Development Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 15733

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Ray Blackmore

Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed development of: Pouk Hill green public open space, 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: 15734

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Ray Blackmore

Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed development of:
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: 15857

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Brown

Site SA-0034-WAL

Greenbelt - It cannot be justified that land within the Greenbelt be released where other brownfield alternatives can be delivered. The area in question is valuable open space, which contributes significantly to the visual amenity of the area and to local wildlife.

Highways - The nature of the surrounding roads do not lend themselves to this scale of development.
Something of this quantum with the associated increase in traffic volume, particularly at peak times, poses a significant risk to safety and increased congestion. Under the Reasons For Selection of Site SA-0034-WAL, it is noted Stonnall Road may need to be widened and further infrastructure works may be required in order to facilitate the extent of the proposed development. Stonnall Road
is a narrow lane with minimal verges but hedgerows. It is clear that works would absolutely be required in order to accommodate an increase in traffic volume generated by the development, but in the information provided to date, it is unclear to what extent widening and further infrastructure are required or indeed that they are in any way deliverable. In addition to this, the area already
has a number of accident plack spots.

Ecology - Leading on from comments regarding the need for highways improvements, particularly around Stonnall Road, there are a significant number of hedgerows which provide much needed habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Any highways works, or indeed the development itself, will therefore have a material and detrimental impact. We do know that there are wild birds and bats
habitating here amongst many others.

Overlooking - We strongly object to any development adjoining our boundary on the grounds of overlooking and the impact upon our privacy. Currently the plan comes right up to our boundary. This could impact any future sale or the value of our property.

Local infrastructure - Any development of this nature would place significant strain on limited local infrastructure, even with the plans for another school and doctors surgery there are many other amenities that would be required by 363 new households.

Object

Representation ID: 15922

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Justine Rees

(WAH234, Policy WSA8)

How can these plans reflect the countrys/ world preservation. Global warming. Using building equipment lorries etc. More cars on the road, when houses built. Losing British animals and local crops, importing from abroad. More clutter/ rubbish deposited / dumped in local area. Creating more extint birds and animals due to them having nowhere to live and breed including bats, swallows, owls, pheasants, partridge, birdsprey, cuckoos, wood peckers, wrens, the list goes on. Clean environment and areas of interest, fresh air. Also loss of insects, bees creating no pollination - no food or plants.

Object

Representation ID: 15939

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Sue Hill

It has just come to my attention that there are plans to use part of my local green space for redevelopment of housing.
Golf Course- Reedswood Park
Pork Hill Open Space
Please lodge this email as an objection against this occurring, We in the local area have very little green space and building further housing will be detrimental to both the area and environment.
I myself use the park a minimum of 3 times a week, and never see it empty what ever the time of year.

Object

Representation ID: 15968

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Kimberley Wiltshire

Pelsall is a beautiful SMALL village and a lovely place to live, however in recent years it has become busier and busier. With the addition of the new Aldi being built and the extension to the bridge, traffic is already going to increase in the local area. On top of that, to remove precious green spaces and convert them into housing which will add more traffic and people to the area is absolutely absurd.
I strongly object to ALL proposals for removing green spaces and converting them. This is completely not acceptable and will ruin not only the green spaces they will inhabit, but the surrounding areas too which can barely cope with the current volume of people and traffic as it is.
Pelsall village is already experiencing a downturn with drugs, violence and crime at night time. To add yet more people to this equation is a disaster waiting to happen.

Please do not destroy our local area.

