Policy GB1 – The Black Country Green Belt

Support

Representation ID: 14070

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Long

I support GB1 policy
Protection of the green built especially it the south of Stourbridge is really important
I support the teams rejection of a whole series of sites proposed in the ‘call for site’. The reason for rejection of these sites are absolutely right.
Some of the rightly rejected sites for development were, frankly, gobsmackingly inappropriate (I am submitting a separate response re some individual sites)
The of developing the green belt south of Stourbridge is that the area of Stourbridge and Hagley will merge extensively reducing the residents, potentially Stourbridge easy access to open countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 14091

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Robson

ROADS HERE ARE ALREADY 'RAMMED' +CONGESTED. WE NEED MORE SCHOOLS/DOCTORS/DENTISTS TO ACCOMODATE ALL THESE EXTRA FAMILIES +CHILDREN.
USE BROWNFIELD SITES INSTEAD OF GREEN BELT!!

Object

Representation ID: 14191

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Barry Cooper

I have noted that in addition to brownfield sites, a number of greenbelt areas owned by the councils and private landowners have been included across the region.
It is important that we preserve as much of the greenbelt as possible and therefore consider and develop the brownfield sites first. It may well be that some of these sites may be impaired, rendering them expensive to clear, having had previous commercial and industrial occupancy. But this should not prevent us from pursuing this route, rather than using the greenbelt as a cheaper option. As in the long run it will be beneficial to us all.

Finally, with what Boris Johnson announced at the Conservative Party conference regarding building on greenbelt, I would hope that the Black Country Plan will be vastly altered, but I will not hold my breath.

Comment

Representation ID: 14359

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Stacey Hutchins

I’d like to put my comments forward there needs to be more greenbelt of land and also using old factories all buildings that are for housing or businesses also we need to start respecting the countryside and the green belts of land and leaving a mess there are there is not much land left is there is I know there’s a housing shortage but let’s use the old lands like the deserted land also we need to think about the transportation in the local area and also getting transports better and keep in the local area clean and need to tidy the whole area need to be look after need people approve first

Also we need to green belts of land and green spaces Talking to local communities and areas and farmers in like local farms in green spaces and making it more environmental with more bins and more things for litter and more recycling And also replacing using all buildings that are no longer fit for purpose and using that land instead of using a Greenland instead making the most of these old buildings are rundown also be great if we had more toilet benches and bins by the bus stops and stuff like that also technology to show when buses coming also maybe school buses for kids as it free up buses for regular people Also maybe making the buses more frequent In one journey instead of getting loads of buses and also it would be great if there was a bus for school kids because there are so many school kids getting on the bus they’re taking up space and regular bus people sometimes have to wait longer for the journey

Support

Representation ID: 14515

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bernice Smith

I support the Council’s continued protection of countryside at Lapal, Isley, Coombeswood, Uffmoor, Hayley Green, Lutley & 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. 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 [redacted] towards The Woodland Trust purchasing Uffmoor Wood, despite this being just outside the Borough Boundary and coming under Bromsgrove. 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 historic Lutley Mill and the green Lane that links it to the medieval 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 [redacted]. 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 major area of whoch is owned and managed by the National Trust. We must also consider the Hagley Hall Estate, which includes a major proportion of Wychbury Hill, the importance of which was acknowledged in the 18th Century by George Lyttleton, in his creation of Hagley Park, 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 welfare of, and enjoyment by a large population. I am an important member of this population and so are my friends and family.
It would be so simple to seriously damage the area with inappropriate developments and associated infrastructure. Please, please consider the health & well being of all those who benefit from & enjoy these locations.

Object

Representation ID: 14520

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bill Hawkins

Building on any green belt land is a monumental mistake. We are rapidly approaching a climate crisis and green areas are essential for the survival of this planet. We can't afford to lose one more square metre of them. The loss of habitat for wildlife will be catastrophic, especially pollinators such as bees who are in decline at present

Object

Representation ID: 14575

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Caroline Day Bailey

3. How can residents trust their leaders that “the new Black Country green belt boundaries are intended to be permanent …..future” ? The original Green Belt was designed to be permanent!!
4. The Green Belt was created in the 20th century to restrict urban sprawl and thereby prevent loss of agricultural land and natural heritage. In the 21st century this may be re-interpreted as defending food security and the bio-geo environment.
The loss of 6% of the Green Belt cannot be justified when there is an availability of derelict and other urban land that could be recycled.

