1 Introduction

Object

Representation ID: 14996

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Sheila Baker

I oppose the plan because it will destroy our beautiful views and scenary. I believe it will also have a negative impact on the local nature and make the area significantly busier which will lead to more air and noise pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 15039

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mark Wild

I would like to raise my strong objections to this plan and state the following.
The communications concerning this scheme have been extremely poor. I can only assume that this is because the planners council, would be fully aware of the high level of objection from the local community!
It is nothing short of a disgrace that further decimation of greenbelt is being planned here and this will no doubt continue if this project gets the green light to proceed.
This plan would have a devastating impact on woodland, fields, wildlife. Also this would cause an impact on mental health of many local residents. Greenbelt land offers the chance to walk, exercise, breath in fresher air. This Covid 19 lockdown demonstrating the importance of this.
There are plenty of opportunities to redevelop and improve existing brownfield sites. Surely better to revitalise such areas than ruin greenbelt land!
The infrastructure will not be able to sustain this project. The roads are not suitable to support additional vehicles, during and certainly after. There would be traffic chaos, queues for miles, greater pollution (carbon emissions etc), more opportunities for serious accidents.
This is a bad scheme, badly communicated, lazy, poorly thought out and I object in the strongest terms

Object

Representation ID: 15071

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Dimmock

I wish to object to the building of new homes on Green Belt Land. Houses should e built on derelict sites. If the Green Belt keeps being used where will it end? Also this area cannot support more people, Traffic, ETC. Our roads will be unable to cope. Build homes in areas what are able to cope better.

Object

Representation ID: 15086

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Dixon

I am very sad to hear of proposed building on Green Belt Land anywhere in the Black Country.

How can we even think of doing this to our environment? There has been such a lack of effective action in Climate Change.
We are heading towards disaster and people are still planning to build on Greenbelt?
We need to protect our wildlife, out birds, our beautiful views. Out insects.
Let nature thrive - do not let man Destroy it! I fear that the impact of social housing will also bring problems.

Object

Representation ID: 15170

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Sarah Daniel

I feel like this procedure hasn't been carried out properly. A lot of people don't know what's happening, and there hasn't been proper scrutiny of the plans.
Regarding some of the smaller green spaces, it's important that people have access to these, for health and well being.

Object

Representation ID: 15237

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Stone

- Not enough school spaces
- Greenbelt land - shouldn't be built on
- Impact on jobs (lack of)
- Access on schools & doctors
- Extra traffic
- Loss of farm land
- Loss of wildlife
- Plenty on industrial estates that can be used
- Plenty of derelict houses that could be used/done up

Object

Representation ID: 15257

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Hilliard

[Consultation Process]

Finally, lack of proper consultation and due process is a strong concern- I don't believe this to have been done within the parameters of such a process.

Object

Representation ID: 15259

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Nicola Brettle

[Consultation Process]

Lack of proper consultation and due process is a strong concern- I don't believe this to have been done within the parameters of such a process

I strongly oppose!

Comment

Representation ID: 15369

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Humphries

Can I ask bear in mind
1- Provision of Doctors Surgery
2 - Provision of Dental Surgery
3 - Public Transport
4 - Include Green Open Spaces
5 - In any Housing Estate Planning avoid 'Filling In' Existing Green Spaces in Housing Estates

Personally I would prefer to see a planned estate rather than building on Existing Green Space included in an existing housing estate

Object

Representation ID: 15473

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Baker

Increased houses means increased congestion on already congested roads.
Will new schools, doctors, dentists be built to accommodate the increase of numbers.
Why build on green belt land when there are brown field sites.

Object

Representation ID: 15476

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Derek Ward-Turner

The local infrastructure will not cope with this volume of houses i.e Roads, schools, public services, medical centres.

As usual no thought given to local residents and the impact this will have on the area.

This sums local councils up, they need to be more in tune with the local community on a regular basis, not just election time.

Object

Representation ID: 15500

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Charles Williams

No comments made.

