C. Walsall

Object

Representation ID: 10757

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Joseph Horton

I wish to strongly protest against the development at Calderfields, Sutton Road and Longwood Lane and Pheasey Park Farm development. I am deadly opposed to this development as I don't want to see greenbelt development around where I live for as long as I live for my children and grandchildren.

Support

Representation ID: 10918

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Gough

Land off Wilderness lane Great Barr - I would like to thank you for not including this land in the Draft Black Country Plan.As a local resident I know that the local infrastructure would be unable to cope with the plans

Object

Representation ID: 11461

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Vanes

You state that the borough has one of the worst health and well being issues impacting on life expectancy, why then are you removing valuable farming land which could/should provide us with local and fresh vegetables/corn/wheat ,the fields around the borough aid the removal of the high levels of traffic pollution from the main roads which appear to be sited on many of the new developments in the plan , local schools and healthcare is already stretched, Walsall hospital has a failing CQC status already, surely adding more people to the stretched resources will reduce health and well being further?

Comment

Representation ID: 12075

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Gary Flint

The report and sites identified need to be more balanced, at present Walsall will stand to lose the most green belt as Walsall is the greenest borough out of all Black Country boroughs

Object

Representation ID: 13636

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Leslie Hanson

Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed development of: Reedswood Town Park open space, former Reedswood Golf Course, Pouk Hill green public open space, and the public open space located north of Churchill Road & the Jane Lane School and as a request for you act / vote on my behalf against the proposal.
The proposed development will remove much needed and loved open spaces in the area, that are vital to the environment and people's mental health and wellbeing. They allow residents to re-connect with the natural environment close to home and help escape the stresses of urban life. They were areas of critical importance during the lock-down restrictions and continue to provide residents with external spaces for recreation.
The proposed sites, especially Pouk Hill and the public open space north of Churchill Road / JAne Lane School should be removed from any future development proposals , as these spaces offer a vital noise and "green lung" barrier to residents living so close to the much congested and polluting M6 motorway. Even Walsall Councils own ADMS-Urban Air Quality Model shows how these areas already exceed the acceptable levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees and shrubs to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In an time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our mental health, it seems ludicrous to be tearing down these open spaces for development.
Our local area is already so highly built-up that these spaces are all the more precious, and whilst we do understand the need for more housing, building in already densely built-up areas, is irresponsible. Residents in this area lack green and open spaces more than other parts of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses will be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13697

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Jane Edwards

I moved into Aldridge from Rushall [Redacted- sensitive information] I have noticed since that time the decline in quality of life yes it is a lovely part of Walsall to live and unfortunately this seems to make it the go to place to build at the expense of the residents my objections are in no particular order
- an extensive amount of green space has gone over the years reducing places for children to play and wildlife to be
- The infrastructure is so congested it is very difficult to move around. Aldridge is bumper to Bumper traffic most times of the day
- Morrison's for much longer than the current situation was approved has had empty shells and Sir are too many people trying to shop shops won't cope with more people please don't build these too
- how will gp's schools dentists cope
- I am worried about the effects of car fumes etc due to the amount of traffic. I don't go out during school hours as it is So difficult to get out of Aldridge
- the community I believe in the main are extremely upset and angry about this
By building in Aldridge you are not addressing the inequalities in the rest of the borough the town centre lots of Bloxwich, Darlaston etc have lots of deprivation if there is a new build then build these luxury family developments there. Put more money into those areas change the balance of the population give them a chance to see their areas improve. also more footfall to shops
- you are keeping the haves and have nots in the borough
- Look for more black sites to build it might be more expensive to make safe but worth it in the long run
- I don't believe for a second this is being done for the good of residents but is a decision made on greed this will be terrible for residents the only interest is money for developers.
- The builds in other areas of the borough are tokenistic we might look like we have a lot of green, empty land but this is being used
- local councillors do not support this