Object

Representation ID: 16198

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Joy Morton

Number of people: 2

You may wonder why at [Redacted-GDPR] we are bothering to take the time to protest about the current plan to build on our precious green belt? In the Streetly/Aldridge area? We have been married for [Redacted-GDPR] years and throughout our lives we have both been advocates of fresh air and exercise to benefit both health and well-being. We brought our family up to do likewise. Our so we are delighted to say is repeating history. It is for our two small grandsons and their generation we are pleading - please build on brownfield sites and NOT greenbelt areas. Throughout the last 2 years we and countless others have found that the only thing that has kept us sane is being able to 'escape' to green areas. Through the tightest part of the initial lockdown, personally, we spent our allotted one hour traipsing like denetred sheep round and round one of the local fields! Where will will our grandson escape to? Would you prefer then to walk the local byeways or drive to distant parts further polluting the planet or give up on the family tradition, endanger their health and future and add to the burden on the NHS?
Already in this area, doctors, dentists are oversubscribed and schools are bulging. In over [Redacted-GDPR]years of living here, we have already witnessed a horrifying deterioration of the area. Please do not add to it. Use existing brownfield sites and leave our green lungs for people to enjoy.

Object

Representation ID: 16245

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: David Winders

I am objecting to the proposed plans to build houses on Green Belt sites to the rear of properties on Lazy Hill Road, Cotswold Close, Clifton Avenue, Malvern Drive, Ledbury Close and Linkside Way. All of these sites proposed are apart from being designated Green Belt land are in constant use growing a variety of crops for our every day needs. This is a easy way out for planners to choose an option which needs little thought for the environment and for our food production. There is land which could be used for development along Chester Road to the left hand side approaching Shire Oak on the site of a redundant cafe and surrounded shub land, which is also close to Shire Oak School.

Object

Representation ID: 16300

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Dawn Taylor

raft Black Country Plan July 2021. Table 31 - Walsall Sites Allocated for Housing by Black Country
Plan (policy HOU1)
Pages: 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 515, 516
Site Ref: WHA230 Land on the east side of Chester Road, Aldridge; 66 Units
Site Ref: WAH231 Land off Sutton Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall; 202 Units
Site Ref: WAH234 Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey;
1426 Units
Site Ref: WAH237 Land north of Stonnal Road, Aldridge; 363 Units
Site Ref: WAH 240 Land at Mob Lane, High Heath, Pelsall; 209 Units
Site Ref: WAH242 Calderfields West, Aldridge Road, Walsall; 592 Units
Site Ref: WAH246 Land to the East of Chester Road, north of Pacific Nurseries Hardwick; 228 Units
Site Ref: WAH254 Pacific Nurseries, Chester Road, Walsall; 121 Units
OBJECTIONS
1) The aforementioned proposed sites make up massive swathes of valuable green spaces which
is precious Green Belt which is invaluable for residents and visitors mental health, wellbeing and
recreactional purposes. The UK is suffering a loss of nature and is one of te most nature-depleted
countries in the world:
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-10-10/uk-is-one-of-the-most-nature-depleted-countries-in-the-world
We all must take active roles in safeguarding these green lungs’ spaces for residents and
humankind and nature to thrive. We must honour the sites natural significance and protect it from
being forever changed to the built environment. Existing residents use these green spaces for many
recreational activities including but not restricted to: walking, cycling, geocaching, some offer music
events, etc. With the cost of living increasing and many failing to see their incomes rising in line with
these costs, our green spaces provide free recreational areas for everyone to enjoy.
2) The existing infrastructure struggles to accommodate the current residents living closeby to these
sites and if these sites are developed, the roads will witness increased numbers of vehicles usage
which in turn will increase noise, air and light pollution; GP surgeries are already swamped with the
numbers of patients; existing schools will be unable to take new pupils; residents - both existing and
new - will be unable to benefit from and enjoy the health and wellbeing attributes offered by having
access to green spaces.
3) Wildlife and natural habitat will be destroyed and once gone, they are lost forever.
In closing, I object to the potential theft of our multi-beneficial Green Belt and green spaces being
changed forever from green to built environment for the reasons set down in thess Objections.

