1 Introduction

Comment

Representation ID: 16713

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Wright

We are as a nation supposed to be protecting the environment and cutting back on carbon emissions. By building on the last of our local green areas you are doing away with our wildlife, trees etc. You are putting in more roads encouraging traffic in areas that are already struggling to cope with the existing traffic.
There are already plenty of "brown areas" empty houses, factories etc that can be converted to flats, or demolished for more houses, flats etc.
These last two years have been terrible, people have lost loved ones. They have discovered these green areas and learnt to live simplifying their lives by walking these areas - showing their kids the wildlife and trees. Doing things that we used to do back in the 50's/60's before computers etc.

We need to keep these green areas, plant more trees and hedges - stop the flooding by doing away with the concrete jungle thats spring up everywhere. Please protect our green areas, wildlife, trees and pools/ canals etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 16716

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Williams

My first comment is to complain that Walsall council should have sent out a formal letter to residents and businesses that may be affected by the proposal of new housing. Instead the only communication I have received was from the conservative party.

Comment

Representation ID: 16723

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Margeurite Alley

I understand the need for adequate housing, jobs and schools etc; all is relevant for now + the future, my concerns are for the protection of nature and wildlife, climate change and that these plans allow for natural habitat to be protected so that birds, insects, flora etc; are not going to be so disrupted detrimentally and we just end up with concrete jungles. The amount of rubbish and chemical omissions from landfill affects the environment for humans and animals and wildlife.
Household, transport, air travel and industrial omissions affect the air we breathe and climate change, more houses and jobs etc, are needed well and good but means more omissions, more cars of which there are too many, the fumes emitted are horrendous, we need more trees not to have them chopped down, for housing, roads etc. There will be more rubbish discarded everywhere. Whatever your plans, you need to educate people about any 'ignorant actions' that contribute to the disruption and neglect of the natural world, rather than the preservation of it, maybe you need a plan also which ensures that if all this development goes ahead that people will be more aware of how to manage their part in not contributing as much as possible that is to the preservation of nature. Mental health will be affected if the natural world has the peace and space required to re-charge - removed!

Object

Representation ID: 16774

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Marie Barnham

This proposal will not only attack our ever-diminishing green belt but would
a) put undue unsustainable pressure on our infrastructure such as schools, medical facilities, parks, traffic etc.
b) Inevitably will reduce the value of existing properties in the area due to (A) and the value of properties proposed.

c) Increase pressure on infrastructure and population will inevitably lead to more crime - reducing property values further.

d) In a time when the environment and mental well being is important our open spaces are vital. Houses and traffic will increase pollution and general health.

e) Housing should be located on former brownfield sites not green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 16793

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: 16809

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Elaine Taylor

[process/consultation]

I object to the process by which the proposals have been developed.
I object to the flawed process.
I object to the flawed scrutiny process and conflicts of interest identified.
I am concerned about what the officers are telling us what we can or cannot say.

Object

Representation ID: 16883

Received: 12/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Harry Smith

[General Greenbelt]

This is to strongly object to the use of green belt land for housing or other purposes that require buildings.
Considering the latest prediction that the birth rate is falling the figures quoted for new housing can only be guesswork and therefore can only be viewed with distrust. Are the numbers quoted estimates to cover the indigenous population or does it also cover the thousands of illegal immigrants that the government keeps allowing into the country? If this is the case why should green belt land be used to cater for these people and their families [redacted].
The government claims to be concerned about the environment so how does covering large areas of green belt land with bricks and mortar, concrete, tarmac and slabs help the environment? What about the effect on the climate?
This is ecological madness.
If this goes through it will set a precedent and irrespective of what is said now there is more likely to be further incursions into green belt land in the future. It would not be the first time a council or government went back on their word.

