Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 13715

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Angela Devereux

WAH234 GB1 Land between
Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and
Aldridge Road, Pheasey
Neighbourhood
Strategic Allocation Policy WSA8

Comment

Representation ID: 13718

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Laura Curran

I live very close to the proposed housing development planned in Walsall (Ref. WAH243) - overall I think developing on this piece of land is a good idea. At the moment the land is frequently used for fly tipping and random horses just get left here.

One consideration I would like to make is that, when/if this goes ahead could the developer / council widen Cartbridge Land South during this process - at the minute the road isn't wide enough for two cars to pass either side and with this proposed development it could make this road more busy with vehicles.

Object

Representation ID: 13724

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Davies

Reference to farm land on Stonnal Road, Walsall.

I live behind the fields and I chose this area on the edge of Aldridge for my quality of life. I’ve invested in my property over the years and want to do further improvements now that I am nearing retirement, you are going to stop me in my tracks. You are going to de-value my property, my quality of life and my mental health and wellbeing.

You are going to spoil the landscape, removing oxygen by pulling trees down, where does the wildlife, foxes and hedgehogs go, the escapism from built up areas and city life.

I chose this area near a green belt as I couldn’t afford to live in the countryside. This is the next best thing. If I wanted to live in the middle of a suburb or estate and be surrounding by houses don’t you think I would have done. No, I have the next best thing that my money could buy and you are taking that away from me, from everything I’ve worked for. To be able to relax in my garden and hear the birds singing and wildlife coming into the garden. But you want to ruin this for all the people who have invested in this area.

We don’t want dumper trucks, dust and noise for years to come. What about everyone’s wellbeing? What about the infrastructure, doctors, dentists, shops, roads and space. Aldridge cannot cope now. I can’t even get into my own doctors, never mind in another few years!

Look at developing old buildings, empty houses etc., to convert into houses not take more green belt areas. There are a lot of derelict buildings all over the place and such an eyesore to the many areas. There will be nothing left of any green spaces in the years to come, then how are we going to survive without trees and fields that give life and wellbeing for everyone.

You’ve already got the Greenacres site by Bosty lane and the airport. Houses already been built by the Dilke and further up on Mellish road. Houses built on Walsall Wood Road. How many more areas are you going to impact upon. This is not good enough.

The area is of historical value but no that doesn’t seem to bother you. It’s all about money, sod the people who live and make Aldridge and surroundings areas thrive.

I absolutely OBJECT to this planning application and will be signing any petition that comes my way. I’ll be contacting my local MP and any other media to highlight what you are doing.

Object

Representation ID: 13728

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Stephen Noble

sureley there are more brown land sites that can be developed on on before destroying more farm
land and green belt.. like the recent developement at goscote.

Object

Representation ID: 13739

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Ward

York's Bridge (WAH236) [WSA5]
We do not need any housing development in Pelsall, we are a village and do not need any more traffic causing congestion. The farm land needs to stay as it is. We have wildlife on the farmland and that should be left alone. Our green belt should stay. We should not lose our countryside as it is irreversible.
Why not build on brownfield sites, previously developed land, derelict sites and leave green belt alone.

Object

Representation ID: 13743

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Irene Smith

York's Bridge (WAG236) [WSA5]
We do not need any more housing development in Pelsall, ours is a small village and we want it kept that way. Not overrun with more housing, cuasing more pollution, more traffic on our roads, as it is our roads are overrun with cars, come parked on either side, Our farmland needs to stay as it is, we have a lot of wild life. Many [Redacted-sensitive information]roam in our green belt land, lets keep it that way. Why not build on brownfield land that is derelict, now. Once previously developed sites. Leave our green belt alone, we need our countryside, if thats gone we could never get it back, and our village will never be the same. Our government say we need more housing, there are thousands of empty houses in out country that are going to rack and ruin, caused by some vandles, do them up at a fraction of the cost.

