Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 14015

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Leah Davies

In regard to farmland on Stonnal Road that you wish to build on.... I OBJECT!
I live just off Stonnal Road with my garden looking onto the fields that you seem content with destroying!
I have lived in this house for 10 years and every morning I always sit in the garden with a coffee to enjoy
the peace & the nature come rain or shine - this is one of the main reasons we chose this house, not only
for the lovely area it is situated in but for the views that come with it.
With the plans you are proposing, not only will you destroy the beautiful land itself, but you will also
destroy my morning routine which in turn will have a negative impact on my mental health & physical
wellbeing.
And it's not only my morning routine that will have a negative impact on my health - you will also
significantly devalue the cost of the property and diminish the liveability as we will no longer have the
beautiful, peaceful scenery that we have enjoyed every day for the past 10 years.
Building a brand new housing estate is no quick fix, this will go on for years and years meaning we will have
to put up with constant trucks back & forth, constant noises from machinery and builders, constant dust &
dirt being moved around - this will not only affect myself but many others in the area including children &
even more so the elderly. This is a quiet area of Aldridge and many elderly people have chosen to live here
for this very reason to see out their retirement - have you thought about the detriment you will cause to
these people's health & wellbeing?
Let's move away from the negative impact you will be causing to humans and talk about the irreversible
damage to the earth you wish to cause…
Tearing up the designated green belt, the farmers land where crops can grow, the home to a number of
trees that produce oxygen and wildlife that have called this home probably for longer than we have lived -
all of this you are happy to destroy? And for what? To build more houses so you have more money in your
pocket! What about the money you will be taking out of local residents pockets?
What about all the abandoned & disused buildings across the country that are sitting there empty &
deteriorating - why can't you look into reusing these buildings rather than tearing up a new space?
You do realise we are currently in the worst state of global warming that we have ever been in?
And do you realise that what you are proposing to do is only going to cause more damage when we should
all be thinking about ways to save this earth!
You have already taken the land on Bosty Lane and by the airport for new accommodation. Building has
already started by The Dilke pub and on the Mellish Road, more buildings on the Walsall Wood Road - how
many more Greenacres do you wish to take from us & generations yet to come?
I understand population is growing, but is this really your ONLY option?
Or is this just the option that will generate you more money with no regards to the people who live and
work in the area, the future people who will live in this area, and the world we all live in!
We have just been through a global pandemic that has caused so many lost jobs, loss of money, loss of
family! You plan to come along and cause another loss to many people; what impact do you think this will
have on mental health & wellbeing? Is this something you have even thought about?
I absolutely object to any planning applications you submit, I will be signing any & all petitions to stop this
as well as asking all of my friends and family. I have no problem talking to the local MP & media if this
situation continues to grow.

Object

Representation ID: 14016

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Bullows

I have lived in Mob Lane all my life and work for the local secondary school. So with this is mind I can see the following issues to this proposal and listed are my reasons for objection.
*Flooding risk of the site and surrounding area, at present when we have very wet weather over a period of time or a heavy downpour the fields absorb alot of this water. This would not be the case if the building of these houses go ahead, as it will be mainly tarmac'd drives, roads and concrete pads of houses. I for one would hold the council responsible and the housing contractor at fault if my property is flooded and/ or if I am unable to insure my house against this. A couple of houses already suffer this problem since the rebuild of the secondary school changed the land into a car park and flooding in neighbours rear garden occurs.
*Road networks, the whole area is not suitable to take on another 700+ houses to be built. A family home averages at least 2 cars per household, which would mean an additional 1400 cars to the area where the road network can not take further traffic. Coronation Road/ Mob Lane is a narrow road already, we have had incidents where buses in the past have got stuck due to parking and lack of private driveways. With Coronation Road/ Mob Lane being one of the main routes from Pelsall and Walsall Wood for school traffic it becomes very congested and goes to standstill on a daily basis. Also the both road links Green Lane and Vicarage Road by the bridge have serious flooding/drainage issues, where vehilces have got stuck or access has not been possible due flooding. Also Pelsall Common crossroads traffic lights have already been a site of numerous deaths due to traffic issues.
*Local amenities, High Heath and Pelsall are already an oversubscribed area with schools, doctors etc. The seconday school that I work for is already classed as an OVERSUBSCRIBED School. I understand that you wish to build another primary school and doctors, but this doesnt ease the issue in the area, it just become ad addiotional add on.
*Local Nature, The whole area that you are proposing is a thrive of various wildlife such as Deer, bats, otter, barn owls, foxes, newts, buzzards, sparrowhawks to name but a few. We have already taken so much from this local area already. This will all go and we will become barren to all of this. This area has already lost substantial farm land and I thought one of the goverments main stratergies was Green Spaces.
*Mental Health, Further to the Pandemic, people used this area to walk, take exercise, cycle take in the healing properties that nature can give to each individual or families. It has been cruicial for the Mental Health and well being of this area durring this time and for the future.