Object

Representation ID: 16937

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marjorie Janes

(No text attached to submission)

Object

Representation ID: 16956

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jack Sheehan

Please note my objection to the destruction of green belt land in order to meet the demanded quota for new housing in the black country region. Our region by its very nature as one of the hubs of the industrial revolution has skattered industrial brownfield sites many deserted for years and ripe for redevelopment.

We now face a climate crisis. I will oppose destruction of our green space until you can catergorically prove you have explored the use of all old brownfield sites to meet our demands for new housing. Many of these areas would benefit massively from investment creating new economies, jobs and buisnesses. Instead I feel these plans place new housing in already developed areas further crowding their already stretched infrastructure. On that note more housing in the wrong areas of our region will make our already unreliable rail network worse. I refer specifically to West Midlands Rail francise and the Snow Hill line.

Object

Representation ID: 17046

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Friends of Sheepwash Nature Reserve

Firstly, we would like to comment that this consultation has been very poorly communicated to the general public, and there is the feeling that there has already been a “done deal” between politicians, planners and developers in making this document oppressive and littered with local authority jargon, as to put people off even commenting. Indeed it is this “political-construction industry complex” that is the reason for perceived corruption, and terms such as “developer’s charter” being accurately used. We were totally against the Government white paper on planning reform for this reason, and also made those views known in that consultation. We should not be regarded as a “growth area” for housing developers to continue to prosper, particularly when it is revealed that so many of them are party political donors.
The site allocations in this document are the only matter that most people are interested in, and not the dogmatic policy waffle which fills out this report. A simpler comment on the call for sites and site allocations should have been promoted, and this would have generated more responses.
As it is, it is quite apparent that the majority of responses that will be received will be from green belt land bankers and their stooges, promoted by certain politicians who have already made themselves known with their “save the green belt” campaigns. Meanwhile, the urban areas are targeted by developers, and this green space is usurped as “brownfield” , yet it has the same potential for wildlife rehabilitation as any “greenbelt” land through the process of rewilding.

Object

Representation ID: 17073

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr James Lloyd

Why take the easy/lazy option and build on Green Belt just because Brownfield sites have more stumbling blocks/challenges? This would be shortsighted, as it is at the expense of the flora and fauna of the local area. The insect population is already on a massive decline and this would be moronic to not consider the compounding affect this would have on our pollinators.

Object

Representation ID: 17211

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Marsh

Firstly, the website for this consultation is appalling, I gave up trying to submit a comment via the portal, its a clear attempt to frustrate people from putting forward their objections.

Its taken me far too long to even properly identify the sites on the website.

Object

Representation ID: 17253

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Rycroft

We do NOT believe that the case for altering Green Belt Boundaries within the Black Country has been “fully evidenced and justified” and should be considered unsafe.
The methodology used to calculate future housing needs has grossly exaggerated the amount of land required to meet those needs.
The impact of recent events eg Brexit and changes in employment and retail practices have not been taken into account.
These huge uncertainties MUST be recognised.
The Plan must be more flexible and able to adapt in a way that protects valuable habitats and green spaces if/when demand proves to be considerably lower than current projections. The plan must be actioned in a way that seeks to protect (as far as possible) those sites whose use would cause the most harm.
We must not over-provide land, we must avoid at all cost the unnecessary loss of green belt sites and the unconscionable “trashing of wildlife habitats”.
Brownfield and derelict sites MUST be used first and their owners must be supported in ways that ensure this land is made available early in the life of the plan.
There should be no notion that if developers avoid those brownfield sites and wait long enough then more valuable, higher scoring land will be made available for development.

Object

Representation ID: 17254

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Rycroft

Site Assessment and Selection Methodology: Green belt,
We object to the methodology used to select Green belt sites for development.
The requirement to score both “very high harm to remaining green belt” AND “moderate-high harm to landscape sensitivity”, in order to remain protected is too high and too stringent.
We feel that all Green Belt land that continues to meet the designated Green Belt objectives should be presumed to have permanent status.