Object

Representation ID: 13721

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Carter

My first objection is in regard to the ratio of land to be developed at Streetly to that in Pelsall and the number of homes to be built at these sites:
Streetly 42 hectares with 960 homes
Pelsall 13 hectares with 580 homes
Surely the Pelsall site is less than a third the size of the Streetly site and should therefore have the equivalent number of around 290 homes and not double that figure i.e. the 580 allocated
I can only conclude that these new dwellings planned at the Pelsall site will be designed as more densely populated accommodation and advertised as waterfront properties which face onto the canal.
My second objection is that a new Yorks Bridge at Pelsall has been proposed for many years now as the current bridge is narrow, has blind approaches on both sides and was closed when a [Redacted] car driver struck the parapet wall recently, demolishing part of the bridge. I imagine that the majority of residents will welcome the installation of a canal crossing which is safe to use, conveniently sited for the new development and fit for purpose in the 21st century. However, unless a weight restriction is applied to the new bridge, HGV drivers will take advantage of the shortcut from the A5 to Walsall M5/M6 junctions avoiding Brownhills and Bloxwich thus increasing heavy goods traffic through Pelsall village. We have been given no assurances that any such restrictions will be implemented.
if 580 new homes are built here in Pelsall, what plans are in place to meet the educational needs for primary and junior age school children for example? The three existing schools would not be able to cope with an influx of over 1000 children potentially. In fact the existing schools have struggled to cater for those requiring places in recent years. Temporary, prefabricated wooden buildings have gradually been replaced by brick built extensions to Ryders Hayes School but this has not increased capacity significantly. The much older facility in Old Town lane has seen the replacement of the original roof but no new provision has been proposed for future expansion to my knowledge
The amenities at Saint Michael's school have been improved recently but the site does not allow further buildings to be accommodated to enable more pupils to be enrolled and educated at the establishment.
Finally I would add that new housing would be welcome in my view of a plan for long term development around Pelsall were communicated clearly enabling residents to engage in discussions to benefit everyone.
I look forward to being contacted about the Local Plan in due course

Object

Representation ID: 13808

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Lockley

Having lived in Pelsall for [Redacted-GDPR], I have seen a considerable amount of change to the area. Housing estates have been built around our already busy village. The roads are often congested with traffic and our streets and neighbourhoods are experiencing more and more anti-social behaviour.
The proposed area of development will only increase these issues.
I'm certain that there are more brownfield areas that could be developed instead of using greenfield land. The impact of more housing around our village will not only spoil our greenbelt but impact on the wellbeing of all the people who live here.
Haven't we been asked to plant more trees. Be outdoors more, enjoying our countryside. How can we be when it's being eroded by developers.

Object

Representation ID: 13814

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Len Stone

Pelsall was a lovely small village now it's over crowded and this will make it a lot worse GPs full schools full no where to park really hope this is stopped

Object

Representation ID: 13853

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Robinson

Road infrastructure in Pelsall and Rushall already struggles in rush hour. Even without extensive development in the Pelsall and Brownhills area, there can be queues with Rushall at or before 0730 of 500m, occasionally more. Housing development in S Staffs and Cannock Chase area will only add to it.
Why is the Yorks Bridge development intended to be the most densely built up area?
This exercise demonstrates that Green Belt protection is an empty gesture until someone wants the land.
When Cannock Chase reviews its housing plan, or S Staffs, will even more houses need to be built when they seek neighbouring authorities' assistance?
The Fordbrook is a potential flooding source to the fields proposed being built on.

Object

Representation ID: 13874

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Davis

Number of people: 2

Today, I discovered that there is a plan to build 5,500 properties on Green Belt areas.
I am utterly shocked, ANGRY, sad, and dismayed.
I have lived in Shelfield for 30yrs plus and now have reached retirement.
We picked Shelfield as a home to bring our children up as there was an abundance of green open spaces for them to explore where they learnt to respect and learn about nature. We lived opposite an urban forest where our children and friends spent many happy days building dens and the neighbours children played cricket.
they will carry these memories for the rest of their lives.
In the future there should be more green belt area for everyone to enjoy. THAT IS WHAT LIFE IS ABOUT. Who decided that green belt areas are to be built on HOW DARE THEY!
new homes are needed - yes, but they can be built on Brown belt areas.
There is too much Toxins in the atmosphere already and the plans that is proposed is absolutely Madness you cannot go around bulldozing green belt areas and not expect DIRE consequences.
I say EMPHATICALLY NO to destroying green areas.

Object

Representation ID: 13899

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Kathryn Dugmore (relihan)

AS A RESIDENT OF PELSALL I STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY DEVELOPMENT ON ANY OF THE GREEN BELT LAND.