Object

Representation ID: 14611

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jo Poskitt

I object to plans to build on greenbelt because:

- hospitals/ doctors - oversubscribed
- schools are over subscribed
- emergency services have been cut + can not cope with current population
- traffic is horrendous
- not enough green spaces for children + pets to walk/ play
- Too many derelict buildings in local towns that could be changed in to housing estates

Object

Representation ID: 14635

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Geoffrey Nixon

I object to the building of houses on Green Belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 14645

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Jefny Ashcroft

We need always to prioritise brown field over green sites. 'Developers' ( i e. companies wanting to make big profits) should be forced to use land that is available not simply land that they want to speculate on

Object

Representation ID: 14684

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Debbie Perrens

Whilst the conservative government is destroying our beautiful landscape at a fast rate with the likes of HS2 and various land grabs to 'restart the economy', these proposals of further reducing our greenbelt don't make allocations for greener and nature enriched areas which are desperately needed. Where are more trees being planted that the government claims they will achieve by 2050 (which are needed much sooner) and green corridors so that our near extinct native species are able to roam freely?

Object

Representation ID: 14705

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Jamie Perks

I am sending this email in order to register my objection to the plan to permanently remove yet more local green belt land for housing. This process is irreversible and should not be taken just because it is the easy option.
All around us there is plenty of brownfield sites that can be developed for housing without the need to remove more of our green spaces. I’m sorry but I don’t buy the argument that there isn’t enough brownfield sites to cover the housing needs; all around us there are empty warehouses, factories, shops & even town centres! You need to be more creative in your thinking and save some green spaces for our future generations as once it’s gone it’s gone forever!

Object

Representation ID: 14719

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Milway

Having read through the housing proposals I am concerned that the majority of housing allocation is to come from the development of the Green Belt over 7000 new homes to be built on Green belt land.

This is a staggeringly sad situation that will continue to erode our green fields and woodlands, all with the aim of simpy adding more and more housing development. Where will this stop?

There are plenty of brownfield sites within the black country that can serve to increase housing, and actually positively impact on the locality - through regeneration of otherwise derelict and run down sites. They are also more readily serviced by already existing infrastructure and amenities, which could benefit also.

Digging up yet more fields is losing our biodiversity, ability to provide crops and food for the local area through farming, and used to cheaply build housing - which is such a short term outlook. We surely must aim to keep our green belt truly protected and not just arbitrarily re-designate its boundaries by the next development of housing?

I would strongly encourage further investigation in to the many brownfield sites across the black country that could be developed and regenerated, and stop this reliance on taking away our landscape- which after all is limited within these boundaries and massively squeezed already.

Even if there are initial outlays to make the land suitable again for housing this surely must be worth the investment- after all these buildings have already been created- they cant be left to ruin simply due to costs and I cant imagine they would ever be re-wilded.

Support

Representation ID: 14735

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Jeffrey Jones

Black Country Plan - Support for the Protection of Green Belt Around Halesowen I 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. 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 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 frequent 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 major area of which is owned and managed by the National Trust. We must also consider the Hagley Hall Estate, which includes a major 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 welfare of, and enjoyment by, a large population. It would be so simple to seriously damage the area with inappropriate developments and associated infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 14758

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Andrea Cantrill

Why are we still building on greenbelt? When we are in the midst of an environmental and ecological crisis this should not even be a consideration, if the council really want to do what is best for future and current generations then they really need to start acting like we are in crisis, to not put business and profit over a future. We know what we need to do but feel helpless as individuals doing what we can in our small ways but if the council aren't grasping how real this is then how can they expect their citizens? I understand the need for housing but we have to be more creative, lets be leaders in this- look at what's going on around the world and create homes that are suitable for use, with space for the people living in them, reusing what we already have.

I'm so fed up of being told this is difficult, not as easy as that or complicated, this is rubbish and everyone knows this now, we see this from how we responded to the pandemic.

We could have community developments where cooperatives can build there own houses? Houses should not be built unless they are carbon positive, using sustainable materials, why are developers still being permitted to build substandard housing?

Object

Representation ID: 14785

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Gainey

I also object to building on greenbelt as this amenity improves my quality of life and well-being - I do not want any of this building working stretching onto land on Linthouse Lane. I have especially valued this farmland and walking on the public footpaths for my mental wellbeing during lockdowns. Once this greenbelt is built on, we can never get it back. New housing should be on brownfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 14818

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Joy Vitins

Change of status to green belt land
We as a family enjoy being able to go locally to green areas. As climate change is so relevant at the moment shouldn't we as a forward thinking council hang on to everything we have and encourage people to go outside for enjoyment and look after their mental health. A free resource no longer free when it's lost.

