Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11325

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Julia Hawes

Our priority should be protecting the green belt and enhancing it, not destroying it. The loss of green belt in Pelsall/Shelfield - Coronation Street will affect the local residents by depriving them of access to green spaces, as well as removing vital habitats for wildlife, including a variety of birds, deer and small mammals. Further investigation should be carried out into brownfield sites before precious green belt is obliterated.

Object

Representation ID: 11687

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emilia Roberts

I object to the use of greenbelt land for this as we are in a climate change crisis and we need to grow our green spaces and protect them not just for the wildlife but also for future generations to enjoy!

Object

Representation ID: 11843

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Knight

This plan repurposes significant amount of Walsall's Greenbelt for housing development over 2000 houses.

Object

Representation ID: 11939

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Linsey Rush

The green belt has to be protected from development as it’s integral part of the environment. I strongly object to the green belt being redeveloped around brownhills (A5 to barracks lane) as there is already enough industrial estates and not enough green belt for the area. The environment and wildlife will be severely altered if it gets developed and we will loose the only area that is left as green belt at this point if the A5.

Object

Representation ID: 12151

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Isobel Taylor

Development on this site would cause devastation in terms of;
1. Wildlife -creating a bottle neck along the greenway for movement of deer up to Cannock chase and destruction of indigenous bat, butterfly and bird species.
2. Flooding- this area is a floodplain which is already boggy and causes flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. Any building on this area is likely to cause increased risk of flooding to adjaceent houses of the proposed new building site.
3. Loss of direct access for dogwalkers/ramblers/and other recreational open nature space users -people will to travel to find appropriate replacements.

Support

Representation ID: 12236

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Julia Bannister

I support brownfield first policy approach. Green Belt land is a precious resource, which once lost, cannot be replaced. Using it to meet housing targets should only happen under ‘exceptional circumstances'. It provides ease of access to 'countryside next door' for residents in the areas it wraps around. Access to nature, green space and countryside is important for health and wellbeing. Green Belt reduces air pollution, mitigates impacts of climate change and provides essential habitats for wildlife. Retaining capacity of agricultural Green Belt areas is important for supporting the farming industry and addressing national food production and food security needs.

Object

Representation ID: 12323

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Yatisha Patel

Commenting on: Black Country Plan - document entitled: Walsall Borough Summary

Objection to proposed new housing land - site name Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road. 42 Hectares / 960 homes to be built

Reasons for objections:
- This housing is planned to be built on Walsall Green BElt, for obvious reasons I would object to this as the area currently is a peaceful green space to enjoy leisurely walks alongside from the current pheasey estate. A new housing estate on this greenbelt would ruin the green landscape in this area
- As I walk past this proposed site on a daily basis, it is obvious that there is also wildlife inhabiting the green space in terms of birds, etc. which I have frequently seen travelling in flocks across the site.
- Traffic generation. With an additional 900+ homes and no plans to improve flow of traffic to Scott Arms / Queslett Road would be a nightmare accessing road networks such as the M6. My current NHS job role requires me to travel to Stoke (2x week) and Birmingham (3x times a week) requires me to use a car as a I cannot afford to use public transport to both places, as well as children for a baby <1 year old.
- Amenities. There is already large build up/traffic at sites such as the ASDA on Queslett Road. WIth an addition of more homes, what amenities would help sustain the current population as well as additional locals?

If the proposed plans were to go ahead, as commuting is a very large part of mine and my husbands careers, this would be pivotal in us making a decision to continue living in the area. We had intially chosen this area due to good transport links to the M6. If the proposed plans go ahead, then it would essentially force us to re-consider living in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 14263

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Amanda Perry

I would like to express my objection to planning to developed on walsall greenbelt land.

We cherish what bit we have left.

The pelsall community does not want this on our land and I'm sure the surrounding area feel the same .

Object

Representation ID: 14727

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alex Mullen-Hughes

Number of people: 2

1. Environmental impact of removing this area of the Green Belt

I am very concerned that removing this area of the green belt will be detrimental to wildlife, ecology and the aesthetics of this haven in a built up area. Wildlife will be detrimentally impacted as natural habitats will be lost and wildlife corridors will be destroyed. Residents wellbeing will also be affected as the beauty of the area will be reduced, thereby diminishing the pleasure people will get from the arboretum as a whole.
I understand that new houses are required, however I would urge the council to strive to develop the numerous brownfield sites around the town. This would enable much needed regeneration of the town and surrounding areas, whilst also providing the new homes that are required. In contrast, if the council pursues the option of building on the Green Belt, these areas will be lost forever, whilst the Brownfields sites will remain an unresolved problem for the council.