the canal by its many users.