Object

Representation ID: 13997

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Byrne

Firstly my objection is to the ongoing disregard for designated green belt land in general and particularly in this area. As a resident of Walsall for most of 70+ years, I have been a proud user of our green belt land, and applaud Walsall borough council for the maintenance of such.
Secondly it would appear that all previous acceptance of objections to this plan has been overturned without due recourse. This has happened on previous occasion and suggests "underhand" means.
Thirdly the building of 600 homes in a conservation area is irresponsible as much of this area is subject to flooding and has no current access to local infrastructure. To right these issues would require substantial building work to the surrounding area, thus impinging on even more green belt land, impacting local wildlife and destroying habitat irreplaceably.
Fourthly, there are many brownfield sites within the borough which are in dire need of redevelopment. A more sustainable way of providing new homes is to use these sites.

Object

Representation ID: 14084

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Amarjit Grewal

I object to the use of the greenbelt land and parks being identified for future housing and development.
On many different levels this is wrong.
1. At a time when green issues/the environment is so crucial for our future.
2. Parks, in particular Reedswood Park was given to Walsall by the Earl of Bradford in late 1800's.

It is important to families as a place to go, free of charge within walking distance. A day out, a picnic, a walk for friends and family.
It was an essential part of growing up for me. It has already lost a swimming pool, tennis courts and green bowls area. Leave the park alone. Families with no gardens need it as a vital and essential part of family life.

Object

Representation ID: 14110

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gwendolyn Brookes

Pelsall is and should remain a village. I and my family strongly object to re-development which impacts on our community. We have brownfield areas more easily accessible which would would further improve thoze places whilst still retaining the greenbelt in our village.
We struggle for school placements, GPs to serve the community and heavy traffic at present, so to proceed with these plans would make a ridiculous situation become unmanagable.
Planning authorities should give total consideration to the feelings of Pelsall Residents, we do not want our village which was alikened to "Emmerdale" being changed beyond recognition into "Eastenders"
Please do not allow this plan to go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 14140

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Brookes

Pelsall has been a village since its beginning, under these proposed plans we would be the size of a town.
We are a very close community and by taking our greenbelt status and bringing in large numbers of people into our village the whole place its identity and population will become saturated and unrecognisable. Pelsall people are passionate about their heritage which will be destroyed forever by these plans. It must be stopped.

Object

Representation ID: 14151

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Whitehouse

May I say that me objection the road infrastrure us not suitable for the proposal my are of Shire Oak, is is at breaking point now without new estates being built in accident black spots I suggest that these so called planners get away from building with Lego and look at the real world. I realise that people need houses but suggest more thought should be taken. Like the planners who have spent stupid amounts of money building what looks like a bus terminal in Brownhills High Street. I have lived here all my life like my parents and feel sad, that this green land is under sight of being destroyed by unknowlegeble planners:

Object

Representation ID: 14183

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs J. Wendy Berry

I strongly object to the proposals for new housing as greenbelt land in Pelsall and Shelfield. We already have far too much traffic coming through our village daily and are unable to see GP's as they are so overwhelmed. Our Schools are at bursting point and bringing more people to the area will only make this much worse. Building new infrastructure, gp surgeries, schools, shops, etc. would again make this worse and destroy the village even more including making shops/businesses that have been here for dozens of years redundant. More housing on greenbelt land would also destroy the abundance of wildlife and nature in the area leading to more of an impact on the environment, C02 reduction etc etc. There are many Brownfield sites elsewhere in the country that should be considered first.

Object

Representation ID: 14184

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Derek Pugh

An objection to development on green field sites, no specific sites raised.

Object

Representation ID: 14322

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Andy Burns

I am completely opposed to the plans to build on green belt sites on the Streetly border.
As a resident of Streetly the infrastructure is overwhelmed as it is & adding to it does not constitute a positive move forward.
One of the reasons I choose to live in Streetly is because of the green belt areas.
The country is urged to go green, how on earth is this a step forward?

Object

Representation ID: 14531

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Biney Singh

The planned development in my area concerns me greatly.
The proposed plans will have a catastrophic impact on the local infrastructure, environment, health and wellbeing.
Sutton Rd can not cope with congestion at this moment in time with increased traffic it would have devastating effects on all surrounding roads.
Sutton Rd residents would have to deal with increased level of noise and traffic pollution and loose it’s appealing green space.
There will also be serious implications to the wildlife habitat in this local area. The green space, nature and wildlife should be protected.
I am strongly against these ideas, Sutton Rd needs speed cameras that actually work in order to prevent careless drivers who do speeds in-excess of 80mph at times.
I have many time witnessed drivers speeding and overtaking driving into on coming traffic. This is what needs to be addressed this is what should be on top of the agenda before such actions result in loss of life. Damage limitation prevent this before it’s too late.

