D. City of Wolverhampton

Object

Representation ID: 18236

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: David Jackson

NOTE - SITE IS NOT A BCP ALLOCATION - IT LIES WITHIN SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE
Land to the north of Langley Road, Merry Hill Wolverhampton WV3 7LH map ID Ref 10063.

This land supports scarce bird species in the West Midlands.
Breeding birds include, [redacted] a Schedule 1 protecteed bird under the Wildlife and Countryside Act also up to two pairs of [redacted]which are RSPB Red Listed species of national Conservation Concern.
The woodland has also has recorded a Lesser spotted Woodpecker another nationally declining bird species.
The West Midland Bird Club object to the land being developed for housing or other such uses.
The Bird Club members will be happy to assist in any surveys of breeding and wintering species.

Object

Representation ID: 18467

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Ryan

WOH 274 WTNA
W.E.C. Wolverhampton Environmental Centre, Smestow Valley.
I would like to object to the prospect of housing being built on the site.

It is ridiculous to destroy an 'environmental centre' and unfair to the wildlife residing there.

I believe that there are much better spaces to build homes without destroying a precious wildlife area. I know that there are a great many rare plant species, [redacted - species] and an abundance of birds.

The outdoor space is important and enjoyed by many people. There is no other similar area nearby and I feel very strongly that it should not be built upon.

Please keep the green space of the WEC for myself and future generations to enjoy

Object

Representation ID: 18483

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Walker

I am emailing to strongly oppose the plan (page 608) for the building of houses on the WEC Smestow Valley. The addition of so few houses into an environmentally sensitive area would be severely detrimental to this area for little housing gain. The WEC was a godsend to me during lockdown as [redacted sensitive information] and was therefore locked down for much longer periods than most. This then impacted my mental health, but the close proximity of this area really helped me to de-stress and relax. The abundance and variety of wildlife is extraordinary for an area so close to the city centre. This area is also a part of the wildlife corridor, the Smestow Valley Nature Reserve, which runs for miles around the western side of Wolverhampton. I believe that this proposal is entirely based on monetary gain for a building company but will not provide any benefit for the local community.

Object

Representation ID: 19278

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rosemarie Haywood

Number of people: 5

As residents of Bilston in the City of Wolverhampton we object to any houses being built on this site known as the Grapes Field. It is a valuable green space for wildlife and local people. It is used extensively for walking, exercise, recreation and an area for children to play. The Bilston area is already over populated and more houses would put too much pressure on local schools and doctors' surgeries etc. Local people need open spaces for general wellbeing and mental health wellness. We object strongly to this plan.

Object

Representation ID: 21375

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms S Ghani

I am writing to object against the development of housing on the old St Luke’s School site off Goldthron Road. Following the expansion of The Royal School, Goldthorn Road is severely congested with traffic which impacts accessibility to the road, hazards, impact on environment during to increased traffic levels. Development of housing on this piece of land is not viable. As a long term local resident of Goldthorn Road we support the land being used by The Royal School for development of a 6th form and also support parking/drop off and pick up point which will help alleviate congestion from the local area and support The Royal School which is a highly successful educational establishment in the city.

Object

Representation ID: 21380

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sally Green

Present proposal for the Old St Luke’s site that sits between one entrance from Cypress Street and the other from Goldthorn rd as a
housing Development.This area dosnt have the infer-Structure to support this with a lack of transport links and traffic issues that
already cause issues.
This needs to looked at very carefully on the impact of residents already struggling with the issues above may this suggestion should
taken into Consideration that only Part of the site accessible from Cypress Street is made into Housing ,and thee is an in and out
System in place for the vehicles are the a joining road are narrow.
Front access to the old St Luke site is used to create a 6th form centre for The Royal School .If the Royal preserves the existing
playing
Fields and create staff parking at front of the 6th form block,this will also enable works at the primary school to increase a much
needed capacity as local residents can not get their own children into a local primary school .
We are losing every green open space we have to development and this area is a privately own housing area and people are suppose
absorb any impact whether it be quality of life or financial .
There hasn’t been long enough consultant on this and should be Extended to allow people to respond

Object

Representation ID: 21381

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Sally Hilton

I cannot support the proposal to build houses on the WEC, particularly given that these are luxury houses which will not help with the increase of social housing stock in the City.
(REF: WOH274 WTNA)
Many people use the footpaths to walk and play without fear of traffic, creating roads which will cut across this wonderful resourse would be a terrible loss of safe space.
We are currently experiencing a huge incease in mental health crises in all communities and ages groups, access to our green spaces and connection with nature is one of the few positive things people have been able to do to stay well and functioning.
I do understand that housing is a much needed resource in Wolverhampton and congratulate the council on some great housing developments which have utilised spaces other than green space.
Once our green spaces are lost, they are gone forever, I am sure the councils can continue to develop innovative and imaginative solutions which enable residents of the city to continue to enjoy and utilise the beautiful green spaces we have whilst creating additional social housing for the Black Country.