Object

Representation ID: 16301

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

WAH256 (GB1) Land to the rear of 114-130 Green Lane, Shelfield

The above sites are in close proximity to Jockey Fields SSSI. Jockey Fields lie to the north of Walsall on Etruria Marls (Carboniferous) overlain in part by more recent alluvial deposits. The site consists of a number of low-lying fields in a stream valley. Variation in wetness and management have produced a range of vegetation types including well-grazed damp pasture extensively grazed grasslands and fen and mire, all very unusual in the urban context of the West Midlands. Running through the site are a network of well-vegetated ditches that add to the interest of the area. The site is also important for a variety of bird species. Locally significant numbers of Grey heron use the site as a feeding ground and significant numbers of Snipe (in excess of 80) have been recorded. The variety of habitats found at Jockey Fields, together with its large size, the number of plant species rare in the West Midlands, and the bird interest make it a very significant site in the county.

We have significant concerns about the above allocations impact on the SSSI alone and cumulatively, particularly in regard to the following issues:

• Water pollution from foul drainage and surface water drainage
• Cumulative recreational impacts. Increased visitors and dog walking.

Alternative green space for dog walking will be required. Natural England would welcome further dialogue focused on a strategic ‘call for sites’ for new and improved informal recreation spaces in the plan area. Such sites offer scope to integrate heathland recreation alongside other species rich habitat mosaics, all of which can be accessed and enjoyed by local communities through cycling and walking corridors. The emerging Green Infrastructure Standards are relevant here.

• Air quality. The site is currently exceeding nitrogen deposition levels.

Object

Representation ID: 16302

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

WAH144 & WAH147 Former Select Windows, Walsall Road, Walsall Wood, Motor City, 117b Walsall Road, Walsall Wood, Former Autocraft, Walsall Road, Walsall Wood, Jubilee House, Walsall Road, Walsall Wood.

The above sites are in close proximity to Jockey Fields SSSI. Jockey Fields lie to the north of Walsall on Etruria Marls (Carboniferous) overlain in part by more recent alluvial deposits. The site consists of a number of low-lying fields in a stream valley. Variation in wetness and management have produced a range of vegetation types including well-grazed damp pasture extensively grazed grasslands and fen and mire, all very unusual in the urban context of the West Midlands. Running through the site are a network of well-vegetated ditches that add to the interest of the area. The site is also important for a variety of bird species. Locally significant numbers of Grey heron use the site as a feeding ground and significant numbers of Snipe (in excess of 80) have been recorded. The variety of habitats found at Jockey Fields, together with its large size, the number of plant species rare in the West Midlands, and the bird interest make it a very significant site in the county.

We have significant concerns about the above allocations impact on the SSSI alone and cumulatively, particularly in regard to the following issues:

• Water pollution from foul drainage and surface water drainage
• Cumulative recreational impacts. Increased visitors and dog walking.

Alternative green space for dog walking will be required. Natural England would welcome further dialogue focused on a strategic ‘call for sites’ for new and improved informal recreation spaces in the plan area. Such sites offer scope to integrate heathland recreation alongside other species rich habitat mosaics, all of which can be accessed and enjoyed by local communities through cycling and walking corridors. The emerging Green Infrastructure Standards are relevant here.

• Air quality. The site is currently exceeding nitrogen deposition levels.

Object

Representation ID: 16305

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

WAH169 Land off Coronation Road. (We note that the WAH144, 147 & WAH169 are on the allocations map but not within the Plan document.)

The above sites are in close proximity to Jockey Fields SSSI. Jockey Fields lie to the north of Walsall on Etruria Marls (Carboniferous) overlain in part by more recent alluvial deposits. The site consists of a number of low-lying fields in a stream valley. Variation in wetness and management have produced a range of vegetation types including well-grazed damp pasture extensively grazed grasslands and fen and mire, all very unusual in the urban context of the West Midlands. Running through the site are a network of well-vegetated ditches that add to the interest of the area. The site is also important for a variety of bird species. Locally significant numbers of Grey heron use the site as a feeding ground and significant numbers of Snipe (in excess of 80) have been recorded. The variety of habitats found at Jockey Fields, together with its large size, the number of plant species rare in the West Midlands, and the bird interest make it a very significant site in the county.

