1 Introduction

Object

Representation ID: 21046

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Jones

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21052

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kane Taylor

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21058

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ben Feyd

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21064

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Brodie Cox

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21070

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ben Pearson

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21076

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mark While

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21082

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dave Bearsmole

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21088

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dave Wright

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21094

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: C Layton

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21100

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Linda Adams

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21111

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Jane Taylor

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21117

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Lesley Turrell

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21123

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L Barnard

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21129

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Madeleine Williams

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21135

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Jennifer Davies

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21141

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Christine Cooley

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21147

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Pat Sidaway

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21153

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Amanda Evans

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21159

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: David Smith

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21165

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Martyn Filsak

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21171

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Sharron Sidaway

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21177

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Maddie smith

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21183

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Leah Welch

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21189

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Becky Coley

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Object

Representation ID: 21218

Received: 10/01/2022

Respondent: Mary Wheeler

Dear Sir or Madam, perhaps both.
I have completed an online objection to The Black Country Plan, but did not see how to send it to
you online. Suffice to say, I object to the use of green space for development, feeling that green
space should be preserved and that brownfield spaces should be used instead, despite their inherent
expense in redevelopment. I was under the impression that according to Andy Street, brownfield sites
would always be used for redevelopment and not green.

I only received a copy of the plan via a friend and didn't have one posted through
our door.

Object

Representation ID: 21224

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: K Hinksman

[General Greenfield/ Brownfield]

It is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances now regarding the need for housing and commercial premises, I believe that there is no justification for removing the protection on greenbelt and greenfield land. It can never be replaced as a source of pleasure and enjoyment for the community. It is not sustainable to build on our countryside, resulting in loss of farmland, natural habitat for wild life, hedgerows and trees.

There are many brownfield sites that remain unused because builders prefer new, easy to develop sites that bring greater profits.The homes built on these greenfield sites are not affordable for most people. More recently many shops and offices are closing whose sites would provide extra capacity for homes in towns and cities which are in need of revival and redevelopment.

Large developments on the edge of our communities bring extra traffic to roads that are already over busy, and extra pressure on local services such as schools and health centres.This lowers the quality of life for the existing population and brings the same problems for the new residents that they may not have anticipated. I do not support any loss of green space, greenbelt land or greenfield land.

Comment

Representation ID: 21281

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Rod Griffin

COMMENTS OF THE BRADLEY CANAL RESTORATION SOCIETY

The Bradley Canal Restoration Society is a charitable organisation whose main aim is to secure the reopening of the Bradley canal from its current terminus near Bradley Lane to its junction with the Walsall Canal near Moorcroft and to do so in such a way that it leads to an improvement in the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. This response is submitted on behalf of the trustees of the Society.

The Society welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Draft Black Country Plan (BCP) consultation.

The Society’s overriding first concern is that the line of the former canal, including the flight of locks down to Great Bridge Road, is safeguarded from inappropriate development. This was enshrined as a saved policy of the 1993 Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan and it is disappointing to note its absence in the draft Plan now being consulted on. Although Policy ENV 7 (5) states: Development will not be permitted that would sever the route of a disused canal or prevent the restoration of a canal link where there is a realistic possibility of restoration, wholly or in part, the Society would welcome the inclusion on the Plan of the line of the former Bradley Canal, for the avoidance of any doubt and to highlight its importance in providing a link, both for boats and for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposals plan for Wolverhampton identifies part of the line of the canal and adjacent land as an area of historic landscape value but this does not extend down the locks. The Society believes that all of the former canal from Bradley Lane to Great Bridge Road is worthy of such a designation. Such an inconsistency of approach is likely to lead to doubt and confusion.

The Society is troubled by paragraph 10.103 which states that canal restoration schemes are unlikely to come forward within the Plan period because they are “financially unviable”. This is not considered an appropriate metric to measure the likely success of a canal restoration scheme and its relevance is questioned. Strong local support with a clearly articulated vision and business case have been shown elsewhere to lead to successful grant funding applications.

We would also request that the Core Regeneration Area designation includes all of the land along the entire stretch of the Bradley Canal. Currently this designation covers some of the land in Wolverhampton and the open (but un-navigable) stretch of the canal in Sandwell (between the Metro line and Moorcroft Junction). The joining together of these areas would make sound logical and strategic sense and would assist in the formulation of a strong business case to funding bodies.