Comment

Representation ID: 14837

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Alison Wilkes

Green belt
Comment: The term 'where practical and possible' with regard to the landscape, nature conservation and agricultural land being protected and enhanced should not be used as it negates the declaration that the green belt and the network of green spaces and corridors is valued.

Object

Representation ID: 14839

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Alison Wilkes

Policy GB1
Comment: The policy should directly link to Policy ENV3 and it's statement that all development shall deliver the Local Nature Recovery Network Strategy.

3.77b
Object: Woodland planting should be removed and replaced with habitat creation appropriate to the location. Tree planting may not be the most ecologically appropriate form of habitat creation for a location - the choice should be informed by survey work and by landscape scale planning. It should also be noted that 'tree planting' is not the same as woodland creation: once (appropriate) trees have been planted, it takes years of further monitoring, maintenance and additional work to create something approaching a woodland.

Object

Representation ID: 14850

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Webb

Fundamentally I oppose any proposal to develop open space and Green Belt designated land in particular. The loss of open space can only have a negative effect on the local character of any area removing beautiful and peaceful locations, the loss of places to walk and the enjoyment of open areas. The loss of recreational space cannot be condoned as the health benefits of being active in natural environments are well articulated.

Object

Representation ID: 15199

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ken Dimmock

GREEN SPACES ARE PRECIOUS ESPECIALLY GREENBELT AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED. THERE ARE PLENTY OF DERELICT AREAS IN THE VACINITY, ALTHOUGH THESE ARE NOT SO ATTRACTIVE FOR THE DEVELOPERS, IT SHOULD BE ENFORCED THAT THESE AREAS ARE USED FIRST.
ALSO WE DO NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE ESPECIALLY TRANSPORT, TO COPE WITH THIS INFLUX. IT DOESN'T COPE NOW.
THERE ARE MANY MORE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY THAT MUCH LESS HEAVILY POPULATED.

Object

Representation ID: 15220

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Michelle Nixon

I object to the building of houses on Green Belt land. Green Belt land protects our agricultural industry and preserves the unique character of our rural communities.

Support

Representation ID: 15289

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Policy GB1 – The Black Country Green Belt

We welcome this policy direction, specifically in reference to improving/ enhancing the environmental quality, value and function, along with improving biodiversity.

Comment

Representation ID: 15325

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Holt

green spaces and greenbelt are essential to the health and wellbeing of the urban population not withstanding the environmental considerations. The plan in my opinion does not offer enough protection for these spaces and any encroachment should be vehemently opposed.
Priority should be given to brown and past industrial sites inside the area known as the black country with the consequent improvement of infrastructure. Once green space has gone it has gone forever.

Support

Representation ID: 15379

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Wendy Dunn

I support the blank country plan in respect of Halesowen.
No development on Greenfield sites, there are plenty of Brownfield sites available

Object

Representation ID: 15412

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs June Allen

I am objecting to taking away Green Belt, which is so beneficial to peoples mental health in the area, who bought their properties with this in mind.

There is enough building going on in all areas. Streetly is a small area, and couldn't take all the extra traffic, people and lack of amenities!

We do need to keep some green belt not build on every space there is!

