B. Sandwell

Object

Representation ID: 23050

Received: 04/02/2022

Respondent: Mr Mark Smith

Objects to proposals to build on Peak House Farm as protected by Historic Hedgerow legislation, is a SINC & thus unsuitable for housing, and confirmed archaeological remains are on site.

Support

Representation ID: 23051

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Simon

Supports exclusion of Peak House Farm from development, cites wildlife, amenity, road congestion and health infrastructure support this.
Supports leaving green belt for future generations

Support

Representation ID: 23052

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Unstated T Farren

Supports exclusion of Peak House Farm from Draft BC Plan

Object

Representation ID: 23053

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Unstated JAS Singh

Objects to development at Peak House Farm

Support

Representation ID: 23066

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Annabel Wise

Supports exclusion of Peak House Farm & Great Barr Listed parkland from BC Plan
Cites need to prevent coalescence, pollution control and congestion in area.
Further cites various NPPF paragraphs for reasons for greenbelt restraint, particularly 'very special circumstances'.

Support

Representation ID: 23110

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Williams Gallagher

Agent: Williams Gallagher

Supports clients site at Grove Lane/London Street's inclusion in Core Regeneration Area.

Object

Representation ID: 23111

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Williams Gallagher

Agent: Williams Gallagher

Objects as Smethwick AAP status unclear. Seeks explicitly 'not saved'.
Objects as Masterplan being prepared not part of evidence base for Draft BC Plan.
Objects to clients not consulted for Masterplan, despite application & interest in site SAH102, process is opaque.

Comment

Representation ID: 43837

Received: 25/02/2022

Respondent: Rev Martin Rutter

Peak House Farm (Sandwell)
I would want to support the Planning Officers in maintaining the current status. It forms a vital green corridor with the Sandwell Valley and allowing wildlife a route upto Cannock Chase. It has an historoc value of its own as expressed in the evidence.

Support

Representation ID: 45831

Received: 12/03/2022

Respondent: Nicola Richards

Number of people: 1067

Peak House Farm and surrounding area

• I support the omission of Peak House Farm , Wilderness Woods, and the Aston Uni Rec Ground
from the Draft Plan. These sites were put fo1w ard during the Call for Sites process, and I am pleased that thorough investigations have demonstrated the requirement to protect these sites from development.
• The development of these sites would have had an unacceptable impact on the surrounding area,
contravening several key principles of the Green Belt set out in National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

• Should these sites have been allocated, it would, along with neighbouring site allocations on the Walsall side of the borough boundary, merged two separate settlements in Great Barr and Walsall, compromising the community identity of these distinct areas.
• It would also have represented an unacceptable harm to existing Sites of Local Importance to Nature Conservation (SLINC), which support a wide range of flora and wildlife. They form part of an important wildlife corridor within the Black Country.
• The necessary infrastructure for the large-scale development set out in the Call for Sites
would have had a significant disruptive impact on the wider area. Traffic congestion in the Great
Barr area is a cause for concern on both a transport and health basis on residential roads, the arterial network and the motorway.
• Significant pressure from large scale developments would also be placed on education and health service infrastructure in the Great Barr area.
• There is significant public support for the retention of these sites as Green Belt. This can be demonstrated by a campaign during the Ca ll for Sites process which attracted the support of thousands of local residents.