We have significant concerns about the above allocations impact on the SSSI alone and cumulatively, particularly in regard to the following issues:

• Water pollution from foul drainage and surface water drainage
• Cumulative recreational impacts. Increased visitors and dog walking.

Alternative green space for dog walking will be required. Natural England would welcome further dialogue focused on a strategic ‘call for sites’ for new and improved informal recreation spaces in the plan area. Such sites offer scope to integrate heathland recreation alongside other species rich habitat mosaics, all of which can be accessed and enjoyed by local communities through cycling and walking corridors. The emerging Green Infrastructure Standards are relevant here.

• Air quality. The site is currently exceeding nitrogen deposition levels.

Comment

Representation ID: 16318

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

WAH235, These site allocations are in close proximity to
Shire Oak Local Nature Reserve (LNR) (GB1)

Natural England is concerned about the added recreational pressure upon the biodiversity value of Shire Oak LNR that these additional housing allocations will bring without additional new biodiversity rich green space being created in this area that can support a greater carrying capacity of people. Natural England also encourages the Black Country Local Planning Authority’s via their Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) to actively develop cross border cooperation between other Local Planning Authorities (LPA) (for example Lichfield District Council) in coordinating land development projects that impact on local biodiversity sites to ensure that local biodiversity corridors are maintained and link up other local important sites for nature conservation, e.g. Clayhanger Common. An example of this approach relates to land that envelopes WAH235, WAH237 but is in fact in both Lichfield and Walsall. This land area has been identified though Natural Capital Mapping (reference Midlands Heathland Heartland as a bottle-neck constraining existing local nature recovery networks to flow, connect and
link across the wider geographical area. Purple Horizons Nature Recovery Project and Midlands Heathland Heartland (see Annex 1 for further information) has identified significant investment opportunities that will ensure that species and habitats can continue to move freely.

Comment

Representation ID: 16319

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

WAH237, These site allocations are in close proximity to
Shire Oak Local Nature Reserve (LNR) (GB1)

Natural England is concerned about the added recreational pressure upon the biodiversity value of Shire Oak LNR that these additional housing allocations will bring without additional new biodiversity rich green space being created in this area that can support a greater carrying capacity of people. Natural England also encourages the Black Country Local Planning Authority’s via their Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) to actively develop cross border cooperation between other Local Planning Authorities (LPA) (for example Lichfield District Council) in coordinating land development projects that impact on local biodiversity sites to ensure that local biodiversity corridors are maintained and link up other local important sites for nature conservation, e.g. Clayhanger Common. An example of this approach relates to land that envelopes WAH235, WAH237 but is in fact in both Lichfield and Walsall. This land area has been identified though Natural Capital Mapping (reference Midlands Heathland Heartland as a bottle-neck constraining existing local nature recovery networks to flow, connect and
link across the wider geographical area. Purple Horizons Nature Recovery Project and Midlands Heathland Heartland (see Annex 1 for further information) has identified significant investment opportunities that will ensure that species and habitats can continue to move freely.

Comment

Representation ID: 16320

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

WAH248, These site allocations are in close proximity to
Shire Oak Local Nature Reserve (LNR) (GB1)

Natural England is concerned about the added recreational pressure upon the biodiversity value of Shire Oak LNR that these additional housing allocations will bring without additional new biodiversity rich green space being created in this area that can support a greater carrying capacity of people. Natural England also encourages the Black Country Local Planning Authority’s via their Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) to actively develop cross border cooperation between other Local Planning Authorities (LPA) (for example Lichfield District Council) in coordinating land development projects that impact on local biodiversity sites to ensure that local biodiversity corridors are maintained and link up other local important sites for nature conservation, e.g. Clayhanger Common. An example of this approach relates to land that envelopes WAH235, WAH237 but is in fact in both Lichfield and Walsall. This land area has been identified though Natural Capital Mapping (reference Midlands Heathland Heartland as a bottle-neck constraining existing local nature recovery networks to flow, connect and
link across the wider geographical area. Purple Horizons Nature Recovery Project and Midlands Heathland Heartland (see Annex 1 for further information) has identified significant investment opportunities that will ensure that species and habitats can continue to move freely.