Object

Representation ID: 14023

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Jayesh Patel

Currently our road is a deadend and has minimum traffic apart from people visiting the Arboretum which ensures that the residents have minimum disruption and problems with traffic. If this development goes ahead then if Buchanan Rd is used to gain vehicular access out road will become a "ratrun" for traffic to cut through and cause disruption to the residents.

Currently we have the situation of having Arboretum Park on one side and open space and Calderfields Golf Course, which gives us a feeling of lining in open space and landscape and contributes to the space around our historical flagship park.

The traffic coming off Buchanan Rd and the estate around Cameron Rd already is very busy and causes bottlenecks at the roundabout of Mellish Rd and Lichfield St and can take upto 15 mins to get onto the main roads mentioned. Any additional housing will cause pressure on the infrastructure and generate traffic. We will end up with a situation like the traffic coming in from Sutton Rd to Walsall where it can take an hour to get into Walsall.

Residents will have a loss of privacy and our residential amenity will be affected by this type of overdevelopment of greenbelt land.

Object

Representation ID: 14032

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Deeley

As a resident of this area there is already traffic issues as people complete their daily commute. Fordbrook Lane, Coronation Road and Mob Lane are often at stand still from 3pm onwards in these small roads that cannot cope with the additional traffic.

The proposed use of greenbelt will create more pollution in this and with the removal of trees and greenbelt land will have a negative impact environmentally on the surrounding sites.

My family and I use the public footpaths to enjoy nature walks in the surrounding greenbelt areas from Coronation Rd to Ryders Hayes Mere. Not having this access will impact negatively on our mental health and well being.

I am very concerned about the loss of green space in the area the potential pollution this will create and the additional stress on the already struggling transport links

Object

Representation ID: 14039

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Cheryl Kinsella

Building on green belt land when there are still many brownfield sites sitting empty / an eye sore is trafic for the local environment / community. 763 homes just outside of pelsall off coronation road / mob lane where traffic is already gridlocked from around 3pm to 5pm on weekdays is nonsensical. There is no mention of additional infrastructure to reduce these already overburdened routes. There are no options for new roads through pelsall to reduce this burden. What if any other services / improvements would be proposed?
The impact on the local environment from pollution and reduced nesting for wildlife is not mentioned or addressed (we have birds of prey nesting around this area). Similarly, the development at Yorks Bridge has the same infrastructure issues. Anyone trying to get from brownhills to pelsall/blowwich on a week day afternoon will agree. I note that recently, a large industrial site in Aldridge has been cleared for a 'supertip'/ So brownfield sites can be cleared to throw rubbish away but not for housing?!
My objection to the plan is as follows:
- Not enough evidence that local brownfield sites have been explored. Tell us what has been considered and why they are rejected. Cost is not an excuse as we are all ware green belt is cheaper to develop.
- Reduction of green belt is detrimental to local wildlife, public footpaths across land and the local communities mental and physical wellbein.
- The infrastructure and community services are already under great pressure from our current population / housing already established.
- A disproportional number of developments are in blowwich / pelsall / brownhills area. Calling them Aldridge North / Walsall Wood is misleading and shows lack of local knowledge for those compiling the proposals. I ask you, do we need a glossy colourful leaflet/booklet to review this?
Note: the link to comment online does not seem to work? ANother waste by having to print out and fill in a form.

