Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 13245

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ms and Mr Lucy and Paul Harrington and Cicerella

Number of people: 2

I object to all of it, mostly the housing development sites to be built on green belt land. I object to the building on of the sites - Homes Farm (Sandhill), Yieldfields Farm (Bloxwich), Queslett Road East/ Aldridge Road (Streetly), Sutton Road/ Longwood Lane (Pheasey Park Farm), Yorks Bridge (Pelsall), Coronation Road/ Mob Lane (Aldridge North/ Walsall Wood), Calderfields/ Aldridge Road (St Matthews), Bentley Lane (Short Heath), Johnsons Farm, Meadow Farm/ Watling Street (Brownhills)
The reason I object - I think we should be preserving what little there is of green belt land, not destroying by building houses on it. There's no denying we are destroying the world and and acts like this are not helping. I strongly oppose it on ecological grounds, there's no counting how many animals (including bugs and insects) homes will get destroyed in the process and how bad the knock on effect will be for wildlife.
Also I am completely opposed to the cutting down of healthy trees for the same reasons above.
People who do these kind of things have no respect for the life they are destroying why is it never a consideration. I cannot explain enough how against this I am

Object

Representation ID: 13294

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jake Stanton

My objection is to the proposed building sites in Shelfield (coronation rd/ mob lane) & Yorks Bridge Pelsall.
Me, my wife and two children are home owners in Shelfield. My two boys attend primary school. Our first reaction to the news was the amount of added traffic to the ever growing traffic in the Pelsall/ Shelfield area. Lichfield road, fordbrode and the village are mayhem in peak times as of late, adding 1,343 houses into the equation is ludicrous. The pressure it will also put on local schools and doctors will be a disaster. My eldest son already has to have a split class of 45 due to drowning in attendance. Not to mention never getting a doctors appointment. 5 days of the week the Coronation fields is my route to run from the back railway track. This is one of the last local greenbelts we have left. The most upsetting part is the impact on the environment. We have an amazing wildlife in Shelfield, maple drive, grange crescent, coronation road, the common, west common. The fact this proposal to lift the greenbelt is even an option is disgusting. We need to protect our planet which is currently crying for help. This is not the way!

Object

Representation ID: 13350

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Trout

OBJECTION TO BLACK COUNTRY PLAN IN GENERAL + PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR OBJECTIONS TO 1 SITE IN PARTICULAR.
Local Authority- Walsall Council
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 the 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 (SSSI), 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 eco-structure 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.

5. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 13370

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Councillor Khizar Hussain

I wish to put forward my objection and my opposition to the proposals set out in the Black Country Plan, specifically around the Pouk Hill Close Urban Forrest, Old Golf Course next to Reedswood Park and Land Adjacent to Reedswood Way.
The proposals will destroy a natural habitat around these areas that has developed over many years. The destruction of these habitats and the ecology in this area is detrimental to the residents that live in this area. The biodiversity is enjoyed by many residents and destroying it through development of this land is contrary to the wishes of the people of Birchills.
The land is of great benefit to the health and wellbeing of the residents of Birchills and Pleck. The land – all three areas mentioned above – is extensively used by residents and their children. The development on this land will remove this enjoyment but more seriously the benefit to the mental wellbeing willalso be lost. At a time where mental health and wellbeing is so important, it is unacceptable that such an amenity is taken away from the people of this area.
The land around Reedswood that is in the proposal acts as a protection against the pollution that comes from the Motorway. The removal and development of this land will therefore negatively impact on the health of the children and the residents of the area. This particularly important when considering that many of my constituents suffer from lung related illnesses such as COPD and Asthma. They deserve to have their green open space protected.
The area of Birchills is already built up with many development happening at the moment. It is grossly unfair and unequal by developing further on the few green and open spaces that are left in this area for the benefit of the residents.
Finally and crucially there is no support at all for the development of this land and without public support and confidence in the process this should not go ahead. The
consultation process itself has been very poor with many residents expressing their anger and astonishment at the lack of awareness about the development. In addition to this and to add further insult there has been no ‘drop in’ session in this area unlike other ‘more prosperous’ areas of the borough. This is therefore seen rightly as an unequal and discriminatory process by the people of Birchills and Reedswood.
I would be grateful if you would include these comments into the consultation process and acknowledge receipt of this submission.

