Policy GB1 – The Black Country Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11397

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Edward Evitt

No more greenfield sites to be used for housing! this is clearly a large area of farmland outside the urban area. Keep it that way!!!

Object

Representation ID: 11409

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Shaw

There are a lot of words in this section which skirt around the fundamental issue of the plan. The basic premise is to build on green belt where it suits the plan and to ignore it's importance. Either green belt is important or it is not. You cannot say that it is sometimes import and sometimes isnt. The is ecologically and morally wrong.

Object

Representation ID: 11425

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Dukes

The Green Belt is vital for preserving the urban/rural character of the area and preventing the degradation of the natural spaces that surround us. In view of the climate emergency that faces us it seems extraordinary that the council would consider destroying green fields in order that more of the natural environment may be submerged in concrete and human habitation. This is particularly the case since there are plenty of brown field sites which have already lost their original natural character and would best be employed in filling in spaces in the existing urban landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 11464

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Annette Templar

There are enough brownfield sites in the Black Country for housing development without encroaching on green belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11486

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Woodsetton Charitable Trust

Existing Green Belt has to be protected.None of it should be used to meet housing needs.Rather a positive approach to use of all these areas for Green Belt appropriate uses.If the proposed policies are followed it means that from 2040 onwards more of the existing Green Belt would have to be used to meet future housing needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 11517

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Pam Woodhall

Last but not least, the greenbelt should be protected and remain untouchable, once someone starts to build it'll set a precedence for others to find loopholes to build whatever they want, for their own financial gain, and not just here but elsewhere too, no second thought given to what you or I think then. This isn't your future, but ours, or is it?

Comment

Representation ID: 11569

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: David and Marilyn Goode

Firstly, these proposed sites are on fields and we consider these as green belt - not Brown fill sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 11631

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Annie Tolley

Regarding your recent letter re Great Barr Conservation Area building plans and also for the Sutton Road and Calderfields areas. I strongly object to such a massive building plan being put forward. The following points are the reasons why;

Walsall has many derelict & disused properties including shops. I feel that your first port of call should be to reuse these before destroying the conservation and green belt areas.

I feel very strongly that green belt & conservation land should be disregarded so easily. I feel that more could be done to make Walsall town centre more appealing before all the green that surrounds us is taken for developments which can not be supported by the local infrastructure.
I would urge the council to reconsider these proposals & to look at brown sites as the way forward to provide new homes.

Object

Representation ID: 11723

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Davis

With primary reference to proposed Development Area WAH234, but also in a general sense my wife and I are opposed to building on Green Belt Land. Green Belt greatly enhances the quality of life for thousands of people in the urban areas next to it. Health, Mental Health (Covid demonstrated this) for adults and children are demonstrably better for some escape from the urban sprawl. WAH324 with 960 houses planned will become greatly congested with traffic - already a problem on the Chester Road and at the Scott Arms. Schools, shops and local facilities overburdened by thousands more people.

Object

Representation ID: 11737

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Hemming

Greenbelt should not be used for new housing , there are plenty of brownfield sites within the black country that would benefit from redevelopment & regeneration, Greenbelt can't be replaced with houses, it's important to people's wellbeing to have large open spaces within reach so they don't have to drive to them . Its a vital resource to the local community & makes places like Pelsall special to live in
The WSA5 policy starts to dismantle the ring of greenbelt around Pelsall & the WAS3 policy reduces common greenbelt between Pelsall , Clayhanger, Highfields and Walsall wood that is essential.

Comment

Representation ID: 11829

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Knight

The greenbelt is essential for the Black Country's strategic priorities by:
- providing trees and vegetation which absorb greenhouse gases and pollution
- providing areas for exercise and recreation
- promoting health and wellbeing through accessible natural resources
Development on greenbelt must not be permitted.

Object

Representation ID: 11850

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jagtar Singh Johal

The proposals adversely impact the green belt within the Walsall area. The green belt is key and fundamental to the well-being of the existing residents. This has clearly been demonstrated over the last 20 months during the pandemic. We must be cognisant of the mental health of our youngsters. I have a 28 year old disabled son, who, without the opportunity to go into the open spaces would be seriously impacted.

Object

Representation ID: 11853

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dana Chantler

Objection to the use of green belt which is created and valued by a policy where, “ agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail.”

Object

Representation ID: 11877

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Evan Brookes

There is enough brownfield or derelict sites to develop without using green belt . Save our open spaces .

Comment

Representation ID: 11883

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Reg Nicholas

The gobbling up of green belt land should be resisted. This is more pertinent in light of the governments latest statement that where ever possible, brown field sites should be used. Coupled with that, the lack of biodiversity as highlighted today is also of concern, and building on farmland will only exacerbate the situation.

Object

Representation ID: 11913

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Dean Mander

I object to the use of green belt for development.

Once it happens once, where will it stop.

Farming is key to the uk’s future and food supply independence and should be invested in, and land not used for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 11943

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr James Andrew Newton

Green belt is such an intrinsic part of the environment, the little we have in the Black Country is precious and should not be altered in anyway. To protect the habitat the green belt should be protected, We have far to many housing estates and industrial estates sprawling further into the green belt and to add more would be a terrible progression path.

Comment

Representation ID: 12066

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Angela McCracken

Green belt should not be built on. In the Walsall area, there are numerous brown belt sites that could be used as alternatives to the proposed areas between Aldridge and Walsall.