Comment

Representation ID: 17258

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Rycroft

Issues relating to the Consultation process
We feel that the referencing system for particular plots is extremely difficult to navigate. The site “Policy WSA8” is also referred to as WAH 234, SA- 0017-WAL,10185 and 10116 and forms part of BL 29. Along side numerous site location errors; this made it almost impossible to follow the evidence presented.

We would also like to register our discontent with the whole consultation process. This has relied very much on “online consultation”as an engagement technique. This has proved to be extremely discriminatory especially to older people and those unable to access the Internet for whatever reason and therefore DO NOT or CANNOT regularly access newsfeeds or social media.
The drop in sessions organised by Walsall Council were welcomed but these only happened after public consternation was expressed and (in Walsall especially), very late in the consultation process. Almost as an afterthought.

Object

Representation ID: 17259

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Little

We do NOT believe that the case for altering Green Belt Boundaries within the Black Country has been “fully evidenced and justified” and should be considered unsafe.
The methodology used to calculate future housing needs has grossly exaggerated the amount of land required to meet those needs.
The impact of recent events eg Brexit and changes in employment and retail practices have not been taken into account.
These huge uncertainties MUST be recognised.
The Plan must be more flexible and able to adapt in a way that protects valuable habitats and green spaces if/when demand proves to be considerably lower than current projections. The plan must be actioned in a way that seeks to protect (as far as possible) those sites whose use would cause the most harm.
We must not over-provide land, we must avoid at all cost the unnecessary loss of green belt sites and the unconscionable “trashing of wildlife habitats”.
Brownfield and derelict sites MUST be used first and their owners must be supported in ways that ensure this land is made available early in the life of the plan.
There should be no notion that if developers avoid those brownfield sites and wait long enough then more valuable, higher scoring land will be made available for development.

Object

Representation ID: 17260

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Little

Site Assessment and Selection Methodology: Green belt,
We object to the methodology used to select Green belt sites for development.
The requirement to score both “very high harm to remaining green belt” AND “moderate-high harm to landscape sensitivity”, in order to remain protected is too high and too stringent.
We feel that all Green Belt land that continues to meet the designated Green Belt objectives should be presumed to have permanent status.

Comment

Representation ID: 17262

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Little

Issues relating to the Consultation process
We feel that the referencing system for particular plots is extremely difficult to navigate. The site “Policy WSA8” is also referred to as WAH 234, SA- 0017-WAL,10185 and 10116 and forms part of BL 29. Along side numerous site location errors; this made it almost impossible to follow the evidence presented.

We would also like to register our discontent with the whole consultation process. This has relied very much on “online consultation”as an engagement technique. This has proved to be extremely discriminatory especially to older people and those unable to access the Internet for whatever reason and therefore DO NOT or CANNOT regularly access newsfeeds or social media.
The drop in sessions organised by Walsall Council were welcomed but these only happened after public consternation was expressed and (in Walsall especially), very late in the consultation process. Almost as an afterthought.

Object

Representation ID: 17281

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Toller

I know in the document you say that there are not enough brown field sites for all of the necessay housing but I so strongly disagree with using Greenbelt Land for any reason. We need to protect our green spaces not build on them, once we start doing that there will eventually be no Greenbelt land left.
In this age of Global warming we need as many plants & trees and possible and what about the wildlife that inhabits these green spaces you are trying take away from them, local authorities make my blood boil with their willy nilly use of green spaces just because they can they aways assume they should, well they shouldn't.
Instead of building single dwellings why not build maisonettes at least then you are housing two families instead of one.
I am aware that you will do what you want in the end (as always) but I needed to raise my objections.

