Policy TRAN3 Managing Transport Impacts of New Development

Comment

Representation ID: 11609

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Ursula Walker

Over the past 20 years I have seen a marked increase in traffic in Birchills and have unfortunately seen many road traffic accidents, one of which involved a speeding car crashing [Redacted-GDPR]. We are close to junction 10 of the M6 and not only do we hear the traffic but we, as are all residents in this part of Walsall, are subject to air pollution 24/7. Reedswood Park has been well managed over the years I have lived here and now has a large natural area of trees that are well established and able to counter some of the air pollution that is detrimental to our health.


A natural green space buffer/ green lung is essential to counter the pollution coming from the M6: Pouk Hill and the land bordering Churchill Road along with Reedswood Park, provides this.

Comment

Representation ID: 11625

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;
1. Lack of suitable traffic management- HGV lorries already use this lane although this means motorists having to reverse if unfortunate enough to meet one

5. Traffic on the Sutton Road/ Beacon Rd/ Queslett Road is already packed beyond belief at rush hours and would certainly not cope with this influx of new premises

Comment

Representation ID: 11641

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Shaun Smith

I’m sending this email to you to strongly OBJECT to the planning of Reedswood Park being destroyed and built on with more house building in our area.
Apart from bringing more traffic jams to Walsall it is discussing that the trees and the children’s park will be gone.

Object

Representation ID: 12274

Received: 13/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Gainey

2) Building either side of Wood Hayes Road would also cause significant delays for residents trying to reach the M54 and M6.

Comment

Representation ID: 12292

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Lynch

Comments on aspects of Black Country Plan Review in Reedswood
I am aghast at the plans to allow building on part of the 'green lungs' in this area, by and close to the M6, one of the busiest stretches of motorway in the country. Trees are of course vital in both screening and absorbing high levels of air pollution and noise in Reedswood. The proposal to allow the destruction of the trees along the M6 corridor bordering Churchill Road and on the Pouk Hill public open space, as well as in nearby Reedswood Park is indeed breathtaking and utterly unacceptable. This is a densely developed residential area and the plan must surely take in to account the health and well being of people living here?

Comment

Representation ID: 12310

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Margaret Holyman

The land has not been previousley developed nor should it be as it is in a designated MSA site, it not served well by public transport and would need considerable investment in infrastructure. The widening of Stonnall Road Birch Lane would only cause more problems with the approach to Chester Rd, crossroads which are extremely busy throughout the day and night. There has been many accidents here and an increase in traffic is dangerous. This location is totally in-adequate for proposed development.

Comment

Representation ID: 12313

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 *
There is no capacity at Coronation Road for the amount of traffic which this housing plan will cause.
The road is already frequently congested due to school traffic and in many sections is only 1 lane due to roadside parking.
There is not sufficient shop/school/ public transport amenities to accomodate the additional population and traffic.
There are no cycleways in Coronation Road or Mob Lane therefore not even any sustainable transport alternatives for people to use.

Comment

Representation ID: 12351

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Christine Leahey

Document Ref. Strategic Allocation WSA3, Site WAH237/ WAH235

Widening the local roads will have a significant negative impact to the local residents, increased traffic, air pollution, noise all of which are identified as factors that would not have an adverse affect on the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 12438

Received: 15/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anne Tolley

Firstly the Sutton road at present cannot cope with the amount of traffic especially at rush hours. With more residences this would only make Sutton Rd & surrounding routes completely congested.
During the pandemic people were desperate for open spaces - this would be lost with such huge developments undertaken.
As we desperately try to save our world & reduce our carbon footprint we need to stop building on new land but use brown sites. Walsall town centre has so many properties unused that this should be the first port of call not causing destruction to wildlife & vegeration - so desperately required.
I also feel that many people affected by these proposals have not been notified hence very unfair to all those affected not to have a say.

Comment

Representation ID: 12629

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Claire Tullo

we simply do not have the facilities to accommodate more homes and cars into the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12647

Received: 15/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

I wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections I have with regards to the above Black Country Plan WAL242 and the proposed development of Green Belt land.

TRAFFIC GENERATION/SECURITY Traffic generation from the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the traffic in the area in particular the island from Buchanan Road and the Mellish Road. This already has severe congestion during busy hours. Air quality and noise pollution will also be an issue.
Access from the Arboretum to the proposed development would surely offer poor levels of security and would raise a fear of crime in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12660

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Chris Beebee

I am surprised that this application has ever been given a chance as numerous applications have previously turned down due to building on green belt, and impact on the local area and traffic system which is inadequate at present so more development of the local area can surely only make this situation worse.