Object

Representation ID: 13384

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Hazel and Brian Gillham

Number of people: 2

Black Country Plan Sites WAH237 &WAH 253
I would like to raise these objections on viewing the planning proposals on the above project.
we are well acquainted with it's usage of traffic access and drainage problems with reference to sewerage and storm drainage all of these are at full capacity as at present.
The builder had great difficulty in gaining the license for the pumping station from Seven Trent water authority and it was sanctioned on the understanding it was fully loaded and could not be added too. When you build houses on the field opposite to where we live it will raise drainage problems.

We are objecting to the usage of valuable farming land for growing crops to build housing when other brown field site are available.

The volume of traffic on Stonnall Rd and Lazyhill is- at a very high volume and speeds limit of 30 miles per hour are total ignored therefore it is beyond comprehension for the safety for everyone. Increasing traffic will only make it worse.

Medical services are already limited.
The lack of shopping facilities and parking at Lazyhill and in Aldridge make daily life difficulty. I understand Education could be a problem as well.
No playing areas or facilities for children are near Stonnall Road only in Aldridge or Greenwod Rd less

Object

Representation ID: 13395

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Shokt Fazal

[Site Ref: WAH244]
Afternoon, I formally object to any greenfield development in Birchills such as black Country urban forest, reedswood Park and churn Hill Rd open space.
As vice chair of Birchills agenda 21 and local residient I fully support cllr Lee Jeavons, cllr Richard Worrall,
goldfinch planning services submissions.
Our local area is already fully developed we need to keep the green lungs for environmental reasons.

Object

Representation ID: 13425

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: James Ball

(WAH236, WAH240)
I understand that the B.C.P proposes to build a housing estate on the wedge of land bordered by Norton Road/ Lichfield Road.
My first position is that Pelsall has already had its fair share of expansion over the last 20 years & existing services are struggling to cope.
My second position is the volume of traffic on Norton Road/ Wolverhampton Road, we currently have temp traffic lights outside our home due to bridge repairs due to damage by the volume of traffic.
If we have to have this development I suggest access to this estate is via Norton Road by Gorsey Road, the developers will also need to consider replacing the bridge at / pg 72/74 Lichfield Road 2 at Norton Road adjacent to the public house.

Comment

Representation ID: 13453

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Due to the size restriction for accepting emails this representation has been split in to 6 documents sent in 5 emails as follows:

Email Documents
1 1 and 2 of 6 (Forms, Main Representation and Vision Document)
2 3 of 6 (Development Options Document 2021)
3 4 of 6 (LVIA)
4 5 of 6 (LVIA Addendum 2021)
5 6 of 6 (Landscape Sensitivity Review)

These representations are made by Cerda Planning on behalf of Bloor Homes Midlands in relation to a site at Stencils Farm.

1. Executive Summary
1.1. The Black Country Plan fails to deliver anywhere close to its identified housing need,
with a reliance on neighbouring authorities to deliver homes that are needed now within
the Black Country. The reliance on such an approach without a firm commitment from
all of the neighbouring authorities is not considered to be a sound approach to plan
making. Especially when sites such as Stencils Farm are available within the plan area
without any significant constraints to development.
1.2. There are clear errors in the evidence which underpins the plan, in particular within the
individual Site Assessments which themselves justify the proposed housing allocations.
These errors and inconsistency in the application of evidence in the assessments is a
significant and fundamental flaw of the plan.
1.3. The Stencils Farm site is not subject to any ‘Gateway Constraints’ that would prevent its
development. The harms attributed to the site within the evidence are misleadingly
overstated and there are no substantive reasons for the site not to be allocated for
development. The allocation of Stencils Farm site would enable the Black Country
Authorities to reduce its housing delivery deficit and move closer to meeting its critical
need for new homes without any demonstrable negative impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 13456