Object

Representation ID: 14041

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gaynor Stevens

Black Country Plan

I cannot complete the comments form on-line for some reason as it is not allowing me to do so. I thought I would therefore email my disapproval instead as I feel very strongly about this.

I want it know that I OPPOSE the plan to develop on our Green Belt land. The environment, local wildlife and views across Streetly to Pheasey need to remain as they are. Housing development/s will mean more congestion, poorer air pollution and a definite strain on local services that are already stetched.

As a Streetly tax payer (40 years a tax payer actually and Streetly/Sutton Coldfield has been ignored for far too long). I want my hard earned taxes to be spent on the current Streetly residents, not your Black Country Plan. It is imperative Aldridge-Brownhills is not just another suburb of a greater Birmingham. Our Green Belt is very important to us and needs to stay exactly as it is. Go build on Brown sites instead and leave our Green Belt areas well alone.

Comment

Representation ID: 14045

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Edwina Roberts

I have just had a flyer posted through my door regarding the Blackcountry plan for the future.

Can I make a comment as someone who is absolutely affected by any change to building in my local area (due to surface flooding and sewers not able to take the strain during storms) are the planners aware that the old infrastructure cannot cope with all this new build.

We know for a fact that Severn Trent have no plans in the foreseeable future to upgrade anything, so where does this leave us in our dotage and unable to protect our home.

Walsall Council are already guilty of giving planning permission for houses to be built on gardens and added to systems that could not cope before they were built, but it seems to me that they are giving our planning permission willy nilly with no thought for the consequences to the people already in situ.

Our children need green spaces to play in.

Don’t the powers that be have the brains to realise for every tree cut down it is the death knell to the planet, global warming is more to do with the loss of trees due to them being chopped down, that is where the blame lies and until this is recognised we are all doomed to a hopeless future.

Councils are a waste of space, they just collect, collect, collect and aren’t really interested in the human left behind.

Object

Representation ID: 14058

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Carla Johnston

If our area loses its green spaces, of which we don't have that many, Shelfield, Rushall, Pelsall, Aldridge will all merge into one town.
Walsall Council promotes the use of Walsall's green open spaces so to lose them would be detrimental to health, environment, wildlife, flor, etc.
We need to find alternatives to destroying greenery & wildlife in order to save the planet.
Better use needs to be made of brownfield land, derelict properties & areas so that our green areas are not being so highly affected.
To remove green belt status in order to convert it into an urban jungle is morally wrong & is destroying our environment.
We do not have the schools or doctors that have capacity to take on all of these new families in these new homes. The traffic will be dreadful & we will suffer, so will our children.
There has got to be a better more sustainable solution!

Object

Representation ID: 14059

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Arthur Roberts

The areas indicated for development in Pelsall are unable to support and increase of up to 1300 new families. The infrastructure is not in place to support these families by way of things like education, all three local primary schools are at full capacity and St Michaels school has just gone from 1.5 form entry to 2 form entry and is already full.The area designated as Yorks Bridge is flanked on one side with what is designated an urban trunk road, Lime Lane, about to be upgraded with a new canal bridge and operating on the South Staffs border side with a 50MPH speed limit. New access points along this side would create a safety hazzard. Similarly the side flanked by the Lichfield Road is a very busy urban trunk with a great deal of heavy lorry traffic, again access points to the new properties could be hazardous. The existing estate near the fingerpost junction was not allowed access from this road, only and emergency gated off access point.
If these proposals proceed willthere be an opportunity to object at a local planning level?