Comment

Representation ID: 16321

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

WAH253, These site allocations are in close proximity to
Shire Oak Local Nature Reserve (LNR) (GB1)

Natural England is concerned about the added recreational pressure upon the biodiversity value of Shire Oak LNR that these additional housing allocations will bring without additional new biodiversity rich green space being created in this area that can support a greater carrying capacity of people. Natural England also encourages the Black Country Local Planning Authority’s via their Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) to actively develop cross border cooperation between other Local Planning Authorities (LPA) (for example Lichfield District Council) in coordinating land development projects that impact on local biodiversity sites to ensure that local biodiversity corridors are maintained and link up other local important sites for nature conservation, e.g. Clayhanger Common. An example of this approach relates to land that envelopes WAH235, WAH237 but is in fact in both Lichfield and Walsall. This land area has been identified though Natural Capital Mapping (reference Midlands Heathland Heartland as a bottle-neck constraining existing local nature recovery networks to flow, connect and
link across the wider geographical area. Purple Horizons Nature Recovery Project and Midlands Heathland Heartland (see Annex 1 for further information) has identified significant investment opportunities that will ensure that species and habitats can continue to move freely.

Comment

Representation ID: 16326

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Employment sites

Walsall

WAE412 (GB1) Sandown Quarry, Stubbers Green Road, Aldridge

This site includes part of the Swan Pool & The Swag SSSI, which is notified for non breeding bird populations of Swallow, Hirundo rustica. Swan Pool & The Swag are two pools lying on an impermeable layer of Etruria Marl (of the Upper Carboniferous Coal Measures). Three sides of Swan Pool and the north-western end of The Swag are dominated by swamp and tall fen vegetation that holds a post-breeding roost of swallows and martins during the autumn migration. Peak populations of around 10,000 birds have been recorded. The two sites provide a roost for a significant proportion (at least 1%) of the total British swallow population.

We have the following concerns about this site:

• Bird disturbance
• Loss of habitat- on and off site.
• Impacts on water quantity and quality.

Please also see our comments about MSwa9 under Policy MIN3 - Preferred Areas for New Mineral
Development.

Object

Representation ID: 16433

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dieta Stamp

I am a local resident of [location], Streetly and I am absolutley outraged at the idea of the housing plans that will massively affect all the local residents here in sooo many ways..Firstly, the impact this will have on our local woodland to.the birds,animals,insects let alone the woodland itself being torn down, is heartbreaking news totally unacceptable..There are always councils convincing UW that we should recycle, care for our planet, yet you are willing to tear down the homes of so.many species or birds wildlife, insects, its barbaric..Not to.mention the increased carbon emissions created from having hundreds of trees being massacred.. And this is without the impact on the serenity and calm that our woodland provides us all with.. On top of these issues, we will lose the privacy that we currently have, which are one of the major factors, when we originally purchased our properties, and also the impact of deterioration in the value of our homes right now..This development will have major impacts on our current access to our properties. A possible through road via our current, NARROW roads which we already have issues with, running the very high risk of overcrowded roads overflow parking, long term affects on road structure due to overloading, risks of hazards to our children and animals...Higher risk of anti-social behaviour, with the to and fro passing through our roads every single day...
There has to be a point in which you MUST reconsider the VAST impact this development will have on our health, mental health, pollution, overcrowding the area, risks of more traffic potentially harming our families, totally reducing our woodland (which was a major factor in purchasing a home in this area), the list goes on...

I am so upset by this inconsiderate plan and I know that I speak for all the local.people in our neighbouring roads..