Object

Representation ID: 14741

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Ellen Jones

Reedswood Park
It would be criminal to cut down the trees and build on this green space we need our parks for our well-being

Object

Representation ID: 14831

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Hayley Myford

Number of people: 3

Part of the document table30-Walsall growth targets for housing and employment land allocations
I am emailing to object to the above proposal. [redacted] part of the draw to this area was the lovely rural setting. The green space around our estate is the lungs and heart of our community. The fact that you want to destroy this, is devastating on a massive scale.
...
At the same time , the conservation area in great barr is being assessed and the fact that it is deemed to have no connection, is an absolute insult to the residents in Great Barr .
The loss that we will suffer with your proposal is massive, outdoor and green spaces are paramount to the health and well being of our community. This is also damaging to the wildlife that we enjoy and their habitat.
[redacted]. We have a school [redacted] which causes us so many problems with cars , parking and road blockages. This little estate does not have the infrastructure for around another 2000 more cars and people. You will suffocate us in a world where climate change is paramount, we need these spaces for physical and mental health. You’re lack of endgame to with the residents of this area proves that your interests lay with the money side of this proposal and the people don’t count. This is a disgrace the way it has been handled and it’s sheer lack of consideration to the residents it will affect.
We want to see horses not houses, green fields and wildlife, not streams of traffic billowing out exhaust fumes. You will kill this community with this proposal and for this reason I object to this plan and any other future plans to destroy our beloved green space.
... we object strongly to this proposed plan and any other future plans.

Object

Representation ID: 14931

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Derek Chapman

Number of people: 2

I am emailing to object to the above proposal. [Redacted-GDPR] part of the draw to this area was the lovely rural setting. The green space around our estate is the lungs and heart of our community. The fact that you want to destroy this, is devastating on a massive scale.
The worst issue of this proposal, is your lack of decency towards the people it is going to affect the most. This area has a big population of elderly residents, some of whom have lived here for over 50 years. The way you have handled this proposal, completely discriminates against this section of our community and excludes them from having any input.
Sadly I believe that you have deliberately dealt with this in such a way, that you would receive the least objections to this proposal. At the same time , the conservation area in great barr is being assessed and the fact that it is deemed to have no connection, is an absolute insult to the residents in Great Barr .
The loss that we will suffer with your proposal is massive, outdoor and green spaces are paramount to the health and well being of our community. This is also damaging to the wildlife that we enjoy and their habitat.
I live on [Redacted-GDPR] We have a school on
the beacon road, which causes us so many problems with cars , parking and road blockages. This little estate does not have the infrastructure for around another 2000 more cars and people. You will suffocate us in a world where climate change is paramount, we need these spaces for physical and mental health. You’re lack of endgame to with the residents of this area proves that your interests lay with the money side of this proposal and the people don’t count. This is a disgrace the way it has been handled and it’s sheer lack of consideration to the residents it will affect.
We want to see horses not houses, green fields and wildlife, not streams of traffic billowing out exhaust fumes. You will kill this community with this proposal and for this reason I object to this plan and any other future plans to destroy our beloved green space.
I am also objecting on behalf of mr & Mrs Derek Chapman, [Redacted-GDPR]. They are [Redacted-GDPR]and have been excluded from this process due to lack of internet access. To treat the elderly in our communities in this way is disgusting, we object strongly to this proposed plan and any other future plans

Object

Representation ID: 15279

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Andrews

We [redacted] are really concerned and upset that hearing there are plans to destroy and build on the greenery accross from us.
One of the main reasons of us buying this house was to have that space across from us so we could appericate the view, Have a place we could use for walks, exercise, family time and just a pleasant place to be. Especially with the recent lockdowns and pandemic without spaces such as this local to families such as ours it would of been a lot more traumatising and draining [redacted]. Not only are these plans going to effect us but they will also effect the wide range of wildlife that have taken it as home. We have [redacted] that visit and live by the brooke. There is such a range in our street from young families, elderly couples and singletons. And this space is accessible and useful to all. It is kept well by the locals and clearly respected and used by all. Please DONT DESTROY IT.