Object

Representation ID: 14093

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Tennant

Number of people: 2

I have just read the Draft Plan Consultation 16 AUGUST-11 OCTOBER 2021.W.B.summary. As a very recent resident of Little Bloxwich, I was astounded to read that Greenbelt land was under review for development i.e. house buildings e.t.c. My husband and I have been residents of both Wednesfield and Willenhall,We have seen the positive effect of regeneration in Wednesfield. New homes on disused schools and factories and Bentley Bridge. Six years ago we moved from Wednesfield to a New build home in Willenhall, built on a brownfield site. Willenhall has numerous such sites prime for redevelopment, Willenhall is trying to reguvenate and remove empty buildings and untidy unused land. As with Wednesfield the residents and local business want redevelopment. Why is Willenhall being ignored by the council, it can become a popular town as has happened in Wednesfield. Much needed housing with up and running transport systems is already in place and other amenities.
Why did we move, As my husband and I have both now retired we no longer have to be in walking distance to our places of work etc and feel after a good 50 years of full time work we deserve a quieter lifestyle. We have been amazed in the short time we have resided here at the abundance of wildlife on our doorstep, squirrels, foxes rabbits and deer, nesting birds etc. All this will sadly disappear when the greenbelt (cherished greenbelt) is developed. Fumes, building work are not conclusive to happy wild life

Object

Representation ID: 14235

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Duckhouse

Relevant areas: Coronation Road: Aldridge North Brownhills Yorks Bridge Pelsall and all other green belt land.
What happen with all extra traffic in these areas where the roads struggle to operate efficiently now.
What happens to all the wildlife: there are always deers in these areas also , bats etc.
then there the pollution. We already have to deal with waste rubbish tips that smell. also onyx or leigh environment on our doorsteps should we also be having to deal with extra pollution, lots more disruption. What about the schools. How are local schools going to cope with much more pupils on our doorstep while already under pressure. we should be keeping these green space areas in this uncertain times of global warming.

Object

Representation ID: 14304

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Alina Chalkia

Site locations: WAH236, Yorks Bridge, Lichfield Road, Pelsall
WAH 238, Vicarage Road/Coronation Road, High Heath
WAH 240, Mob Lane, High Heath
As a resident of the Pelsall community, I object to the proposed plans to build on green belt land.
There have to be questions raised as to whether all brownfield sites have been thoroughly
investigated and exhausted. Maintaining certain levels of open space where members of the
community can enjoy fresh air and countryside should remain a priority for the black country plan.
Green belt land serves as a habitat to countless wildlife, the destruction of which will lead to
unnecessary loss of biodiversity, thereby contradicting your baseless promise to enhance the
biodiversity in the area.
The importance of the countryside has never been so apparent as during lockdown, when people
were only allowed to leave their homes for daily exercise. The area which you propose to build over
700 houses on, offered myself, and many others, somewhere to keep physically fit. Even more
importantly, the walking trail improved my mental health by offering peace and quiet from an
otherwise busy, urban area. The ability to enjoy the wildlife and flora in such testing times was a
lifeline to so many of us. Depriving the community of this pleasure would be to tarnish the values
on which this community is founded. Your promise to preserve the character of the surrounding
neighbourhoods is by nature paradoxical as you are proposing to tear out a crucial component of its
stability.
Further, I would like to object to the practical ramifications of your proposed plan. The dramatic
increase in the footfall and traffic the houses will create is arguably unsustainable considering the
current infrastructure in place. The current levels of traffic on Coronation Road and Vicarage
Rd/Fordbrook Ln are overly congested during peak times, therefore, an increase of this magnitude
is simply incompatible.
Pelsall lacks the amenities to deal with such an influx in population. The village is a modest size and
parking is more often than not at full capacity during peak times. The proposed number of new
households relying on the supplies of this community would make it oversaturated and unworkable