Comment

Representation ID: 12667

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Peter Kendrick

Associated with the 442 houses that are proposed i suggest there would be a minimum of 900 private vehicles leading to some 2000 journeys a day in and out of the immediate area. This area is unable to cope with the current volume of traffic with tailbacks on Lichfield Street, Mellish Road, Argyle Road, Cameron Road, Buchanan Avenue and Buchanan Road. the Ecological harm will therefore be severe to an area already suffers.

Object

Representation ID: 12778

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Angela Davies

I have noticed the increase in traffic in the area over the last 20 years, it’s unbelievable how much traffic is flowing through the area at all times of day and night, but rush hour is really getting bad, especially along the Aldridge road where we have lots of traffic coming from the already FULL schools in the vicinity. I just could not imagine the amount of traffic in the area with another 1000 houses plonked in the middle of it, some households have 2 or 3 cars these days , it would be absolutely horrendous with that amount of extra vehicles in the area, it just would not work!!

Object

Representation ID: 12792

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Rhiannon and Tony Fearn

Number of people: 2

• The impact on the existing roads. How will such a huge increase in traffic be managed on the existing roads and how is this in line with the Governments Carbon Budgets - we are falling behind and predicted not to meet our 4th (2023-2027) and 5th (2028-2032) budgets already

• The safety of our roads is at the forefront of my mind currently. With two fatal accidents just this week, 1 within a 30mph speed limit zone. With more traffic, stressed out drivers on narrower and busier roads - is this not a dangerous combination?

Object

Representation ID: 12849

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Sally Franks

There are also massive implications regarding traffic and pollution, he added, with the area simply unable to cope with a daily spike of thousands of extra cars joining the Aldridge Road rush hour. This situation has been made worse due to the development of Netherhall Park.
The traffic level currently at the Old Horns/Asda Queslett is already at breaking point, there are accidents/incidents every week, with the level pollution extremely high. A planning application for the site next to Asda was turned down due to traffic levels at this junction. By building more housing on the Queslett Road site would mean further traffic in that area resulting into more gridlocked roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 12865

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sukhjit Khera

Site WAH 231 Sutton Road/ Longwood lane
All comments below relate to the site above
Reasons for my objections:
1) the vehicles from Sutton road come round the corner at such speed it is scary I currently cannot see them coming when I come back after dropping my son off at Aldridge school because the traffic is backed up so much see diagram this is the same for when I want to get off the drive it's dangerous

Comment

Representation ID: 12872

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jag Khera

Site WAH 231 Sutton road Longwood lane
Having lived on Longwood lane since 2010 I feel I have a strong understanding of the area and local traffic issues. Prior to moving to Longwood lane I was in orchard hills opposite Longwood lane.
Reasons for objecting:
1) traffic at the moment. The traffic on Longwood lane an Sutton road is unacceptable both are major link roads with lots of schools businesses commuter and HGV traffic. To increase traffic pollution and noise further is irresponsible
2) accidents. We personally have witnessed four major accidents outside our property these include a pedestrian being hit a stationary car being hit and lamp post hit again to increase traffic in this area is absurd

Comment

Representation ID: 12884

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Margaret Mayock

ROADS
Aldridge Road, Brindle Lane and Doe Bank Lane are too narrow to cope with increasing amounts of traffic. The right turn from Doe Bank into Brindle Lane is an accident waiting to happen. The entrance from Aldridge Road into Brindle Lane is too narrow and difficult especially when one vehicle is turning in and one turning out. There is also a large number of vehicles using Brindle Lane. Many are large vehicles, vans and small trucks. At one point it is difficult to pass.