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Hobley

[Part 1]
Site: Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road [WAH250, WSA8]
I object to the green belt being destroyed to meet a target when there are brownfield sites available. It appears target and profit are the main aim of this huge development.
- The aim to put on average 4000 people on that site will put further strain on our services. Our schools health services are over subscribed. Where will the people living at this site access services?
- Wildlife – there are birds of prey and trees that will be destroyed during this development. Green belt protects wildlife and that will not be considered during a major build.
- Overpopulated areas increase crime, stress. Thre pandemic has shown us what overpopulated areas go through with regards to impact on health
- Pollution – as you are aware Aldridge Road has significant traffic delays. This would increase further with more car owners being brought to the area. Air quality will suffer which will impact existing residents, new residents and children that use the schools. Drains in Streetly often overflow during heavy rain, current system would not cope with demand.
[Part 2]
Impact on health and quality of life for existing residents. We are aware developers will not focus on preserving the quality of life for the current community. The development will impact on the existing residents emotionally, physically and socially.
Emotionally – to watch your community change dramatically without being able to influence it causes distress and loss. To watch land being dug up and nature being destroyed never to return leaves people feelings powerless and low. During the pandemic our green spaces got us through, now they are being taken to meet a target. Living next to green space cannot be viewed as a luxury but a necessity for good health.
Physically – our schools are oversubscribed. Putting a few thousand more children into the area will cause children to have to travel out of area to go to school. This increases traffic further and impacts on local connections and relationships.
Our GPs and hospital cannot meet demand. It is difficult to get an appointment with a GP. Increasing demand by thousands of people will impact on our elderly residents’ health.
Social Impact – It is well document overpopulated areas increase crime, anti-social behaviour and impact on the quality of life due to need not being met by local services. Existing residents have worked hard to reach the quality of life they currently have. The fear of losing community connections is apparent, as this is common in busy built-up estates. We are aware developers will dismiss these needs as irrelevant but this development will change our community forever by people (the developers) that will leave once the damage is done.

Object

Representation ID: 13524

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Mr William Trout

As a resident of , 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 (SSSI), 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/sit es of special scientific interest sssis/daw end railway cutting
'The old quarry and railway cuttings at Dow 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 eco-structure 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.
5. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 13545

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Christine Higgins

I object the plans that will ruin Aldridge. There are lots of brown field sites. It’s green belt you are
destroying and there is no going back. We are all upset

Object

Representation ID: 13547

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

It is considered that the proposed allocations within the Walsall borough do not go far enough to meet the necessary housing provision over the plan period.

Some of the proposed Strategic Allocations are questionable. WAH231 (Policy WSA6) is constrained by its access for a proposed development of 202 houses. The site has just recently been allocated as a SLINC. Developing at the proposed housing density will unequivally destroy the site's capability to act as a nature conservation. The validity of SLINCs will also be compromised if this site is developed for residential purposes. It is surprising to see the local authority simultaenously designate land for nature conservation and large-scale residential development.

There are undoubtedly sites better suited to residential development within the immediate vicinity of WAH231. One of these is Call for Sites submission 10215 - Land to the East of Longwood Lane, I act as agent for this site. We provided a masterplan to demonstrate how the site could accomodate 95 dwellings (sent to on 28th April 2021).

10215 benefits from far better access than WAH231 and is not designated as a SLINC, it is unclear why, and on what basis, WAH231 was selected ahead of 10215.

Should WAH231 be retained, it is entirely logical that 10215 would also be allocated for residential development as it fills a gap betwen WAH231 and WAH252 and is deliverable within 5 years.

I would kindly ask that WAH231 is looked at again and 10215 is considered as either: an alternate allocation to WAH231, an allocation in addition to WAH231, or a reserve allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 13568

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Silverbrick (Clayhanger)

Agent: Silverbrick (Clayhanger)

Please find attached our representations to the Draft Black Country Plan (Regulation 18) consultation.

These representations are made by Cerda Planning on behalf of Silverbrick (Clayhanger) Limited in relation to land north of Northfields Way, Clayhanger (proposed allocation WAH239).

In addition to the written representations themselves, please also find a link to provide access to a suite of technical reports which support the representations.