Object

Representation ID: 15529

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Donna Harley

I object to this purpose planning on all sites due to highway congestion

Object

Representation ID: 15592

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Tony Carter

Firstly it’s amazing how suddenly this plan is posted through our door with three days to go!
[rest of statement]
Again amazing how we suddenly get this through our door with three days to go, I and the residents will fight all the way to protect what green spaces we have left.

Object

Representation ID: 15614

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Trevor White

Today, Friday 8th October, I had the Walsall Borough Summary of this plan posted through my door. Apparently the powers that be consider that three days (including the weekend) is sufficient to read, understand, research and put together a coherent response. This appears to be a way of stifling any constructive (or otherwise criticisms.
I would like to understand why the local communities have been given such a short time to respond.
Additionally I want to lodge a complaint about this ridiculously short amount of time, after all, the ‘plan’ has been ongoing since August although this is the first time I have heard of it.

Object

Representation ID: 15638

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Stenson

- Protecting our green areas are important to us in our household.

- In the last decade we are experiencing higher and higher traffic build up and congestion already, current road lay out would not cope with this development.

- Schooling is already oversubscribed in this area and would seriously impact childrens spaces poorer areas recieving places for education.

As a household we object and will continue to object these proposed plans.

Comment

Representation ID: 15678

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Grove

There is only a finite piece of land to build on. The Black Country is around 357sq km. When you’ve filled that in 20 years time, what then. We criticise foreign countries for destroying rain forests, yet you’re doing exactly the same with what’s left of any green bit of land, not to mention the
thousands of gallons of raw sewage already pouring into the rivers because of insufficient capacity to deal with it. Then there’s the water, there’s either too much, or not enough. The list is endless.
No amount of paperwork, fancy maps graphs or pretty coloured drawings can alter the fact that we’re
running out of space.
Could you tell me, as a tax payer, how much the report cost or how I can find out.

Object

Representation ID: 15778

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: David Baker

1) Green belt loss
According to the proposed plan the following boroughs will lose green belt
Dudley 53.8 ha to build 1117 houses
Sandwell 6 ha to build 171 houses
Wolverhampton 38 ha to build 1013 houses
Walsall 347 ha to build 5418 houses

Why are the residents of Walsall loosing 3.5 times the amount of green belt than the total of three other boroughs put together?
Why is the proposed green belt loss so much greater for us? We are not just taking our fair share. The selection of sites is biased against Walsall residents.

How were the sites selected and why are there no ecological surveys undertaken before selection? (Apart from the Wolverhampton site)


2) Methodology of site selection
The selection of the sites is biased in favour of green sites over brown as these are easier and cheaper to develop meaning they are more attractive to Developers and have the greatest profit potential. Some existing brownfield sites are identified but no real effort has gone into consideration of alternative sites. For example, Walsall has a surplus of retail sites and the town centre is too stretched out to be fully viable. This is unlikely to change in the future and is likely to be exacerbated as retail continues to move online. If Walsall redesignated excess retail land as potential housing, areas like the Crown wharf shopping centre that could easily be demolished and redeveloped into affordable housing which would be in an attractive location adjacent to the town centre overlooking the canal and adjacent leisure area. This would reduce the retail area and consolidate the existing Park Street shopping area as well as providing many more brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 15898

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Cynthia Baker

No comments made.

Comment

Representation ID: 15964

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Darren Allen

Given the far-reaching nature of the plan, it is my belief that the consultation period duration is insufficient in order to adequately consider the implications contained within.

I seek a reasonable extention to the timeframe and for this to be communicated widely.

Object

Representation ID: 16034

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ann Walkton

[No text submitted]

Comment

Representation ID: 16159

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Hook

[Consultation documents]
There appears to be a number of inconsistencies between the Draft Plan, Walsall Borough Summary and the statistics obtained from the ‘drop in’ session in Aldridge relating to the number of houses proposed for the green belt and on certain specific sites. These anomalies should have been resolved or comprehensively explained before the Plan and Summary were published to avoid misleading/confusing residents whose views are being sought on the proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 16215

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Webster

(All of it, DUH208, DUH211)

Use green belt for wildlife and not for housing!