Object

Representation ID: 13747

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Lauren Harris-key

I am extremely upset with the plan to build across from grange crescent. For one it will destroy vital habitat for local wildlife. In case you are unaware there is a family of [Redacted-sensitive information]... etc that will have their homes cruely ripped from them. Its also an area that many people use to walk their dogs and - socially distanced meet with neighbours + friends + famil taking away a space for our community. I personally suffer with anxiety and depression and use that area as a space to walk and improve my mental health when I am extremely overwhelmed and I know of others that do this too, meaning it will also take away a safe space for myself and others resulting in a decrease of our mental wellbeing.

I am completely against the idea of building on the greenbelts across the local area. they are green belts for a reason!!!
There are other alternatives, beside ruining the local charm, local nature, local habitat and the local community.

Object

Representation ID: 13758

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Laurie-ann Birch

We object to housing being build on our greenland. This will result in wildlife being disrupted. this greenland has been here for many years and is used regularly.
Building houses will create more pollution, more traffic local schools are already full and some children being turned away

Object

Representation ID: 13766

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Edna Marshall

Yieldsfield Farm Bloxwich [WAH232, WSA4]
Walsall Council Authority

Yieldsfield Hall is historical site that should be conserved. (Priesthole, catholic meetings before catholic church in Bloxwich) when Roman Catholicism was not allowed in England.
Bloxwich does not have enough resources - education, roads often blocked, close to M6. Sometimes causes traffic congestion when problems on M6 especially not enough medical G.P's for our already large population.

Object

Representation ID: 13771

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Karl Andrews

Subject: Green belt Land Northfield Clayhanger Walsall
1. [Redacted-GDPR]
2. There where thousands of pigs buried on the land
3. I will have the noise and the dirt running down [Redacted-GDPR]. Like last time they did work o0n the land.
4. My wife is a [Redacted-GDPR], she may have to stop her business, due to health and safety and that Ofstad. If that is the case, we will be taking legal action.
5. There is a main drive running from Clayhanger lane to [Redacted-GDPR]. I will not have the correct access [Redacted-GDPR]. Again, i will take legal action
6. My own business is run from the property. Again, if there is any effect on my business, i will take the matter to the courts.
7. There as been a check on the wild life and we were informed that it was a breeding site for [Redacted-sensitive information].
8. There will be an overall affect on the wild life in general i.e., [Redacted-sensitive information] this is just to name a few}.
9.My utilities Run across some of the land, I will not allow them to cut me off, so that they can divert the pipes. Again i will take legal action.

Object

Representation ID: 13776

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karola Heap

DO NOT SPOIL WHAT IS LEFT OF THE GREEN BELT. TO HAVE 960 HOUSES BUILD IS HART TO CONTEMPLATE LET ALONE ALL THE CARS IN THIS SMALL AREA

Comment

Representation ID: 13849

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Liz Bolton

SA-0202-WAL Grange Farm and Railswood Farm
This land is used by many people for fresh air and exercise, both vital for people's well being and mental health. Part of it is also an SSSI. It is home to many birds that are now in decline eg [Redacted-Sensitive information]. It is used by [Redacted-Sensitive information] in the winter months.
To build 4310 houses on it would do away with this vital resource. We need our green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 13864

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs S Bickley

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13866

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr M A Puri

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13869

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kadeem Hussain

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13871

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: F M Kudlow

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13875

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Wiliam Bailey

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13877

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Charles Harris

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13880

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: A F Wilks

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13882

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr V Painter

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13884

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: P Hunt

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13886

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Kelly & Richard Rowley

Number of people: 2

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 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 local 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 & '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 (N02), so I urge that these sites are saved and planted with more trees to help improve the air quality and reduce noise levels.
In a time where we are being told to do all we can to reverse climate change and to be mindful of our metal 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 pans of the Walsall borough, therefore, I would suggest that Dudley & Walsall Council look at alternative sites where the impact of green/open space losses would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 13902

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Gloria Flemming

Site Ref WAH 234
WAH 246

Save our greenbelt & switch the strategy to brownfield first approach when seeking future development sites

Object

Representation ID: 13903

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Gloria Flemming

Site Ref WAH 234
WAH 246

Save our greenbelt & switch the strategy to brownfield first approach when seeking future development sites

Object

Representation ID: 13983

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs A Staton

Number of people: 2

We wish to object to the Pheasey Park Farm and Streetly Developments on the basis th/ ASDA at it infringes on the green belt land, which should either be used for agricultural land, grazing or parkland.