Object

Representation ID: 17296

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Pat Dobson

Infrastructure not in place.
Schools Doctors Chemists Transport (Public)
Once we loose green belt land that is gone forever no going back
The West Mercia forest will be gone and over the last 18 months or so that as provided a haven for people not only who live in the proximity but people have planned longer walks because of the land so to get a break from lockdown.
Wildlife will go and wil not return
Time is running out for the world to stop the air polution made up of all sorts that we already canot control

Object

Representation ID: 17322

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Paulette Holmes

You made this so difficult to send back tried Brownhills and Aldridge only to find closed. Nothing for Pelsall where we live

Object

Representation ID: 17333

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Chilton

I have lived in Shelfield for [Redacted-GDPR]
their will be know Green spaces left for our grandchildren and Great Grandchildren their will be problems with Environment and pollution, Access and more Traffic Problems.

Object

Representation ID: 17360

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Joseph Aldred

Objection to Black Country Plan in general + please see attached sheets for objections to 1 site in particular.

Local Authority - Walsall Council

I wish to raise the following objections to the Black Country Plan 2021, as outlined below.

Several residents have been in contact with local MP Wendy Morton and Walsall Councillor John Murry
about this matter since it was raised during the Covid-19 restrictions in 2020. Assurances have been given in writing, there will be no building in Aldridge on the Green Belt land, this has been reiterated today by the Prime Minister and supported by the Mayor of West Mid lands, Andy Street, that building on green-belt land is now not on the Governments agenda.

Comment

Representation ID: 17375

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Kamran Razzaq

n.a

Object

Representation ID: 17405

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Blewitt

Filled in by my daughter as I am unable to express my views (contrary to the equality act 2000)

I am against this build because:
well being
home to nature and endangered birds (red list)
Noise
Congestion
Lack of immenities
pollution traffic

Planet in dire need buildings everywhere!

Object

Representation ID: 17446

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Janet Romansky

Objection to Black Country Plan in general + please see attached sheets for objections to 1 site in particular.

Object

Representation ID: 17472

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marie Hart

Objection to Black Country Plan in general + please see attached sheets for objections to 1 site in particular.

Comment

Representation ID: 17509

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kinver Parish Council

Removal of Green Belt:


• Eroding the defensible and policy boundaries (such as green belt to prevent against urban sprawl) has a detrimental impact on the wider area.
• Do all the proposed strategic allocations that necessitate green belt release fail to meet the 5 purposes of green belt set in the NPPF? The evidence base does not make clear how the sites to be released fail part or all of the purposes.

Object

Representation ID: 17528

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Embrey

Objection to Black Country Plan in general + please see attached sheets for objections to 1 site in particular.

Object

Representation ID: 17550

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Raybould

The availability to use existing building stock, particularly commercial to residential (as prescribed by Government recently for permitted development) should negate the need for this amount of new housing. The figures are staggering.
The environmental impact and energy usage could be negated by focusing on existing stock and the use of brownfield sites.
Encrouchment into the greenbelt should be restricted because of the above and is not warranted, but is an easy ask particularly for powerful developers.
Having read to report on the need for additional housing I do not believe that the amount mentioned is required. Population is likely to decrease again in the future and there will be an over supply but the green belt land lost will not be recovered.
I support new housing on brownfield sites which I believe has been underestimated in the report.
I would also question whether land banking issues have been addressed in the report. Land banked (much of it brownfield) by housebuilders and supermarkets should be forced to be released before any other land is identified.
Admittedly this needs a Government change and a focus on encouraged renovation of existing housing stock (many empty) properties. A flip for VAT for all new build and a reduction of VAT on renovation would also help.
I conclude that the Government is encouraging green belt land to be built on and nothing in the report changes that opinion. In fact the report is a product of this Government. They will not be thanked, by this generation or future generations.
The report appears to be driven by politics and not a 'real need' to the extent prescribed.
I will not support any development of the green belt for housing or industry. Growing the economy is not always a wonderful thing and we need to get wise to that for the Planet's sake. The report is to me an environmental disaster. Wildlife corridors also appear under threat particularly to the north of Sedgley. Grow grow grow is all that we hear. We should stabilise, re-examine and reuse.