Object

Representation ID: 13589

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Audrey Judson

Totally against building of any dont on green belt land and farm land.
Do not agree any buildings on Common Land. Bloxwich, Walsall, Aldridge.
Reclaimed old residential property sites, to be used for buildings new houses Brownfield industrial sites made useful for factories and business premises.
Amenities - bus routes to cover larger estates - also Doctors surgery,
Pharmacy - shops - schools - infanct - junior and senior or pre school nursery.
No houses built on previously contaminated land!
All houses should be a mixture of different sizes and designs.
First time buyers - apartment and rental aswell as 3 and 4 bedroom houses.
Houses need greenspace - no concrete driveways!?
Important space given for green areas among houses - with many trees planted among houses - planted for cleaner air and less pollution - necessary for a thriving environment.

Object

Representation ID: 13602

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julia Moyse

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to raise my objections to the proposed plan to build houses on the greenbelt alongside Walsall Arboretum.
This site supports a large range of wildlife [sensitive information redacted]. Surely in these times of destruction of biodiversity and concerns around climate change, such and project is outdated. Please protect our greenbelt and build on brownfield sites.

Yours sincerely,

Julia Moyse

Object

Representation ID: 13607

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Gurpreet Singh

I totally object to building houses on the plot of Calderfields Farm, Walsall.
Traffic is already horrendous even after highway improvements. If you add 400+ houses which means an extra 400-800 cars, then it is going be even worse. The smallest of roadworks or incident and the traffic even at quiet times gets very bad. Also the USP's of living in this area will be diminished leaving the ones already living here with houses which for me would be decreased in value as USP of this quiet area would have gone. People enjoy the farm from the footpath between Argyle road and Mellish road as well as the Arboretum. By building on this plot you really are destroying the only place of outside enjoyment in Walsall.
The Streetly site and Pheasey Park farm would be far better alternatives to the Calderfields site. In particular Streetly as the roads around there are wider and in some cases two lanes either way.

Object

Representation ID: 13615

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Jackson

1. Greenbelt should be preserved at all costs
2 Has anyone carried out a survey with regard to our ability to feed the population without importing food?
3 Climate change concerns make preservation of Green Belt a top priority
4 Young people should not be confined to huge areas of urban jungle they need clean air
5 Pollution - Newtown and surrounding areas of Brownhills Castings is a major source of pollution in this area. Who receives the disgusting odours/ chemicals is subject to wind direction, weather conditions etc
We also have traffic using the A5 and the Toll Road on the other side of Newtown, Quatro using the rail sidings.
6 Local people are concerned at what appear to be high numbers of cancer cases in our area
7 We have [Redacted-sensitive information] living in our area as well as birds. You can't expect them to discover where they can exist in the future. There are a lot of horses - they need fields and hay. Leave the countryside alone and look at town centres where shops are closing with a view to providing homes

Object

Representation ID: 13632

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Parminder Tanda

Site Ref: WAH 234 (Columba Park - Aldridge Road) WAH 246 (Chester Road)

I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of 960 homes across the Aldridge Rd/Queslett Road East site. The development will destroy our precious green belt land. It will create traffic congestion in an already busy area. The increased traffic will create air pollution which can lead to health conditions such as asthma or exacerbate them further. It will put pressure on the services in the area such as GP and schools. It will destroy the wildlife that depends on the green fields. I think the council should look at other alternatives for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 13659

Received: 28/10/2021

Respondent: Lauren Harrison

I strongly oppose the development on Stonnall road/ Lazy Hill for a number of reasons.

My family have lived on Stonnall Road for 3 generations now, directly opposite the proposed development site.
If the development goes ahead it will cause distress and destruction to our family and surrounding members of our community. My grandfather has lived here since 1977, raising his children and grandchildren at the property - something he worked his whole life for. He is now reaching his 80s and would have his final years in the midst of a building site, with constant noise, dust and other major disruption that comes along with building so many houses, so close to our beloved home.

If such a large development was to go ahead, I fear the amount of cars could possibly be in the excess of 800+ ( given 2 cars per household) - Stonnall road is already widley used by daily commuters and at times like a race track. How would a road, originally designed to be a quiet lane, cope with this much traffic? Leading on to the already trecacherous junction that leads on to the chester road. The chester road has countless accidents a year, by adding more traffic to this stretch of road, you will be endagering more lives.