Object

Representation ID: 14331

Received: 11/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Leslie Locke

I strongly object to the planned proposals to build houses on Greenbelt land along Grange Crescent. Greenbelt Land should be protected and preserved for the community not built on with any form of housing development. The fields along Grange Crescent are home to [Redacted-sensitive information] and an array of other wildlife which will perish as a result of this proposed development. With the number of homes being proposed this will dramatically increase the traffic to and from the area. Flow of traffic will increase not only from residents getting access to there homes but also from family and friends visiting residents in the street. With the increased traffic flow also comes an increase in danger of possible motor vehicle accidents and accidents involving small children who reside in the area. By taking away fields you will be depriving people of somewhere to walk their dogs and to exercise which would lead to mental health issues like depression and loneliness as well as taking away somewhere for children to play. When it rains heavly the Brook overflows on to the field and if you take the field away then it will overflow onto the roads and into peoples homes causing more problems as well as damage to properties. The residents along Grange Crescent will lose their privacy as the development will overlook there homes and you will be able to see into each others homes. Also the road is too narrow, delivery trucks and garbage trucks already have problems coming down the road adding more homes is going to make it even more difficult even if you widen the Road.

Object

Representation ID: 14455

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Harris

I have since been staying with me daughter in [Address Given] due to medical reasons, I have come to appreciate the local nature and after [age given], I finally seen a live in the wild. The local residents care so much about their local environment and wildlife that they even look after the wildlife, seeking Vetenary Care when a local animal is unwell.
There is more than enough land locally to be used for houses, without building on green belts. There is only so much oxygen produced by trees and vegetation, they are not there just for their beauty. They are there for a purpose.

Object

Representation ID: 14458

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Jennifer Hickton

Walsall/ Aldridge/ Brownhills/ Streetly Area

Black country is already densly populated.
Brownfield sites must be used, but developers want green fields as more cost effective.
Towns should change from retail to housing and activity. Which would create more footfall within the centres. Walsall used to be a vibrant town, now it's shabby and dirty.
Trees should be planted not houses built to help offset carbon emissions and encourage biodiversity. More cycle lanes/tracks
To conclude:
Councils should be concentrating on their own town centres, with more living accommodation, therefore more footfall, small retail outlets / activities / cycle lanes and get the buzz back.
Greenfields must be left alone for the community and future generations to enjoy the countryside and help to reduce carbon emissions.

Object

Representation ID: 14480

Received: 04/11/2021

Respondent: A Southall

Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed development of: Reedswood Town Park open space, former
Reedswood Golf Course,
l, 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 local residents with external spaces for recreation.
The proposed sites, especially Pouk Hill and the public open space north of Chrurchill 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 (NO), so lurge 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 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 would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 14481

Received: 04/11/2021

Respondent: A Southall

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 local residents with external spaces for recreation.
The proposed sites, especially Pouk Hill and the public open space north of Chrurchill 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 (NO), so lurge 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 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 would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 14496

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Raymond Foster

My objection re York Bridge. Using more greenbelt, is detrimental to area. Also don't need more traffic in this area. The area of the Fingerpost doesn't want extra traffic, its more accidents waiting to happen.
Also what happened to York Bridge renovation plans, surely this should be done before any consideration is given to using green belt for housing...?

Object

Representation ID: 14498

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Richard Demis Cooper

I am writing in response to the proposal to build on greenfield sites in the two areas of pelsall.
1) Yorks Bridge, Pelsall (580)

I strongly object to these proposals, which will turn Pelsall from a large village into an urban sprawl.
I have lived in Pelsall 72 years and seen numerous developments (Clock Mile, Hillside, Rydeks Hays, Moat Farm, Woodland) Which have increased the village tremendously.
I spent a very happy childhood and later years roaming and walking these proposed sites. I fear for future generation which will not be able to do this.
The so called green wedges between Shelfield, Walsall Wood, Bloxwich and Brownhills will before a them green lane. Please re consider.

Object

Representation ID: 14499

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Richard Demis Cooper

I am writing in response to the proposal to build on greenfield sites in the two areas of pelsall.