Object

Representation ID: 16231

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan James

Draft Plan - All of it

I do not want destruction of green areas, animal welfare and habitat, traffic and noise levels annyoing everyone. Increased pollution and litter.
Roads are already overcrowded and many in poor condition. The older people will not be pleased and find life will be more difficult for their life trying to get about.
There is no future for the real Black Country and its remarkable history and unfortunately for older people to enjoy their life as older people will have sadly they look forward for future which will not be for them.

Object

Representation ID: 16309

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julia Mascall

May I first state that I was only informed of the Black Country Plan Consultation, and supplied with the Draft Plan, on the 9th of October, which informed me consultation finishes on the 11th !!

I consider this to be typical of the system, which severely restricts open and fair debate. Whilst I appreciate the very serious need of housing, I feel that more consideration should be given to brownfield sites. Living in an area which has very little free green space, more thought should be given to areas that are obviously more suitable. The decision to deprive the area of green spaces at a time when such areas have environmental importance, both from physical and, more importantly, mental reasons, is unwarranted, and also when there are many underdeveloped areas within the town itself. No-one is denying the importance of the need of more housing, but an urban sprawl is not the answer, we need to conserve our green belt but not destroy it.

Object

Representation ID: 16492

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Ian and April Cooper

Number of people: 2

Consultation approach

We are writing in responce to the proposed development in Great barr, between Doe bank lane, Bridle lane the area is marked as a "Proposed large housing site"
On this site yo propose some 960 houses which out of the 4347 that you are suggesting amounts to 22%. You also say that the majority of the 13,344 new houses will be provided in the urban and brownfield site well 7,926 is also 59% which is not the majority it is 9% greater than half. A lot of the sums just do not add up, that is the opening issues.
...
I do not think the way this has been handled shows the council off to any great light and the way it has been advertised has been most underhanded.

Object

Representation ID: 16508

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ian Newman

Consultation Methods

Residents on the surrounding areas have spoken about this [Land between Queslett Rd, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Rd] for years, rumours and all of a sudden it’s more of a reality but according to the latest detail that people have to hand, the info. has been available in libraries, town halls and on line.
With the nature of the internet, I’m guessing a lot of people can’t be bothered with libraries and if you’re talking about the one at the Collingwood Centre, I believe this hasn’t been classed as a library for a while and can you see the local residents venturing to other areas, I’m guessing not. A lot of residents are also elderly, some aren’t able to get out of the homes that they’ve lived in for years without relatives or neighbours helping them and access to a pc, I’m guessing not highest on their list, these residents have been kept totally in the dark.
...
If this proposal has actually been going on for “X” amount of me, how is it that only now has it really come to light, how is it that it’s our residents making it their business to inform their neighbours, how is it you haven’t written to all concerned, how is it the meetings that take place are between 3pm and 7pm when the majority of those who are concerned are actually working for a living and find it hard to attend these meetings.

Comment

Representation ID: 16519

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Morris

Consultation

I also have concerns about the procedure that’s been followed with the consultation. The website that lists the Black Country Plan is not exactly user friendly, to say the least – it’s convoluted, awkwardly designed and not at all easy to find, yet alone figure out how to comment. The fact the website seems to hide the objectives of the Black Country Plan (it’s far from easy to access) means many objections from the public will not have been received simply because people were unaware of quite how much it the proposals against what Dudley Council claim to be intending to do.

Object

Representation ID: 16535

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Fowler

(no text attached to submission)

Object

Representation ID: 16597

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Wait

The greenbelt is vital for our environment which in turn is vital for our mental health. Six per cent is way too much green belt to give up. This country is already unable to produce enough from farming to sustain a growing population and we will become far more reliant on imports which provides a grave national vulnerability. It is also contrary to our sustainable efforts and reduction in carbon footprint.

We must protect the green belt at all cost

The sheer number of houses proposed will put a massive strain on local services, and so increase volumes of traffic that rush hour will be very problematic