Aswell as the amount of cars, the amount of people moving into the area will put strain on our already full schools, doctros and general infrastructure. If these plans are to go ahead, we would need more junior and senior schools. more doctors, dentists, police - we already have our police stretched to limits - how do you expect them to cope with an extra 3200+ people in our community? (assuming 4 people per household)

On another note, the proposed development is on the Green Belt. We should be protecting our enviroment, not destroying more land for human use. Myself and countless neighbours walk these feilds daily- with land owners permission. There are constant reports of wildlife and rare birds that call these feilds home - where do you expect these animals to live? We have already pushed so many animals our of their natural enviroments, with the world in chaos and dying around us, should our focus be on more housing on our green belt?

I urge you to reconsider these plans, and think of our community that already live here and the uproar it will cause.

Comment

Representation ID: 13665

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr James Moulson

The land opposite the houses on Grange crescent is unsuitable for building due to it being partial floodland, as well as being home to numerous amounts of wildlife including foxes, herons, deer, woodpeckers, owls & bats.

Object

Representation ID: 13669

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Kully Mann

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN –
RE: VIEWS ON BLACK COUNTRY PLAN DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIONS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST
I am writing to inform you of our strong objection to the development proposed for site WAH231,
Sutton Road/Longwood Lane which is included in the above plan. We and other current owners
consisting of 50% of this site were never consulted about the proposed development and we oppose
the proposed development plan.
The site is clearly unsuitable for the planned development due to the following reasons;
Infrastructure issues
 Sutton Road unable to cope with the increased traffic.
 Any Longwood Lane access would cause further increased traffic congestion.
 Longwood Lane has no pedestrian/cycle access.
 Severe traffic congestion at Longwood Lane/Sutton Road Junction.
 No capacity for increase in pupils at existing local schools.
 Proposed dwellings per hectarc (dph) of 35 out of character with local area.
Health and Wellbeing
 Serious health risk to Sutton Road residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
Especially concerned for my youngest son who has asthma and allergies.
 Increased stress to us and other residents on Sutton Road with the construction work and loss
of the Green Space surrounding us.
Environment
 Serious loss of wildlife habitat. WAH231 is a site of local importance for Nature Conservation
and should be protected.
Please can you take our concerns into account and reconsider the development for site WAH231 as it
also goes against the loss of the SLINC/Green Belt goes against the conservative, local and combined
authority pledge to protect them.
We and others voted for you because this pledge promised protection for our Greenbelt/SLINC. We
count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan.
Yours Sincerely

Object

Representation ID: 13684

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Lauren Sherwood

I am objecting the plans put forward to build on greenbelt land around Aldridge/ Shelfield , particulary the plans to build a large housing estate at the back of Coronation road/ Mob lane.
The countryside feilds and paths are used by a large number of people daily for recreation and walking routes, providing a beautiful habit for wildlife.
The local area already experiences busy roads during peak times, backing up traffic on the Lichfield road and Mill road, additional dwellings/ residents would only add to traffic, poloution and pressure on resources, do the local GPs/ Schools and other facilities have space to accomadate over 700 people ?
House prices for the surrounding homes would be lowered due to a massive council housing estate being built on their back door, something which i feel is completley unfair. People have chosen to live in the area to be close to countryside, many living there for most of their life, now people are considering selling up to avoid being close to the proposed estate.
The building plans are damaging to the community and most of all the environment, what plans do you have to accomadate all the exisiting wildlife ?
The local riding school, " Stevie Ansells" which supports many disadvantages and special needs children also uses the land around the Ackers which would be distrupted for building works.
In my eyes there is absoloutley no good that will come from building on the land, it would be a crying shame to loose the local countryside that so many inclduing myself enjoy. I personally feel it would have a detrimental impact on mine and so many others mental health to build such a large housing estate on unspoilt countryside that has been an integeral part of life to the residents of Shelfield,Pelsall and Walsall Wood.