2) Coronation Road / Mob Lane Pelsall (763)
I strongly object to these proposals, which will turn Pelsall from a large village into an urban sprawl.
I have lived in Pelsall 72 years and seen numerous developments (Clock Mile, Hillside, Rydeks Hays, Moat Farm, Woodland) Which have increased the village tremendously.
I spent a very happy childhood and later years roaming and walking these proposed sites. I fear for future generation which will not be able to do this.
The so called green wedges between Shelfield, Walsall Wood, Bloxwich and Brownhills will before a them green lane. Please re consider.

Object

Representation ID: 14538

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: S Allsopp

Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed development of: Reedswood Town Park open space, former
Reedswood Golf Course, 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 local residents with external spaces for recreation.
The proposed sites, especially Pouk Hill and the public open space north of Chrurchill 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 (NO), so lurge 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 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 would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 14539

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: S Allsopp

Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed development of: 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 local residents with external spaces for recreation.
The proposed sites, especially Pouk Hill and the public open space north of Chrurchill 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 (NO), so lurge 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 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 would be less detrimental.

Object

Representation ID: 14586

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Jo Lester

(Walsall)
As a member of the Tree Warden Network and a volunteer in Walsall Arboretum I must register my utmost concern regarding these proposals. Walsall is fortunate in retaining areas of Green Belt which act as the "lungs" of the borough. Despite this the amount of tree canopy cover remains low. A recent survey conducted by the Tree Council identified areas of concern especially parts of Streetly/Pheasey which registers the second lowest coverage in the borough - yet this area is proposed for some of the largest numbers of buildings within the plan.
Equally concerning is the impact upon the environment and ecology of such sensitive areas as the Arboretum - a site of important nature conservation (SINC). A recent proposal for building development in Calderfields was rejected on these grounds.
The establishment of the Country Park has increased the ecological value of this area. An on-going survey of flora and fauna is producing results that should be cause for celebration not for threats of destruction!
The West Midlands Major has been very vocal in his concern for the preservation of the Green Belt and the need for re-development on Brownfield sites. It is hoped that Walsall's decision makes share these views!

Object

Representation ID: 14676

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Watkinson

THERE ARE TO MUCH TRAFFIC ON BROWNHILLS. TO MANY PEOPLE FOR SUCH A SMALL AREA. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF BUILDING OF HOMES IN BROWNHILLS LATELY. THE OBJECTION IS BROWNHILLS HAS NO FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE, THE TOWN JUST CONSISITS OF CAFE'S, TAKE-AWAY'S, CHARITY SHOPS. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE SUPER MARKET BROWNHILLS WOULD BE A GHOST TOWN

Comment

Representation ID: 14695

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Jake Lilly

Hello, I am contacting you in regards to my shock and dismay at hearing the news that plans are being considered to develop land around Reedswood park, Pouk Hill and opposite Jane Lane school.

I walk through these areas frequently and visit the land affected off Reedswood park leading to the canal daily and it is one of the nicest parts about living in the area. This is home to so much wildlife, just this morning I witnessed fox cubs playing and a couple of Hedgehogs slightly further along. The prospect of this underrated area soon being lost saddens me greatly. Whilst I appreciate the growing housing needs for the area I feel there are many suitable brownfield sites in the vicinity which are sitting vacant.

I am also concerned about the lack of public consultation and short time frame for objections to be submitted. I only found out of these plans by a chance encounter with a fellow dog walker this morning. These plans should have been published much better to local residents.

Thanks for taking the time to read. I would urge you to visit the proposed sites so you can appreciate the rare tranquility they offer in the midst of a bustling town.

Object

Representation ID: 14724

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Alan Wood

We the household of [address], Streetly object to the BCP proposal to develop the land within Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road, Streetly on the grounds that the use of green belt locations is contrary to all local, national and international directions to protect such land whereby alternative brownfield locations are available.

Repeatedly we hear policticians and government officials claim environmnetal protection is of paramount importance and yet this proposal clearly does not meet such claims.
The importance of green belt areas for the long term protection of wildlife, climate change/flood mitigation and biodeversity cannot be ignored.