Object

Representation ID: 16436

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dmitry Shyrko

I couldn't say about all areas but our area in Streetly was proposed within any care about people living in the area. We invested a lot of money into peaceful and quiet location - and now we are told that everything would be changed around.
I don't see this project as a one which will increase value of our houses - on the contrary I expect only problems, increased noise, increased crimes, less safety, less services.
Our area is already famous for extremely poor medical services (local GP is pathetic) - and 1000 of new homes will not help. In case if new site has new GP and new stores - it's even worse because we can forget about quiet life after that.
I would understand if new site was separated by the substantial green area from the current site or adjacent to the much smaller site
No at the moment this project looks too disturbing and too threatening.

Object

Representation ID: 16441

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Glynis Cooke

Walsall Sites in WS5 / B43

I very much object to the use of Green Belt Land in the WS5/B43 area as we have already had much removed from here. The area has been degraded and the traffic increased exponentially. The corridors of greenery are shrinking so that any wildlife left will soon have few places to go and as a "horse owning" area - where will the animals graze in the future if all the fields disappear. if the intention is to knock 6% off the green belt each time there will soon be none left - use the brown field sites, there are very many of them still around.

Object

Representation ID: 16446

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joan Whale

Black Country Plan. Policy No WSA3 Land North and South of Stonnall Road - Ref WAH237 and WAH253.
I have lived in Ledbury Close 56 years. In that time so much land has been took up for housing. I feel Aldridge has given enough space for building over the years and it's time to call a halt to any more development. Aldridge is being swallowed up and will not be a pleasant place to live with all the extra traffic etc.
I will list SOME of the developments.

Off Stonall Rd
Stonnall Gate
Pavilion Close
Linkside Way

Off Lazyhill Rd
Coppy Hall Estate
(Kingshayes Rd)

Off Walsall Wood Rd
Old Oak Close
The glades
Noddy Park
Noddy Park Rd

Leighswood Road
Flats and houses
Aldridge bypass flats

Off North Gate
Homebell House
Sherriton Close
Flats in centre of Aldridge between high street and Little Aston Road

I could go on. The greenfield act 1975is being completely ignored. How can this happen. What's the good of these acts if they are not adhered to? Please think again about this plan and explore extensively all the many brownfield sites before you ruin what little green we have left.
LEAVE ALDRIDGE ALONE.

Object

Representation ID: 16447

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Doreen Hanson

Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed development of: Reedswood Town Park open space, former
Reedswood Golf Course, Pouk Hill green public open space, and the public open space located north of Churchill Road &
the Jane Lane School, and as a request for you act / vote on my behalf against the proposal.
The proposed development will remove much needed and loved open spaces in the area, that are vital to the environment
and people's mental health and wellbeing. They allow residents to re-connect with the natural environment close to home
and help escape the stresses of urban life. They were areas of critical importance during the lock-down restrictions, and
continue to provide 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: 16454

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Dwnam -

Please accept this letter as an objection to the proposed development of: Reedswood Town Park open space, former
Reedswood Golf Course, Pouk Hill green public open space, and the public open space located north of Churchill Road &
the Jane Lane School, and as a request for you act / vote on my behalf against the proposal.
The proposed development will remove much needed and loved open spaces in the area, that are vital to the environment
and people's mental health and wellbeing. They allow residents to re-connect with the natural environment close to home
and help escape the stresses of urban life. They were areas of critical importance during the lock-down restrictions, and
continue to provide 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: 16483

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth Mincher

(WAH253 South of Stonnal Road)
REGARDING SITES WAH237 AND WAH253 IN PARTICULAR.