Object

Representation ID: 13688

Received: 12/09/2021

Respondent: Kuljit Singh

REF - WAH242 (policy WSA7) - Calderfields West, land at Aldridge Road
I write to strongly object to building residential houses at the above location. I am a resident of
Buchanan Road of 6 years. The main reason I acquired the house was:
1- its location (near the Walsall Arboretum)
2 - its a no through road at the end of Buchanan Road and most importantly
3 - the view and open space around the area in question.
I have friends and relatives from Leamington, Wirral and Kensington who absolutely love that part
of the park and the farm (and its animals and wildlife).
By building houses you are spoling and destryoing one of the best parts of Walsall that remains
untouched and natural. It will also take away the attraction of the park around that area and make it
look closed.
During the lock down, the public in thousands used that area of the park due to the open space to
de-stress and relax. The rest of the park does not have the same view and is more populated.
There are plenty of Brownfield sites in Walsall and areas of Walsall that need developing more than
the Calderfield farms.
Also, especially on weekends and evenings, there are many cars on Buchanan Road due to park
traffic. By making Buchanan Road a through road will generate too much traffic, risk of accidents
(people and children coming from the park) and excessive pollution (on a small road).
I should be grateful if you could consider the above.
Regards
Mr K Singh

Object

Representation ID: 13689

Received: 28/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Leanne Marlow

My household and I would like to oppose the proposed planning of ‘new housing land’ on Reedswood Park / Golf Course / surrounding areas.

We are fast running out of green areas within the Walsall Borough and this would be a direct contridiction to the Walsall Green Space Strategy.

Whilst this may be considered a ‘cheaper’ or ‘easier’ option than THE VAST amount of brown sites,
increasing deralict buildings and countless unsightly wastelands within the area which would benefit from council funding and regeneration, at what cost would this be to the natural biodiversity, the health and wellbeing of locals and the wider air and water conditions of the
Borough? This backwards thinking is fundementally going against what the Council is arguably fighting for as part of Agenda 21.

The council specifically set out to ‘work with others to acheive a safer, clearner, greener and healthier environement for everyone in Walsall now and in the future’. Despite this, these plans are a direct contradiction of almost all of the outlined key policies; creating more traffic, increasing water, land and air polution, being instrumental in the adverse impact on the environment and taking away the limited safe areas and acceciblity for local residents to use for leisure and health related pursuits in green spaces.

An Ecological Evaluation of BC Green Belt found this site to be of ‘High Ecological Value’ and The
Wildlift Trust have also issued a report to contest the plans for housing as they deem the space to be ‘a site of importance for nature conservation’. The continuation of this project would be an insult to their work, knowledge and expertise in the ecology of our local area, not to mention a disregard to the sustantial area of semi-natural habitat itself, that is home to countless birds, mamals, insects and amphibians.

The Council aim to develop a programme ‘to involve the community in nurtuting our natural habitats, wildlife and plant life’, but how will this be possible if this is taken away from us? The hipocritial discourse surrounding these two parallels shoud be enough to stop this planning in its tracks, let alone the wider public and environmental health concerns that come hand-in-hand with such Council greed. Quick fixes may benefit the affordable housing market in the short term, but a continued disregard for the local environment and residents will only cause further long-term problems and I would like to think our Council representatives, whom we trust these important issues to, are not that short sighted.

Object

Representation ID: 13690

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alfred Jones

WAH234 Columba Park Chester Road [& WSA8]
WAH246 Chester Road

This area is already gridlocked at times of the day the extra vehicles from 960 homes would increase pressure on the road system. When Aldridge Road was closed for a short time recently for the women's cycle race Chester Road was blocked. The roads are already full to increase capacity would increase pollution and affect mental health.
The contrast of 960 houses on green belt land would put more pressure on schools, doctors and other health services. Protect our green belt and find other brownfield sites more suitable.

Object

Representation ID: 13698

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: John Williams

I object to the houses being built on the green belt,in particular the Calderfields Farm site,Walsall.I live at [location disclosed] and the Green Belt now extends from the farm site to the field immediately behind me to the Barr Beacon a few miles away.Previous applications to build in this area have failed. If houses were built immediately behind my small back garden,they would completely spoil my view which I have enjoyed since 1984. I am now a widower,aged 89, living alone,and rely on the peace and quiet and privacy of my home to cope with health matters such as covid.