The rest of our response focusses primarily on the BCP dated July 2021 v2, the section on Canals in the Black Country (paragraphs 10.99-10.106) and policy ENV7. Comments will also be made on ‘linked’ referenced policies as appropriate. In addition, we will make general comments on the thrust of the Plan.

GENERAL COMMENTS

We are pleased to see that the strategic approach proposed by the Black Country authorities and partners sets out a Vision, strategic objectives and priorities for the transformation and growth of the sub-region to 2039. By their very nature, strategies are long term, should be evidence driven and lead to verifiable evidence of actions and delivery. The Plan seeks to do this.

We note that the BCP has emphasised the need to focus on outcomes. We note that the Plan’s approach has included the material points raised in the consultation process, review of the 2011 Core Strategy and a number of major challenges and issues that have arisen since 2011 and which need to be addressed if the vision and objectives of the Plan are to be delivered e.g. the climate emergency and the impact of the pandemic.

The stated overall aim of the BCP framework is to enable transformational change by creating the conditions for economic and social growth, creating the conditions for enterprise to flourish and thereby enhancing prosperity across the Black Country. We would suggest that “creating the conditions for private and public investment with a focus on delivery through partnership” should be emphasised. We are also supportive of the recognition of the importance of the Black Country’s unique heritage which we consider the be a key feature and strength underpinning the Plan’s approach.

Being a spatial planning document, the Plan recognises that much implementation will be sought through planning conditions, planning agreements and obligations and external sources. We believe there is scope for developing additional funding resources with strategic partners which would unlock opportunities for development and investment in key priority areas.

The Plan also refers to the need to link with other sub-regional bodies which could collectively contribute to the achievement of the vision. However, we believe that strategic alignment of plans needs further development. A commitment needs to be made to take the develop the strategic connections/strategic fit by a key date.

CANALS OF THE BLACK COUNTRY
We welcome the recognition (paragraph 10.99 -10.101) that the canal network is a major unifying characteristic of the Black Country’s historic landscape and can play multifunctional role, providing economic, social, environmental and infrastructure benefits. We would suggest that the canal network has latent potential for further development and enhancement which would contribute to the transformation and rejuvenation of the Black Country, its residents, businesses, places and environment.

n view of the BCP’s references to the importance of canals in promoting change, we suggest that the Plan should give greater emphasis to the canal network as a catalyst for economic, social, physical and environmental regeneration if a more holistic and integrated approach was taken. According to the Canals & River Trust, the West Midlands has 520 miles of canal with around 1.75 million people living within 1km distance. Furthermore, The Canal Network does not respect administrative boundaries and we suggest that a strategic alignment of strategies and plans is required to secure a committed strategic partnership approach with sub-regional bodies e.g. the WMCA. We suggest that a commitment to develop a Masterplan for the network would facilitate a corridor Action Planning approach and the allocation of possible funding regimes to be developed. This would secure a consistent and planned approach to canal development and enhancement.

Whilst it is recognised that waterways span several local authority boundaries under the Issues and Options consultation responses on page 245, a commitment to addressing this challenge (with a working date) would be helpful. In the absence of a strategically planned approach set out above, investment in and development of the canal network asset will be over reliant on piecemeal project delivery and very limited financial support.

The canal network is an asset that requires planned development if its latent potential and “cross cutting” opportunities and benefits are to be realised which would contribute to the delivery of the overarching purpose of the Plan. For example, an enhanced canal network in the Black Country and wider West Midlands would improve the region’s tourism offer and visitor experience which in turn support the economy, enterprise, jobs and prosperity alongside an improved image and marketing.