Destruction of Green Belt.
The Black Country Plan mentions "Health and Wellbeing" and "Mental Health" (1.34, 1.35 and 1.36). As far as I am aware, the purpose of designated "Green Belt" was to help prevent urban sprawl. There are precious few areas of Green Belt within the Black Country, or anywhere else for that matter. I think it is generally agreed that the loss of Green Belt so far has been regrettable. It is clear it has been protected for good reasons. Why are those same reasons no longer valid or valued? Once gone, Green Belt can never be recovered.
The physical and mental benefits of green spaces cannot be denied. Any psychologist would recommend spending time in such places, they would never recommend visiting a housing estate to improve one's wellbeing. I have lived in Aldridge for 45 years and enjoyed the environment here as have my children. During the pandemic, many people, not only Aldridge residents, came here to enjoy the green spaces around this area. When the local Golf Club opened its land to the public during lockdown, hundreds of people took the opportunity to benefit from the offer. It is widely acknowledged that walking in green spaces is recommended to improve mental heath problems. Why would anyone want to reduce the remaining Green Belt when there are so many other sites for redevelopment and regeneration?
This is not only a selfish point of view. I will be getting on for 80 years old by the time this happens. I will have enjoyed the environment for over 50 years. People still refer to Aldridge as a "village". I would like this to continue so that future generations can enjoy it too. I think it is important to value and maintain its character instead of turning it into another endless sprawl of housing estates. We can see the downside to the urban mass surrounding Birmingham.


I think it is important to remember that the areas outlined to provide much needed homes are already "homes" - for wildlife, plants, insects, crops. We are not the most important "life" on the planet. Loss of habitat must surely be considered otherwise David Attenborough has wasted his time. Have we learned nothing about conservation from the evidence in front of us?

Boris Johnson, in his most recent speech, declared there would be no building on fields. This is directly at odds with this Plan. Will this be taken into account in the planning?

Brownfield Sites
1.43 c Reviewing the role and extent of Green Belt
This says that "evidence suggests" there is a deficit in brownfield land supply. What is the evidence of this? Is there a list of Brownfield sites you have considered and rejected? There is a huge site in Middlemore Lane, Aldridge, formerly occupied by McKechnie's, I believe. This does not appear to part of the building plan. Is this because the house builders do not want to lose profit when cleaning the site?
I would have thought regeneration of land and areas was more important than swallowing chunks of Green Belt.
The new houses on the proposed sites will not even help those most in need, first time buyers. The new builds will be too expensive for those struggling to get onto the property ladder owing to the premium applied on a green area.

1.43 h "Health and Wellbeing".
Again, loss of Green Belt and the extension of built areas will not contribute to this goal. We will lose more than we gain.

Impact on local services
Doctors, schools, dentists, parking spaces. All of these will be impacted negatively by the proposed development, services which are already stretched. It is doubtful the services will be in place before completion of the buildings.


Extraction of sand and gravel from the sites in preparation for the development.
Sand and gravel extraction in Branton Hill has already caused years of problems and should be a lesson well learned judging from the protests from residents there and the noise and nuisance they experienced. This process will affect residents on many fronts - increased traffic, dirt, pollution from vehicles, air quality, general quality of life.

Access to the sites
Stonnall Road and Lazyhill Road both become narrow country lanes as they proceed to Chester Road. The increased volume of traffic will cause disruption, congestion and concerns with residents' safety. Both roads have a 30 mph limit which is regularly exceeded in anticipation of the country lanes which people assume will be without a speed limit or, if they are aware of the limit, they ignore it.

Object

Representation ID: 16486

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elisabeth Gutteruth

Greenbelt land need to be protected at all cost
Walsall has precious little greenbelt land. Healthy lifestyle which is important for recreation .
Alter air quality and thus the challenging climate targets.
Justification is missing; traffic is causing pollution and worse affecting the quality of life and health will be worse

Object

Representation ID: 16539

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Faye Coley

The surrounding roads to this plan in Pelsall are death traps. We have had numerous traffic accidents on coronation road because of speeding and cutting through to brownhills via the blackcock bridge. It already is a risk to residents and people commuting using the buses. Cars will mount curbs at busy school times putting our young children at risk. Buses ambulance and larger vehicles cannot get through the cars parked on the road which with more housing I fear would become worse and causing more accidents and a huge risk to lives.

Nature there are deer who use the land behind coronation road who often bring their young to graze and hawks that use the land for food and nesting.