Yours Faithfully
John Williams

Object

Representation ID: 13699

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Bodington

Site Ref: WAH254

I strongly object to the building on the green belt land when brown field sites are available for building of housing.

The plot 254 would completely change our small estate with only Lindrosa Road giving access to Coniston Road. Keswick & Derwent & Windermere Drive. At present.
If the proposal (WAH254) for access off Chester Road to Hardwick Road is passed, this would change our estate greatly. With more traffic using Lindrosa Road, Coniston Rd as a cut through to Hardwick Road. Lindrosa Consiton Road are only 4 metres wide and tree lined.

Object

Representation ID: 13702

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mr John Edwards

This comment is in regard to Draft Plan of Black Country Plan Regulation 18 Consultation (Aug 2021).

This comment is an objection to site WAH240and WAH238 for the below reasons
1. Infrastructure in this area does not support the creation of this 713 housing build proposal. there is already daily traffic jams within the area that tail back 1/2 to 3/4 mile. Traffic control has been amended in the area to prevent the high number of fatal and serious traffic accidents.
2. The number of houses proposed within this plan is completely unreasonable, the brown field sites within the Black Country will be more than enough to expand the population aswell as ensure that the people of Walsall are not forced to live in a poorly concieved/planned proposal that was concieved by outdated ideas. The Plan to build 713 homes in this location will build a location of misery for the occupants of the whole area.
3. Wildlife , Owls, Bats, Deer, Newts, Frogs, Migratory Birds, Foxes, Butterflies, and a host of other wildlife has made its home here this proposed build will destroy this area.
4. There is a geological fault (Vigo Fault that traverses this area.
5. This is a plan to build on a Flood Plain which will result in an expansion of this flooding affecting more homes in the locality.

Object

Representation ID: 13706

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Harbhajan Kaur

Site Ref: WAH 234 (Columba Park - Aldridge Road) WAH 246 (Chester Road)

I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of 960 homes across the Aldridge Rd/Queslett Road East site. The development will destroy our precious green belt land. It will create traffic congestion in an already busy area. The increased traffic will create air pollution which can lead to health conditions such as asthma or exacerbate them further. It will put pressure on the services in the area such as GP and schools. It will destroy the wildlife that depends on the green fields. I think the council should look at other alternatives for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 13714

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mary Edwards

Re: Strategic Allocation Policy WSA3
Site Reference WAH237/WAH253 Land north/south of Stonnall Road, Aldridge.
1. J 13.10.3 If allowed, this development would have a serious, detrimental effect on the landscape. It would permanently remove agricultural land currently used for crop production.
2. J 13.10.4 There would be a serious impact on biodiversity, and the good farming noted above supports good biodiversity. Natural habitats including trees and hedges would be destroyed. I have often heard [Redacted-Sensitive information], currently on the 'Red List' as Birds of Conservation Concern, [Redacted-Sensitive information].
3. J 13.10.7 Mineral resources. This area lies within a mineral safeguarding area and this should be safeguarded as noted in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
4. J 13.10.8 It is proposed to build about 400 new homes and this would put unacceptable extra pressure on local schools. In particular, the nearest local primary schools are already full and are at least 2 form-entry (2FE). From my experience of working with primary schools in other local authiorities, including planning for school places, and having been a governor of two primary schools, I consider that 2FE is large enough to give economy of scale but anything larger (3FE) results in a primary school of over 600 children, too large for young children.
Although I have no first-hand experience of planning for health care, I fear that this development would have a similar effect on local provision.
5. J 13.10.9 Transport. With the exception of one limited bus route (35/35A) this area is nowhere near public transport so I assume that anyone living in this proposed development would need to use a car. It is suggested that Stonnall Road would be widened as far as the development is proposed to extend. The whole road, Stonnall Road and Birch Lane, which connects downhill to the A452 Chester Road, is very narrow and has two blind corners; to make it busier at either end would make it even more dangerous than it is at present which would be completely unacceptable.
I agree with Wendy Morton MP that brownfield sites, for which 25m in government support is now available, should be developed first in preference to taking any of the Green Belt and was pleased to hear the Prime Minister support this policy in his speech of 6th October. Green Belt land is precious and must only be used in very special circumstances which are not satisfied here.