Object

Representation ID: 21404

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Sara Leece

Response to the proposal for the Wolverhampton Environment Centre (WEC)
Reference: WOH274 WTNA

Firstly, I acknowledge the need for more housing to be built and to this end, it is clear that much thought and effort has been dedicated by all those involved in creating the Black Country Plan, which sets out multiple sites for development that will lead to the creation of 43,837 net new homes.

My objection set out here is in relation to only one of those sites, the former Wolverhampton Environment Centre (WEC), which is earmarked for the development of just 14 houses. This is a mere drop in the ocean towards the overall target and yet will have a significant detrimental impact for both the wildlife that inhabit the area and the local residents who seek to enjoy it.

In the additional pages supplied, I have set out the reasons for my concerns and provided some background context for anyone unfamiliar with the site.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposals as part of the consultation process being offered and trust that such views will be taken into consideration as I know that many more people share the same concerns, even if they have not taken the trouble to respond.

Object

Representation ID: 21412

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah James

RE: WEC Smestow Valley in Wolverhampton, referenced in the Black Country Plan - p.608, ref WOH274 WTNA

I strongly object to the building of domestic housing on the WEC / Smestow valley nature reserve access adjacent to Westacre Cres, Finchfield.

This site is one of the few places for wildlife in Wolverhampton that remains wild in key areas for the protection of wildlife and has 5 species of bat now living there (BrumBats Survey conducted Sept 2021) This is not stated in report on wildlife inspection 2016 which is out of date.

This site is also a great asset to not only local people but for people all over Wolverhampton and the West Midlands.
It needs to remain as it is now, to boost our mental health (as the Government recommends) as a wonderful landscape for recreation for all age groups plus providing access for people who have a disability with some wheelchair access.

Certain rare and endangered species of fauna and flora habit this area and must be protected for their future and to be in the world for our children and generations to come.

The building of houses will create a massive disturbance all year around; It will mean noise pollution, light pollution and a change in air quality. I also believe a housing estate will erode the whole area generally, because further planning permission will be sought after and likely granted for further development.

As a Wolverhampton taxpayer and someone who cares deeply about this precious nature reserve you simply cannot let this building work go ahead.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah James.

Object

Representation ID: 21423

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Satnam Siwuk

I would support the Royal School to have the St. Luke site for the car park the new housing estate will create more traffic whereas the traffic will decrease if the Royal School acquire the site

Comment

Representation ID: 21425

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Satvinder Raprai

I generally go along with the councillors proposals to create 6th form centre for the Royal School and don't agree with the present proposal for housing.
If the housing proposal does go ahead, then access and exit traffic should only go through Cyrus Street because at present, during drop off/pick up times for children from the school, the Chetwynd Road and Goldthorn Road junction, gets grid locked due to parked vehicles thus causing congestion.
This concern needs to be addressed first and foremost as regards for residents who can gain access to their properties safely.

Object

Representation ID: 21428

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Sendy Dube

I object to the construction of houses on the Old St Lukes School Site:-

1. Old St Lukes site would be better used to develop a 6th Form Centre for the Royal School.
2. The Royal school would in turn be able to create staff parking at the front of the 6th Form block.
3. This would trermendously reduce traffic congestion during schoo-term. It is already congested as it is without having to add a housing project.

Thank You.

Object

Representation ID: 21445

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Sharon Simplay

Number of people: 6

Below are concerns residents of Cyprus Street at the following numbers: No.5,8,10,11 + 12 Cyprus Street.
Concerns listed below:-
1) We have not been notified enough to think about the impact this is going to have. Letter dated 30/9/21 yet only received a week ago. we need further consultation about the proposals and options.
2) We have see no plans? We have had no meeting? Why? How can we possibly object or agree at this stage.
3) We do not agree with the opening up of Cyprus Street via Bromford Close as all!! Many concerns there. What other options are there?
4) How will this proposal impact our house value if we sell? What impact will this have on Cyprus Street residents
5) As you know 'The Old Deritend' site has been sold. There are major works going on there, to create units. Why on earth would you do this if a housing proposal is underway? What will happen to this site if plans go ahead.
6) Will be residents lose our homes because of this proposal of new housing?
7) We do not want cheep housing being built, need more discussion about this. Not happy.
8) We feel we have 2 options, either stay here or lose our homes!!
We need further discussions about this proposal before anything is agreed!!

