Neighbourhood Growth Areas

Comment

Representation ID: 11323

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Julia Hawes

It is nonsensical to propose destroying the green belt and in the next breath, talk about enhancing biodiversity. How can the planned housing proposal in Pelsall/Shelfield be described as low to medium density when you are planning to cram hundreds of houses into the areas in question? The character of the existing neighbourhood will be irreparably damaged by an increase in traffic and overcrowded local amenities.

Object

Representation ID: 15707

Received: 20/10/2021

Respondent: Christopher Parker

I moved here approx 15 Years ago
when I moved here the local school was already too full to take my child and also even then the road and adjacent road Fordbrook Lane have been busy around school times and rush hour times

The situation of the roads has gradually got worse to the point where between certain Hours of the day 8.45-9.15am , 2.45-3.15pm and 4.30- 5.30pm we have great difficulty even getting off our Drive due to the amount of traffic queueing to get under the railway bridge, and across the traffic lights on the common. This route is the only way of getting through unless you divert to Brownhills or Rushall.
You are intending to build 7-800 new homes which will only exacerbate this problem to the point where living here could become intolerable with the traffic. Also how are the local schools and amenities going to cope when they could not cope adding one more child in. With recent years a new forest was planted behind our house. and from your plans this looks as though it will be destroyed. With all the issues regarding global warming surely destroying carbon dioxide consuming trees is the last thing that should be done.

The green belt behind my house also a large a diverse wildlife habitat with Green Parrots, Bats, pheasants and even a heard of Deer which appear. You are going to destroy all this habitat

I also heard on the news that Boris Johnson says we should not be building on Green belt land.

Comment

Representation ID: 16001

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: David Clenton

I think that building on all brownfield sites (unless there is very good reason not to) should be used for new buildings, before greenfield sites are considered.

More important though are the requirements that:-

New houses should be predominately for the less well off buyer, and more important still:

THAT ALL HEW HOUSES MUST BE CO2 ZERO!

Object

Representation ID: 16204

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: David Mills

I deplore the assault upon the greenbelt which is now underway. I object in the strongest terms about the loss of our fields when brownfield land should be developed first. Of course, private developers do not want to reclaim brownfield land. It is too expensive, but the public interest should count more than private profit. Twice in the last 100 years we have faces campaigns by an enemy intent on starving us and yet now we are building on our farmland. Madness!
May I also make the point that the sandhills development of which I particularly object, will choke our schools, roads, doctors, etc, etc. When I attended shire oak school there were about 1000 pupils at the school, today it has twice that number and yet you propose building hundreds of houses near to the school. Where will the young people form those homes go to be educated, to the already over-subscribed shire oak and other similar schools? We are destroying our environment with these wanton developments, ruining it for everybody, do not build these houses!

Object

Representation ID: 16377

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Deborah Lee

Generic
The cost to our natural environment appears to be being ignored. Brownfield sites are viewed as more expensive and as usual the mighty dollar wins over the true cost to our future generations wellbeing. We have to stop building on every field we see because it's cheaper. At this time we are more aware of the need to protect our environment than ever before with climate change being so high on the agenda, developments like this should not even be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 16858

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Agent: Gerald Kells

The plan includes a number of housing developments in locations we consider
to be unsustainable in terms of carbon emissions and damaging to the both
the ecological biodiversity and the access to the countryside and nature
within Walsall, as well as in other locations in the Black Country. We are
particularly concerned that nine significant sites are designated to be
removed from the Green Belt, including two, the Arboretum site and the
Sutton Road site, which would directly impact on the very important natural
and amenity value of the Arboretum and its surrounding area. This
undermines the good efforts of the Council and others to plant trees and
renature areas around the Arboretum and to gain the benefit of the canal
network as it passes under Longwood Lane and behind the Sutton Road.

See table in attachments

Object

Representation ID: 18295

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Julia Ingram

I totally disagree with any housing or employment developments that use greenbelt land. There are enough brownfield sites in the black country to accommodate all developments. For example a large area of land previously used by McKenhnie Brass Ltd in Aldridge could be used for housing, it is only 500m from the centre to Aldridge Town so is in an ideal position for public transport, community services and shops.
Green spaces are very important for the area and none should be used up as they will never be placed.

Comment

Representation ID: 20994

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Paragraph 12.2 - "The supporting text should also be amended to make clear that these areas have been identified through a number of specific studies looking at such matters as the Green Belt, landscape sensitivity, ecological impact and other environmental factors." Also commented is that these areas can also provide additional facilities to support existing communities.