Object

Representation ID: 15326

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Serena Ellis

We completely object to the buildings being proposed. So many families including ours regularly take our children to play on the fields and walk our dogs. That also goes for the large number of dog walkers etc from surrounding streets. To think of what our street would be like for such a long time at building works, the constent lorries and trucks coming in and out and the amount of dust etc. Not to mention all of the wildlife that lives within these area's fields including birds such as [Redacted-sensitive information] Where would they all go if the grass and trees are ripped out? Not only that having some 'green area' and space helps people with physical health and supports mental health and well being.
The traffic in Coronation Road, Fordbrook Lane leading to Pelsell is already absolutely ridicoious. Can you image an axtra 763 cars in the mornings and evenings It really is such a shame that you are proposing to remove sites from the greenbelt and are trying to build on any little bit of green area we have left.

Object

Representation ID: 15332

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Terry Massey

Will join local areas together High Heath, Pelsall & Shelfield
Traffic volumes, unable to cope now
Volume of proposed development far to great which will most likely be 80% social housing
[redacted]

Object

Representation ID: 15347

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Terry Unitt

As a resident of [redacted], 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 Midlands, Andy Street, that building on green-belt land is now not on the Governments agenda.
The wedge of green belt land on the junction of Middlemore Lane West and Bosty Lane, which is
bounded by Daw End railway cutting, is unsuitable for development for the following reasons: -
1. The site is adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (5551), please see attached Defra plan below.
This is an ancient site as documented on Walsall Council's website, please see - https://go.walsall.gov.uk/parks and green spaces/conservation and the environment/sites of special scientific interest sssis/daw end railway cutting
'The old quarry and railway cuttings at Daw End provide excellent exposures on Wenlock Shale (Coalbrookdale Formation) and the overlying Wenlock Limestone which were deposited during the Silurian Period about 410 million years ago.
These are the best exposures available in Britain for this particular group of rocks. During deposition of the Wenlock Limestone marine organisms grew in patches on the sea bed trapping sediment and forming low mounds or reefs. These patch reefs are well seen in the Wenlock Limestone at this site. This is an important geological locality for the study of the Wenlock Series in Britain.
2. Any development on this important sensitive site would comprise the existing delicate eco­structure and be extremely detrimental to the wildlife and to the historic flora and fauna of the site and area generally.
3. Heavy industrial goods traffic on the roads bordering the site, makes access to the site difficult. Access to the Middlemore Lane Industrial estate from Bosty Lane is restricted and can only be accessed by a single-track bridge. This already causes significant tailbacks along the section of Middlemore Lane West onto Bosty Lane.
Furthermore, the use of this route by heavy goods traffic is set to increase when the proposed Council recycling centre on Middlemore Lane opens.
4. The junction of Middlemore Lane West and Bosty Lane has been the cause of numerous serious accidents, with some incidents involving the deployment of the air ambulance service. Development on this site will increase traffic at this junction and would be likely to create a high number of incidents without significant improvements to the highway, including the potential to construct a new double-track road bridge over the railway.
The development of this green belt site will create additional environmental air pollution and exacerbate the existing noise pollution from the container base.
6. Very limited public transport services in the area, with the local bus service providing a­ maximum service of two busses per hour. There are currently no public rail links in the area.
7. The green belt creates an important natural division-between the parishes of Aldridge and Rushall and prevents coalescence. This land provides a much-needed haven for wildlife, and currently includes a haven for several horses which graze the pasture and provides a buffer zone to the SSSI.
[plan included in original response]

Object

Representation ID: 15392

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shelia Bullock

I would like to file my objection to the development planned for the green belt land on Doe Bank Lane.
This is a vast area which stretches over to the Aldridge road and down the Queslett road. The proposal of building over 900 houses will have a adverse impact to the area. The facilities such as dentist, doctors, schools are already vastly over stretched in this area. This development will have a negative impact on the amount of traffic causing more congestion to the Queslett road and increasing more vehicles driving through the Pheasey Estate.
It is already used as a short cut onto the other main roads. We already have problems with congestion and parking around the near by schools. The wild life habitats will be destroyed, this area has always been farm land and a conservation and green belt area. The views have been unspoilt and admired for years by local residences. The Lane is used by dog walkers and families to access entrance to Doe Bank park. Further down the Lane has become very popular with people stabling their horses. I have been a resident on the Pheasey Estate for over 65 years and have always felt comfortable with my surroundings and accepted the changes to the area. But this development will cause
*****SOME TEXT MISSING********

Comment

Representation ID: 15439

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Ellie Lilly

Okay Boris has pledged to not build on green land, so is this being dropped now then???