A further objection would be to the increased traffic issues a further 1200 residences will cause. There is a congestion around the "Old Horns"/ASDA Queslett Island. There is already a major congestion around this junction 7 days, and the extra traffic will only make this worse, with the associated environmental impact. The banning of petrol/Diesel powered vehicles from 2030, will take years to have any effect on traffic problems.
The traffic at the Queslett Island, again is very bad during rush hour, and again the extra housing will have an adverse effect on the area, with regards to environmental impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 13991

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Frances Smith

I most definitely object to this plan for proposed housing around Maple Drive, Shelfield, Walsall.
I have lived in my privately owned house in [address given] for over 50 years.
The trees and land opposite my house are vital, for the wildlife, which there are many from owls, many other types of birds, foxes, insects, bees. Trees are needed as they absorb pollutants from the air - lower pollutants means it helps with global warming.
Trees are known to lower blood pressure which I know to be true, as it has helped lower my own, due to long walks, benefitting my health, lowering my stress levels, stabilising anxiety.
My grandchildren enjoy playing among the trees, and learning about the wildlife - they are really upset to learn that this is even being considered - "why are they taking our trees nanny?" was the response from one of my grandsons - we need to protect our nature not destroy it

Object

Representation ID: 13995

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Derek Smith

I most definitely object to this plan for proposed housing around Maple Drive, Shelfield, Walsall.
I have lived in my privately owned house in [address given] for over 50 years.
The trees and land opposite my house are vital, for the wildlife, which there are many from owls, many other types of birds, foxes, insects, bees. Trees are needed as they absorb pollutants from the air - lower pollutants means it helps with global warming.
Trees are known to lower blood pressure which I know to be true, as it has helped lower my own, due to long walks, benefitting my health, lowering my stress levels, stabilising anxiety.
My grandchildren enjoy playing among the trees, and learning about the wildlife - they are really upset to learn that this is even being considered - "why are they taking our trees nanny?" was the response from one of my grandsons - we need to protect our nature not destroy it

Object

Representation ID: 13996

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Brown

I most definitely object to this plan for proposed housing around Maple Drive, Shelfield, Walsall.
I have lived in my privately owned house in [address given] for over 50 years.
The trees and land opposite my house are vital, for the wildlife, which there are many from owls, many other types of birds, foxes, insects, bees. Trees are needed as they absorb pollutants from the air - lower pollutants means it helps with global warming.
Trees are known to lower blood pressure which I know to be true, as it has helped lower my own, due to long walks, benefitting my health, lowering my stress levels, stabilising anxiety.
My grandchildren enjoy playing among the trees, and learning about the wildlife - they are really upset to learn that this is even being considered - "why are they taking our trees nanny?" was the response from one of my grandsons - we need to protect our nature not destroy it

Object

Representation ID: 14009

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Martyn West

My comments refer directly to the proposals in the areas surrounding Pelsall, these being WAH236 and the Land at Vicarage Road/Coronation Road, High Heath.

First my general comment and objection is around the vehicle impact of major housing developments in both these areas. As I'm sure you know, the existing road between Pelsall & Brownhills, already has high volumes of traffic for extended rush hour periods due to local work premises, school journeys to/from Shelfield/Brownhills/Shire Oak schools as well as the Primary schools in Ryders Hayes and Clayhanger. The development at WAH236 will add to the volume of traffic without appearing to deliver any additional vehicle routes away from the congested area. Maybe an idea to think of doing something?

Same concerns for the Vicarage Road/Coronation Road development, traffic to and from Ormiston Shelfield Academy already has a huge impact on the High Heath estate and pedestrians going to school. Again there is a constant rush hour congestion problem through High Heath into Pelsall which will be compounded by the development with no additional road planning to reduce this problem.