We largely agree with the policy justification set out on pages 243-244. We would recommend that the following be added/wording strengthened:

The role of the development and use of the canal network as part of the post-covid recovery

• Parts of the disused canal network have regenerated as areas of high biodiversity value including valuable towpath habitats supporting a range of plant species which should be safeguarded. These have added to the character of the canal network and there is growing interest in the variety of plant species and wildlife by people using the canal paths for recreation. Where there are proposals for development or restoration, proposals should be subject to an environmental impact assessment. There should be a presumption to providing measures to protect areas of high biodiversity and enhancing other areas of wildlife before development commences

• Paragraph 10.99 – The last sentence – a significant role to play should also include “improve life chances and improved health which in turn can improve employment prospects”

Recognition that the development of the canal network holds potential to create economic outputs such as new and safeguarded jobs, training places, Apprenticeship places and developing local volunteer workforce. Depending on the project, additional visitors, boat movements and construction investment could be secured

• Paragraph 9.53 states that in relation to walking and cycling routes, a contribution will be sought from developers where this would lead to an increased use of the canal network. We suggest that the finance raised through this mechanism is committed/ring fences for canal improvements/maintenance

• Under ENV7 section 6 – Residential Moorings we suggest that the following is added: “Where opportunities exist, the provision of electric charging points should be explored.”

• We note that ENV7 does not have a section on “Delivery”. We presume this is through the Development Management process.

Comment

Representation ID: 21318

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Rosanne Adams

World Economic Forum
The great post Covid reset

The pandemic has made all the more vivid the critical importance of our natural assets and the correlation between the infection rate and air pollution. As a result we are paying much more attention to these natural assets (Thierry Malleret)
Klaus Scwarb speaks about the preference of people for the rural environment to that of a higher concentration of people.
WE SHOULD NOT BUILD ON GREEN BELT
1. The need of current and future generations to be refreshed mentally and spiritually sustained.
2. Th maintain areas where wildlife can thrive - pushed as they are in the even smaller spaces.
3. Utilities, schools, medical facilities all at stretching point already.
4. River Stour - already sewage polluted as ancient system cannot cope in times of flood. CLIMATE CHANGE
5. Current house building allows only pocket handkerchief sized gardens. Are you thinking the children should b out of sight playing on their computers?! Children need wild spaces. It will be paid for in the future...mental health, vandalism etc.
7. There are 23,000 empty properties in the Black Country. The should be renovated first.
8. CLIMATE CHANGE BARELY MENTIONED) more asphalt more cars more pollution more heat. AHAT ARE THE PLAN TO MEET THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. Where are the solar panels on non health & public buildings. Nothing about this ever. (for example) CHILDREN (AND ADULTS/NEED NATURE)

Object

Representation ID: 21377

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sadie Lambert

ref: draft-bcp-jdi-version-v2-2907
What of the Prime Ministers promise not to build on greenbelt!??
Central government have also stated:
a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
b) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
d) To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging recycling derelict and other urban land.
• Walsall have a document named ‘A Masterplan to Create the UK’s Healthiest Town Centre’! How does taking away green fields relate to this. It is laughable!
• The consultation process has been discriminatory. Guidance states that authorities are encouraged to use social media tools and other platforms to communicate with the community, where appropriate. Authorities are remined to use concise, visual evidence, written in plain English to help ensure that it is easily accessible to local communities, to avoid them becoming disengaged in the process.
The reliance on a centralised website, which is deemed to meet guidelines regarding community and public engagement discriminates against those who cannot use the internet, do not use the internet or do not have the necessary IT skills to navigate it.
Not all use public libraries or attend centres. on Pheasey we dont have a libary the council took it away from us.
More time should be allowed for consultation. Thousands of booklets and leaflets remain at Walsall town hall. If Walsall council can deliver council bills to every house then surely they can deliver a letter regarding the Black Country Plan?
• People are disenfranchised and this consultation is seen as a sham. Public confidence must be maintained and the process transparent. The feeling of every single person I’ve spoken to is that the consultation is pre-judged.
To support this, having already lost land to the Foxhill’s site to development, is now known locally by a few that land opposite Barr Beacon school is to be built on. This is not in the Black Country plan!
• Some people I have spoken to have discarded information I have delivered because they never even knew the Barr Beacon, Pheasey/Park Farm was even part of the Black Country! Which we are not.
• In June 2021 the Wildlife Trust published a report, the ‘Green Recovery Report’, which demonstrates the importance of nature in recovery from the current pandemic.
The mental health impact of green spaces and the well-being of locals cannot be emphasised enough.
• Around Barr Beacon, Aldridge road Doe bank Lane, Queslett road East There is a network of established hedge-rows containing mature trees including oak. Of late 6 listed birds have been seen there. I have seen deer there.
SLINCs (Sites of local importance to nature conservation). Doe Bank wood is listed and therefore the surrounding land is a corridor for wildlife.
• The Urban Bat project began in 2017 and speaks of the importance of urban biodiversity. Has a survey been commissioned? Is it available to the public? Bats have been seen on the land along with insects, bees, butterflies, ladybirds and crickets etc
• Is the water feed from Barr Beacon reservoir to be destroyed?
• When was the traffic modelling done? What day and what time? It is not advisable to travel between 8-9.30am & 4-6pm around the ‘Asda island’ at Queslett Road and the Aldridge Road towards Perry Barr, Beacon road, such are the traffic conditions. As a local you do not leave the house between these times unless you have to. Yet you choose to release hundreds, if not thousands of extra vehicles on the local residents. What of the noise pollution, not only whilst development is underway but afterwards as well.
What of the extra air pollution? We are already bordered by the M6 and have one of the busiest motorway intersections in Europe at junction7.
What of the extra burden on schools, where class sizes are already too large, Doctors surgeries? You cannot get an appointment now! We just cannot cope with any more residents.
• Fear of crime! What about the extra crime that comes with more people, we have enough to deal with now, we haven't got a police station for miles and the police force is stretched to its limits now and as a Park Farm resident and being on the outskirt of the policing area we get little attention and response times are obviously slower or nonexistent. We are the forgotten neighbourhood!
• Our pavements are cracked and broken and grass verges are unkept, I said this to one of the planning people at the town hall meeting, she said new houses will generate more council tax, I said I pay council tax so whats that being used for? Makes me so angry and its not good enough.
We already have to live with the mistakes of the 60's we have the M6 bordering us on Park Farm which is a constant buzz please learn from the mistakes of the past
You have a job to do. One which perhaps your supervisors or paymasters have dictated to you the outcome already. What legacy will you leave behind for your children? You may not live in this area but these consultations are going on UK wide. You must play your part.
Solent Green was a futuristic film where people visited cinema type rooms to see trees and wildlife because there were none left.