Object

Representation ID: 12894

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Sarah Harris-Darley

As a local resident, I am also particularly concerned about the proposed development in Streetly
(Walsall) - plot WAH254.
It is unclear where the access roads for this plot (WAH254) will be - will this be off Chester Road?
The residents of the Lindrosa estate certainly do not want an access road built to the WAH254 plot
via the Lindrosa estate (Lindrosa Road / Coniston Road / Windermere Drive. The Lindrosa estate is
currently a cul-de-sac and many families (mine included) have specifically moved to that estate to
avoid through traffic in order to make it safer for our young children. I would wholly object to any
access road being built between the Lindrosa estate and the WAH254 plot as this would be
extremely detrimental to current residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 12916

Received: 20/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Lloyd

Traffic concerns raised

Comment

Representation ID: 12926

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Ray Kent

Number of people: 2

I would like to raise objections to develop the green space at the old brandhall golf club site.
Objections raised due to.
Increase of population
Road traffic increase

Comment

Representation ID: 12934

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Rebecca Felton

Neighbours and local residents have already complained about the volume of traffic and pollution within our village, therefore an increase in properties in this area would only further add to this issue.

Comment

Representation ID: 12979

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Andrew Lloyd

Resident objection to site proposal Ref WAH242 ( policy WSA7 ) to build 550 houses on green belt land adjacent to Walsall Arboretum.

Objections; loss of farming land to supply locally leading to the impact on carbon footprint, loss of wildlife and plant species by destruction of habitat, increase in congestion, negative impact on polution due to the loss of green spaces, possible increase in risk of flooding, damage of wildlife corridor to other green spaces in the town.

Object

Representation ID: 12988

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Beacon Heights Resident Association

Beacon Heights Residents strongly object to any proposal which will promote more traffic using Pinfold Lane as a rat run to junction 7 on the motorway at Great Barr. I have [redacted sensitive information] of accidents in Pinfold Lane. These are the ones I have witnessed. Goodness knows how many more there has been. Insurance companies have confirmed if you have a Pinfold Lane address your premium will rise because Pinfold Lane is regarded as a ‘hot spot’ for accidents. Local councillors and officers agree there is a problem there but there is never enough funding to do the work. If there was a one way system from the Bella Pais end of the Pinfold Lane to Old Hall junction on then up to the sharp bend by Barr Beacon school the risk of accidents would be far less. This should be carried out long before any more traffic is introduced into our area. Pinfold Lane was build for farm traffic not motorway traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 12989

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Antony Chivers

DUH 208 Holbeache P 371 & DUH 211 Triangle P 371

As a Wall Heath resident I am concerned about the extra traffic that will be generated if building is allowed on "the Triangle" living in Heathbrook Avenue, at times the traffic queues back from the mini roundabouts in the village & it can take up to 5 minutes to turn in and out of the avenue. I have already applied to the Council to have yellow crosshatch on the A449 at the top of our road but this has been denied. Building houses so close will obviously make the problem even worse and I fear Wall Heath grinding to a halt considering it is the main road rom Kidderminster to Wolverhampton used by many HGV's at all hours of the day & night.
A new housing estate will not ease this proble, it will make it worse.

Comment

Representation ID: 13011

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Baggott

Traffic concerns raised, volume and congestion.

Comment

Representation ID: 13479

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beryl Baldock

Building on these green spaces will encourage more traffic and it's a thing we don't want (we have enough already)

Object

Representation ID: 13798

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr B Tolley

Traffic will increase

Object

Representation ID: 14483

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Hagley Neighbourhood Plan Group c/o Hagley Parish Council

Agent: Hagley Parish Council

Land at Worcester Lane, Pedmore – sites DUH 206, 207 and 209
Transport Issues

This paper has been prepared by the Hagley Neighbourhood Plan Group on behalf of the Hagley Parish Council. It should read in conjunction with the Hagley Parish Council's separate response.

We strongly object to the Draft Black Country Plan (BCP) in relation to the proposed Worcester Lane developments on the basis that, whilst the Black Country, and specifically Dudley MBC, have every right to adopt an ambitious plan, they are bound by a duty to co-operate with adjoining local councils to consider the impact of their proposals and to agree mitigations where necessary. The need to co-operate is clearly accepted within the Transport Section of the Draft Plan. We do not believe that this process of co-operation has even started yet. Nor has any evidence been presented as to the traffic impacts of this site nor has any mitigation been proposed. We believe that this process should commence immediately and if, as we suspect, the evidence suggests a material negative impact on Hagley that should be sufficient for this particular site to be dropped from the plan.