On the environmental side, the development in High Heath takes out a huge area of natural landscape and fields, which is habitat to many animals, including deer, and used by a high number of local people for leisure e.g. dog walking, exercise. Why not look at the land between the disused railway line and High Heath, on the opposite side of Fordbrook Lane? This is currently used for horse grazing or is waste land towards the Rushall school campus.

I would encourage you to look at your planning as though you were in the private sector, I understand things are easier in the public sector as you have no consequence of not performing or having to meet financial or operational targets, thus it is easy to make a decision when it won't impact the performance of your organisation. But look at the plans from the perspective of having to please customers (voters/council tax payers), providing a benefit to the communities in which you operate and also delivery the market requirements.

Make good decisions, not easy decisions.

Comment

Representation ID: 14013

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Linda Chappell

In this age of re-wilding; carbon capture; green issues and preservation of species, I should like to ask why a small portion of land that I privately own and manage is being reclassified and can then be allocated as building land. I have trees, ancient hedgerows and spring water. There is a variety of wildlife observed regularly including toads, buzzards, kestrels, herons, bats, owls a variety of birds and insects and sometimes deer. The neighbourhood enjoy all these benefits. In fact it is through the neighbours that I learned of this re-classification. Imagine my horror when approached by the neighbours assuming I had sold this parcel of land to builders. I have not, neither has anyone locally, received any information of the plans for re-zoning. It was by chance a friend of one neighbour, from another area, who received a letter identifying and outlining that my land was under discussion. Not only that, I have been informed by two neighbours, that they caught someone trespassing, stating they were surveying my portion of land one day at 6.00 a.m. This was not sanctioned by me, neither have I been asked for any permissions. This mishandled situation has caused much distress to me, my family and neighbourhood leaving us with a very poor opinion and distrust of your organisation. When will we be consulted or treated in a reasonable manner? All other organisations notify householders of possible changes or disruptions. Many people do not have ability to trawl through the internet for hours and certainly do not know where to look if not aware of the issues that may concern them. I hope for an answer and to be shown some respect in the future and that my neighbours are made immediately aware, by letter, of what is under consideration and by whom. Linda Chappell
Q1. Why don’t you consider Green Belt important to reducing carbon emissions?
Q2. Why don’t you show respect to small, local landowners?
Q3.Why don’t you show respect to local neighbourhoods?
Q4. Why weren’t the people adjacent to the land considered for change, informed by letter of the proposals and the consultation period, giving them chance to add their voice to the discussions?
Q5. Why didn’t you inform the above of this Q&A session by letter, to give an opportunity for a representative response?

Please be aware that I have never considered releasing my paddocks, neither have I met with nor engaged anyone to put it forward for consideration for development. I learned only a few short days ago, for the first time, from a neighbour, that the land on Sutton Road behind my home is under consideration in your plans. You have never discussed this with me, neither has any other organisation or planning group had authority from me to do so, or to submit it for consideration. Yet I discovered two days ago that two such groups have included what I own in their plans. PLEASE NOTE I AM AN UNWILLING LANDOWNER and also one who has no knowledge of how and why this has taken place. Has no-one heard of the Land registry and due diligence???
I also have no desire to discuss this with the two parties who have erroneously stated they were acting on my behalf. THEY WERE NOT. It seems these plans have been in fruition for a while, as it has come to my attention this week , that a survey was done in 2018 of which I also had no knowledge except that a neighbour said he saw someone trespassing. I am aghast that no-one has contacted asking me for my permission or to make me aware of the situation. I have been told that the plan is on the internet and in libraries. I say to you, why would I research something I neither expected nor desired.
I take the release of green belt extremely important, as do you, and feel obliged to protect this site which the survey has stated has habitat for some endangered species and plants rare to other parts of the Blackcountry. I could say more but would appreciate your response. Linda Chappell

Yes its part of WAH 231.