I am against these plans with a young child.myself I feel adding more homes to the area would put our local school children's and residents children's lives at risk with dangerous driving speeding and dangerous parking

The council have tried to test speed limits on the road before but failed to place the testers in the right locations they were placed in areas where traffic has to stop or slow down due to parked cars this doesn't give a fair reading of the amount of speeding cars that use this road.

Object

Representation ID: 16544

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Fiona Lawson-innes

WAH237 & WAH253

Object

Representation ID: 16577

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Gary Crutchley

On 30th November 2020, the UK government published a briefing to address issues relating to development of green belt land. In addition, government policy on protection for the green belt has been set out in chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The UK government's stated aim is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, protect the green belt, and for local authorities to also actively protect it.

The land in the region of the WS3 postcode that is being considered for development is, without a doubt, green belt. It is ancient farmland and associated woodland, that has always been used for agricultural purposes and has never been developed. Therefore, the Black Country Plan is flagrantly ignoring government guidelines and expectations.

In addition, the Black Country Plan also flagrantly disregards the wishes of local people, who have consistently and unanimously opposed this development since it was first proposed. All local politicians in the areas of this development are well aware that local people oppose it. However, as we all know, planning for this destruction of green belt land will ultimately be approved, regardless of any objections raised by local people, or government commitment to the green belt.

This development should not proceed for the reasons highlighted above. Namely that it does not reflect government policy and commitment, and that it has been overwhelmingly rejected by local people. Sadly, inevitably we will lose this irreplaceable, natural resource.

Object

Representation ID: 16601

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Geoffrey Cullum

Walsall
WAH 238 & WAH 240
This development will add greatly to traffic on Fordbrook lane. There is already long tail backs from the traffic lights on Pelsall Common and the lights at Shelfield.
This development will erode still further the 'Green Lung' of Heath End and Shelfield and the open space available to it's residents.

Object

Representation ID: 16639

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Geoffrey Smith

I am objecting to the release of green belt land to the north and west of Streetly for housing development (Sites WAH 234, WAH 246, WAH 254 and WAH 255), particularly Site WAH 234 which would remove the strategic gap between the communities of Streetly and Pheasey and which is of particular landscape value. These sites fail on sustainable development grounds as they will create housing that will be car dependent as there is poor public transport provision in Streetly, no fixed track public transport or station and a bus network that has seen progressive reduction and removal and diversion of services resulting in unattractive slow journeys to few centres.
The Black Country Plan should build on the sustainable transport assets and investments within the core of the urban area, recycling land in the vicinity of stations. The plan does not even identify the location of stations in the transport section. It fails to recognise recent investment in the Chase Line where electrification has led to rail service improvements which could be a focus for investment. The plan fails to emphasise the committed light rail investment between Wednesbury and Brierley Hill with new rapid transit stops planned in the corridor. That should also be a focus for investment. The plan makes mention of the committed investment in SPRINT infrastructure and services on the A34 between Walsall and Birmingham which should also therefore be a focus for development.
The plan fails to mention the £113m investment in new stations in the West Midlands - two of which will be in Walsall Borough at Willenhall and Darlaston (where there is a lot of vacant land). The omission of this committed investment undermines the presentation of relevant issues in the plan as they could also be a focus for sustainable development with a service to the regional centre (Birmingham) and a service between Walsall and Wolverhampton.
In addition TfWM has purchased land at Aldridge for a further new station as an extension of the train service terminating at Walsall. This scheme is under development and could be delivered in the plan period and should also therefore be a focus for sustainable development including potential green belt land release within 2km.
There are no plans for public transport improvements in Streetly so this community should not be a focus for housing development. TfWM's station access surveys reveal that Streetly residents drive to Four Oaks to access quality public transport. More housing will lead to more car travel, congestion, emissions, etc. Totally unsustainable and contrary to the Governments climate change targets and net zero carbon ambitions.
The plan should be reformulated and reconsulted on with all relevant information instead of deluding the public in terms of the need to release green belt land.