Object

Representation ID: 15452

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Ellie Lilly

To Whom it may concern
I am logging my objections to the above housing development plan for the proposed Walsall development situated on the site that sits between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road.
My objections to this include the following reasons;<br>
1/ It contravenes the governments proposal to tackle climate change and the planting of trees. The area from my photographs show established trees, including oak and hawthorn, and established hedgerows, home to bird life, insects (vastly in decline). Both necessary for food and oxygen in the future
2/ Impact on landscape and ecological habitats-a barn owl and bats seen in the area. Observation of bird life has found: 11 RED LISTED BIRD SPECIES on the proposed footprint: [redacted]. Also noted in a half mile radius: Whinchat, spotted flycatcher, wood warbler, tree pipit (all red listed), whitethroat, wheatear, peregrine, kestrel, willow warbler, nuthatch, stock dove, sand martin, swallow, house martin, swift, raven, buzzard plus many more. Bats are also frequently spotted in the spot but roost origins are unknown. This brief list is not taking into account plants and insects. It would be very interesting to read your ecology report. This was missing pages from previous report on the site. As images October 2018 on Dairy Farm planned build.
3/ Reasons to prevent a build include; Noise and disturbance- During the build and subsequently more people in a peaceful park location. Add to residents moving in, visitors, their cars, noise..Noise and pollution from this extra housing, if limited to the proposed 900 houses, for example most houses will have at least one, two up to four cars each that equates to 900, 1800, 3600 cars? Plus visitors to those people. Picture those cars adding to the rush hour congestion into the city?
4/ This is a quite area of peaceful tranquility. Many people have used this area for walking, unwinding and relaxation for many years and more so during the recent pandemic. Working in mental health, I know how vital this is for well being, and forms part of the governments own five part plan for well being. It is imperative for well being and positive mental health that the greenbelt is preserved and maintained and for reasons of environmental factors that buildings are not erected on it.
5/ Reasons to prevent a build include; Air quality and odours-during the build and subsequently.
6/ The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
7/ Green Belt serves 5 purposes:
(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 preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Proposals affecting the Green Belt
8/ Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
9/ ‘our’ green strip is an emergency landing/flight path & therefore can’t be built on. Correct me if I am wrong.
There is an underground overflow gravity water pipe running parallel with Doe Bank Lane. This comes off the reservoir on top of the Beacon and runs into Kingstanding for when (as it has done in the past) Kingstanding runs dry.
10/ Drain on local services and amenities; schools, shops, GP surgeries etc.
11/ This land forms a green corridor between Barr Beacon, Sutton Park for wild life to move between, a safe passage to move and rest safely.
12 The area as described on Wikipedia. "Described on Wikipedia
""The site is on green belt land and is of local importance for nature conservation, as defined by Walsall Borough Council, who have designated some 60 acres (25 ha) of it as a Local Nature Reserve."
How important Walsall Council? Important enough to build on every piece of land around it, destroying local nature reserve?"
13/ Reasons to prevent a build include; Effect on listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeology- this is a conservation area being greenbelt land and a place of natural beauty
14/ Once it is gone it is gone for good. Not only will these houses be built but the land allocated to each house for garden areas, potentially in the future will also be awarded planning permission for extensions. There will be 2/3 cars each to each house increasing air pollution, traffic congestion etc.
15/ It is likely will make future planning applications in the area and surrounding woodland more likely to be granted. Plus people will be removing their gardens for drive ways, an increased risk of flooding and lack of home to insects.
I think it is very sad, I have lived here most of my life, we need to preserve the countryside, particularly with global warming, planting more trees, as only this week in the media and the government saying they are committed to this. Once this site gets built on it opens the floodgate to continue building , every planning application be that little bit easier. We lost the woodlands at Netherhall, lost most of the land down Booths Farm, Foxhills and the Dairy Farm.. The scouts building on the Aldridge Road went up, I didn't even know that was happening.
Once these areas get built on, our greenbelt land will be gone forever. there never going to come a time when someone says, '" lets knock down all these houses and buildings and plant a forest, return to nature" is there?
When there are no insects there will be no food, when there are no trees there will be no oxygen to breathe.

Support

Representation ID: 15903

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Figures

I wish to add my support to the Councils continued protection of the Green Belt countryside around Lapal, Illey, Coombeswood, Uffmoor, Hayley Green, Lutley and Foxcote.
All of this countryside, which includes Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas is currently protected by its Green Belt designation and is indisputably of considerable linked historical and heritage value. This countryside is of immense importance as a leisure asset and must continue to be available as a natural resource for the enjoyment of the local communities and to those further afield.
The land is also a natural asset in the battle to counter the ever increasing threat from climate change. The threat of serious damage to this natural landscape by inappropriate development with its associated infrastructure is all too real and I therefore fully support the Black Country Plans commitment to fully protect it for future generations.

Support

Representation ID: 15916

Received: 25/09/2021

Respondent: Jennifer Woolford

I support the Council’s continued protection of the countryside at Lapal, Illey, Coombeswood, Uffmoor, Hayley Green, Lutley and Foxcote, following a formal review of the Green Belt. The whole of this area, including that within Dudley Borough, is of regional importance as an amenity asset for the welfare of, and enjoyment by, a large population. It would be so simple to seriously damage the area with inappropriate developments and associated infrastructure.
It's not difficult to understand why our countryside should be protected for us and for gen

Support

Representation ID: 16027

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: rita hipkiss

Black Country Plan - Support for the Protection of Green Belt Around Halesowen I 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.