Specifically, Hagley suffers from a major congestion issue on the A456, A450 and A491 roads that run through Hagley. The A456 and A491 have been proposed for inclusion in the government’s proposed Major Road Network which is aimed to complement the Strategic Road Network as roads which carry a high proportion of traffic with a national economic significance. These roads through Hagley are already running close to (or at certain junctions above) capacity with consequent problems of congestion, air quality, and safety. In particular, the A456/A450 junction at Cross Keys, the A456/B4187/Western Road/Summervale Road junction, and the A456/A491 junctions at the Cala Development and at the Cattle Market are severely congested in both the morning and evening peaks. We believe that the proposed Worcester Lane development will have a material impact on all of these junctions; whilst the development is relatively small it can be expected to generate up to 50 additional vehicle movements in the morning and evening peaks and even this small number will be enough to cause considerable additional congestion at junctions which are already at capacity.
Note that the A456 carried 31,852 vehicles in a day in 2011 (Annual Average Daily Traffic – AADT, taken from TDHA) and this can only be expected to have increased since then. Unfortunately, there is no recent reliable vehicle count on this road due to the pandemic.

The location of the proposed development on the SE edge of the Black Country conurbation is likely to attract residents who wish to commute to Birmingham, or further afield via the Motorway network. This would mean that they would travel up Redlake Road to join the A491 and hence the A456 or, because of the considerable peak time congestion at this junction, they would travel into Hagley along the B4187 to its junction with Park Road which would, in turn give access to the A456 or A491.Unfortunately this junction (B4187/Redlake Road) is already heavily congested in the peaks and Redlake Road is a major concern with parking for school drop offs/pick ups tending to partially block the road.

The only alternative for someone wishing to access the A456 or A491 for Birmingham or the Motorway network would be along Bromwich Lane which is very narrow and totally unsuitable for more than very limited use.

There is increasing evidence of re-routing and “rat runs” being used by frustrated drivers, often on unsuitable roads around Hagley. We fear that Bromwich Lane, which is already a favourite of taxi drivers, would be used in this way.

Unfortunately, this is just one of the proposed developments in the Hagley area that will generate more traffic through Hagley. The Wyre Forest Local Plan proposes developments at Lea Castle and Kidderminster East which will also create more traffic attempting to use junctions that are already at their capacity. In various documents WFDC have recognised the potential congestion problem in Hagley, and rightly raised the query as to whether further new developments in surrounding Authorities, particularly the Black Country Boroughs, could make these problems even worse. However, their only suggested solution is for a review at some point in the future, involving all of the main authorities in the area, to decide what actions are required. We strongly believe that just such a multi authority review is required now.
In the Transport Section of the Draft Black Country Plan (Para 9.34) there is a commitment that “all developments will be assessed both in terms of their impact on the transport network and the opportunities that could be available to ensure that the site is accessible by sustainable modes of transport”. The Plan also suggests that this would take the form of a full Transport Assessment or a less detailed Transport Statement for smaller sites. However it goes on to say that the decision as to which process will be used will be based on individual authorities guidance with a Transport Assessment “ sometimes being required instead of a Transport Assessment based on reasons other than spatial thresholds – “road safety concerns, existing congestion problems, air quality problems”. We would strongly suggest that all of the above apply to the impact on Hagley of this development and that the multi authority review suggested above is urgently required, based a full Transport Assessment.
Hagley would wish to recognise the assistance of WCC in making some recent small scale changes to the A456 junctions in Hagley (A456/A450 junction at the Cross Keys, the A456/A491 junction at the Cattle Market and the A456/B4187/Western Road junction). We expect these changes to make some small difference to the congestion issue but, unfortunately it will not be sufficient to resolve any of the problems.
Unless there is further action to resolve the congestion problems that already exist, and which will be exacerbated by the BCP and the WFLP, the already strongly negative comments that we are receiving from Hagley residents will continue. As part of the development of our Neighbourhood Plan we have consulted widely with our residents through, initially, consultation meetings and, more recently, through a “Hagley Census” which asked a series of questions about Housing, Transport and Environmental issues. These have indicated that:
• There is a major deterrent to walking or cycling in the village due to the volume of traffic and its speed.
• Elderly people report increasing social isolation (before the pandemic) as they are unwilling to leave their homes, other than in their cars.
• Residents are unwilling to let their children walk to schools in Hagley, or even to accompany them, due to the heavy traffic at peak times
We appreciate that DMBC is not responsible for the resolution of these problems but we do expect that they should recognise them and not take development action that will worsen them unless there are agreed mitigations in place that will, at the very least, not make the existing situation worse.