This proposal appears to do nothing in addressing already stretched local resources such as roads, schools, and doctors/healthcare.

We urge for the immediate change to the proposal to consider the use of brownfield sites and protect this necessary wildlife corridor and boundary from a sprawling Birmingham and uncontrolled urbanisation.

Object

Representation ID: 14728

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alex Mullen-Hughes

Number of people: 2

2. Pressure on local infrastructure

In addition to environmental concerns I am also alarmed at how an additional 600 homes in this location would impact local highways. There are already pressures on the routes leading from the proposed site, which would be significantly worsened by the addition of approximately 1200 cars.

Currently the Mellish Road queues along the whole road towards Walsall at rush hour despite recent highway changes at the junction with the Lichfield Road. In the other direction the traffic queues along the Aldridge Road as it waits to join either Longwood Lane or Walsall Road. Adding further housing would dramatically increase this traffic leading to further tailbacks and the added environmental impact of idling vehicles.

Comment

Representation ID: 14731

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Jean Minton

What is going to happen when all of these houses + people going to work .
763 houses in Mob Lane/ Coronation Road --2 cars per house hold = 1526 cars going through Pelsall what road is going to take this traffic there are already bottle neck in Fordbrook Lane + Pelsall Common and the Finger Post .

ARE NEW ROADS GOING TO BE BUILT TO TAKE THIS TRAFFIC INTO WALSALL - BROWNHILLS -
ALDRIDGE - BLOXWICH ?

Object

Representation ID: 14773

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Andrew Rawson

Number of people: 2

As residents of the area for over 40 years, we the above wish to submit the following comments and objections to the proposed Black Country Plan, specifically Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road Streetly.

Our road opens onto the Queslett Road, Queslett roundabout end and already can have long delays crossing the dual-carriageway to turn right due to congestion caused by traffic queuing from Aldridge Road and traffic queuing towards Aldridge Road. A development of some 900+ houses potentially having two cars per household will add considerably to this congestion.
In the interim period during the construction the impact would be catastrophic as there would be multiple construction vehicles enterig and exiting the site, causing chaos and obstruction to the already overburdened surrounding roads.

Aldi supermarket chain had planning application turned down on the grounds of additional burden on the overcongested island at Queslett Road/Beacon Road and the destruction of mature woodland on a nature reserve site.


There is an oversubscribed primary school off the Aldridge Road and a secondary school off the Queslett Road, the pollution produced from the excessive number of vehicles is potentially life threatening to our young people, as well as residents.

It is obvious the current road infrastructure would not cope. So, is the alternative to be changes to the rural Bridle Lane, which will disappear and have impact on the surrounding greenbelt.

The impact of 900+ families moving to the area will have an enormous and detrimental affect on the services in the area. Doctors surgeries already are unable to cope with their patient numbers and schools are oversubscribed. And if developers draw up plans promising to include new provision, these rarely get fulfilled.

Object

Representation ID: 14781

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr ANDREW BAILEY

General summative comments on the 'Black Country Plan' sent to us. As we a resident in Pelsall, Walsall comments are particularly relevant to that part of the Black Country.

My objection (I speak also for my wife who resides with me) is not a vociferous one in respect of this particular plan. I do realise that there is a need for homes, particularly those of an affordable type and that this will inevitably put pressure on land of all types, including, regrettably, 'green space'.

In terms of the green space available within the boroughs I accept that the percentage 'earmarked' for 'development' is quite small. However, I am concerned that this is the 'thin end of the wedge' and that it may not be long before the next plan for further 'development' to erode these green spaces is put forward, following pressure from central government, etc.

I also believe that although a proportion of the homes in a 'development' have to be of an 'affordable' type that this is quite a small percentage of the total. This adds to any suspicion that we may harbour that rather than plans such as this being in response to housing shortages the most important consideration in 'housing development' is support for the building industry, who would appear to be strong lobbyists who are usually pushing against an open-door.