Green fields When they're gone, they're gone!


• Land at Queslett Road East and Aldridge Road is presently conservation land that the conservation appraisal wishes to change the boundary thereby allowing you to build. This is scandalous. For you to say it will not harm our heritage is clearly wrong. What has changed in the last 25 years to make this so? A company from London RPSgroup!?
• It is absolutely incredible that we have to accommodate any housing development that Birmingham cannot manage their quota for housing so we have to take their quota, because it has no green space of its own. How is this remotely fair. We live in Great Barr because of its rural setting, it is our escape and if it was not for this green belt conservation land then most of us would have gone mad during lockdown. And you want to take it away from us. I and everyone I have spoken to is against any housing being built on Any of our Green fields, green belt, conservation protected land.

• Animal population is down 60% in 40 years.
• Has the application been supported by an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the Town & Country planning rules 2017? If not, I object under the National Planning Policy Framework. Guidance in July 2021 and March 2014 states that decisions at every level should seek to approve application for planning from sustainable development.
• Planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity or geographical value, recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
• There will undoubtably be a negative impact on the ecology and habitat that exist within these areas. Endangered species will be wiped out.

Object

Representation ID: 21384

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Sally Rushton

I am commenting, and am strongly opposed to, the proposed plans to build new homes on any
green belt land in the West Midlands area.

Whilst I agree that new homes are and will be needed in the future, these must be built on existing residentiaI/ commerciaI/brownfield locations.
Our local mayor, Andy Street and our MP Wendy Morton have both campaigned for a 'brownfield first' approach, so that new homes are built on derelict and disused sites in town centres rather than sacrificing vital green spaces. I believe they have identified a substantial amount of former industrial sites, which have been left to waste for years.
Building homes on such sites would have great public support, something that the elected members should seriously remember.
Surely, services such as gas, electricity, water are already in situ, or more easily available than on a green field site?
This approach will improve former industrial sites, regenerate communities and retain green spaces, something that the Victorians recognised a hundred years ago as being crucial.
We must protect our precious Green Belt and Open Spaces for us and future generations.
We are constantly being reminded of the importance of planting trees and improving the
environment for wildlife. We should remember that without wildlife, we would not be here.
Being able to enjoy our local green spaces has proved to be a lifeline throughout the pandemic and to remove any of these areas would be unforgivable and not a legacy we would be proud of.