Object

Representation ID: 12085

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr JOHN DUTTON

Sites should not be removed from the Black Country greenbelt. This land is precious and provides important spaces for habitats of animals, recreation and play space. Nature is a vital part of our area and needs to be preserved at all costs. Building houses have an impact upon the natural world so from an environmental (saving the planet) perspective, the current Greenbelt areas need to be preserved right across the black Country. Brownfield sites should be built on instead to lessen the impact upon Greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 12087

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr JOHN DUTTON

SITES SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FROM GREENBELT ACROSS THE BLACK COUNTRY. MORE TIME SHOULD BE DEVOTED TO HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF HUMANS IN THE GREENBELT AREAS WE CURRENTLY HAVE. THEY ARE PRECIOUS AND NEED TO BE PRESERVED AND DEVELOPED FOR FUTURE GENERATIIONS.

Object

Representation ID: 12110

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alastair Grant

Greenbelt should be protected at all costs-only Leisure Development should be allowed which is compatible with the area and preserves nature and the planet to prevent the urban sprawl encroaching any further. There are still many areas of brownfield sites which need to be developed first but more emphasis is needed on the types of properties being provided-too much emphasis on high density development to fund sites rather than what is actually needed-good social housing and more bungalows for the elderly as well as small family units which are affordable are what is needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 12147

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Lisa Blackburn

Protect the Green Belt. Build up, or on brownfield. Green belt land is essential to our health. The further out you build the more people will be reliant on cars thus increasing pollution. Build high rather than out. Many new build flats lie empty.

Object

Representation ID: 12153

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Morris

1. All housing should be on Brownfield only.
2. No adjacent areas shall be used in neighbouring areas.
3. Green Belt and Farmland will never be used for housing as this is vital for the green agenda, climate change and well being of all residents.
4. The housing needs should be reassessed especially to change the type of housing from semi-detached to more apartments types and also to bring back accommodation over commercial premises in city/town centres.

Object

Representation ID: 12241

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Rick Solly

Although I fully understand the need for more housing and employment in the Black Country Area, I strongly object to the use of Green Belt Land. There are many areas of brownfield sites that could be developed without the need to use Green Belt Land. I am particularly worried about the vast housing development proposed along the Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road. The Queslett Road is congested enough at peak times at present without the traffic generated by another 980 houses. This is a poorly conceived plan and should be revised to remove any use of Green Belt Land.

Object

Representation ID: 12251

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Christopher Tagg

The area is already classed as deprived. The green belt in Bushbury is and has been a massive support to well being and mental health of existing residents. We have lost swimming baths and comminity centre green belt is all we have left. I also believe the field off legs lane opposie crematorium is designated as a memorial field

Comment

Representation ID: 12289

Received: 25/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Green

I am amazed there is a plan to build 442 houses on this part of the green belt.
The farm land is obviously considered to be the easiest thing to do by the developers.

Around many parts of the Borough there are many pieces of land which are just waiting to be developed in this post industrial era.

Comment

Representation ID: 12308

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Balbiro Birring

We all know how important green spaces are for our well being and also for the government. It is up to the government and business to acknowledge this and form policies and strategies to promote these issues. Whilst acknowledging a need for more housing i think it is in the interest of all to develop on brownfield sites before building on green belts

Comment

Representation ID: 12317

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret O'Reilly

I am objecting to the proposed development at:-
*Coronation Road/ Mob Lane Aldridge North and Walsall Wood Area. 30ha land for 763 Homes *

This is greenbelt land. We were promised building only on brownfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 12325

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Barry and Joan Richards

Number of people: 2

Above all, Andy Street in his election promises said that there would be no invasion into GREEN BELT! That statement, together with the regeneration of the West Midlands in general is why we voted for him turning politics aside.
Please do not do it.

Support

Representation ID: 12335

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: MS JUDITH HACKETT

We support the Council’s continued protection of countryside at Lapal, Illey, Coombeswood, Uffmoor, Hayley Green, Lutley and Foxcote, following a formal review of the Green Belt.

Circa 1989 Dudley Council, following a previous Green Belt review, improved the Public Rights of Way network in these areas by working in collaboration with local volunteer groups. Following on from that the Council promoted enjoyment of this countryside by the public for informal recreation. They supported the production of walk leaflets explaining the historic landscape and ecological significance of each area. The Council even contributed £20,000 towards The Woodland Trust purchasing Uffmoor Wood, despite this being just outside the Borough boundary and coming under Bromsgrove Council. In doing so they appreciated the important relationship between this ancient coppice woodland and neighbouring farmland, including Tack Farm which is the site of a former Anglo-Saxon mill (Notwic Mill).

This countryside, protected by Green Belt designation, is rich in history.
At Lapal and Illey are the remains of Halesowen Abbey which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument of National Importance.
At Lutley we have a Conservation Area associated with the historic Lutley Mill and the green lane that links it to the mediaeval hamlet of Lutley which was once held by the Canons of Wolverhampton.
Foxcote, which forms the foreground setting of the Iron Age Fort on Wychbury Hill, and historically is linked to it, is archaeologically rich with finds of flint arrow heads, flint scrapers, axes and other tools. It was the site of ancient hunting summer camps and, in part, this explains the wide scatter of historic ‘finds’.

The countryside hereby defined is important to people from far afield and, within the wider landscape, encompasses the famed and beautiful Clent Hills, a large area of which is owned and managed by the National Trust. We must also consider the Hagley Hall Estate which includes a large proportion of Wychbury Hill, the importance of which was acknowledged in the 18th Century by George Lyttelton in his creation of Hagley Park which is now a Grade 1 Listed Garden. On Wychbury Hill are two significant follies, ‘The Temple of Theseus’ and ‘The Obelisk’, tastefully exploiting the landscape prominence of the hill and the presence of the fort.

The whole of this area, including that within Dudley Borough, is of regional importance as an amenity asset for the wellbeing of, and enjoyment by, a large population. We personally spend many hours of enjoyment walking in these areas, appreciating their beauty and the fresh air. It would be so simple to
seriously, and hence permanently, damage the area with inappropriate developments and associated infrastructure.