Object

Representation ID: 21450

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Westwood

Wolverhampton area - housing

What happened to the Government's/Prime ministers pledge not to use green belt for building houses?? I live in the Wednesfield area, as well as the plan for house's on Woodend Road we also have the threat of more than 2,000 house's being built on the South Staffordshire border on Linthouse Lane/Kitchen Lane, which in itself will create much more traffic congestion within this area, which is already busy enough! What about schools, Dr's surgeries and local hospital service's already bursting at the seams??? there is hardly any mention of improvement's or plan's to add any only 'if needed', In the midst of the lockdown earlier this year, I saw a traffic counter strip laid down Linthouse Lane and I did think to myself are they counting vehicles to see how busy it get's down this road because they are talking about building these extra houses? I really hope this was not the case as how underhand would that be, as it would not be a true picture and not under normal circumstances. I really don't think the feeling's of local people have or won't be considered regarding these plan's, as the green belt areas are very close to our heart's, they are where we spend our leisure time running, walking, taking our dog's out, basically just chilling out in our bit of nature and once it's gone that's it, no going back. I have watched house's being built in this area and what really bother's me is that so much social and affordable housing is needed yet what do we see?
properties being built that are way over £200,000 or you can possibly buy half a house and rent the other half - really! if there is any social housing it's a small minority within that plan that looks like an after thought like 'oh remember we said we'd give them some affordable/ social housing best put it up that corner, that should suffice so we can make the most money off the bigger houses we're building on this lovely prime green belt area', it's all about £££££. I understand the need for new housing, but it should be in the interest of each council to find brownfield first and to consider the local infrastucture, to regenerate an area perhap's run down because of factories being no longer in use, whatever the reason you can bet the housebuilding companies won't be as interested in these because they can make more money from premium greenbelt countryside, they don't want the hassle of preparing old land but they should be encouraged to by local councils as we would not have so many run down, derelict, unsightly areas. I would emplore the council to go down this route first for housing and leave as much of our green belt to be enjoyed by generation's to come.

Support

Representation ID: 21451

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Carney Sweeney Limited

Agent: Carney Sweeney Limited

Peveril Securities strongly support the Bushbury strategic allocation in Policy CSA1 in the draft Black Country
Plan (BCP) for housing and related purposes including the potential provision of a primary school and the
delivery of land as part of that process as an extension to the Northycote Country Park. The site allocations
WOH257, 258, 259 and 260 are supported.
Peveril has an agreement with the landowner to deliver the site for housing on all land north of Northycote
Lane and it is understood the Council (who owns land WOH260) is willing to also bring its land forward. Work
carried out by Peveril in relation to on-site infrastructure and environmental constraints has concluded that
there are no matters that would prevent delivery of housing and it is understood the same position applies to
the Council land. Thus, in terms of the important issue of the delivery of housing to meet identified needs (see
below), it can be concluded that the Bushbury allocation can be delivered because a house building company
has agreement with the landowner of most of the site and the second landowner (the Council) is also in a
position to deliver its land. It can be anticipated that once the allocation of the site is confirmed through the
Examination into the BCP, Peveril will actively progress a planning application with a view to delivering the
housing within the first five to seven years of the Plan period. This is likely to improve upon the phasing
proposals for delivery in paragraph D30 of the BCP.
To support the view that the site is capable of delivery, Peveril has prepared an up to date masterplan which is
attached. This demonstrates how the forecast housing numbers for the site in Policy CSA can be
accommodated through a comprehensive approach by a combination of Peveril and Council land and that the
key planning requirements for the development of the site can be met. The masterplan also shows how a
primary school site of the appropriate size can be accommodated on Council land.

The context of the NPPF advice in relation to the proposed review of Green Belt boundaries and the delivery of
appropriate levels of housing is important. Peveril supports the broad conclusions which the BCP reaches
concerning the spatial strategy (Policy CSP1 and CSP2) and the scale of housing land that is required within the
Black Country (circa 48,000 dwellings in the Plan period). They also support Wolverhampton's status as a
strategic centre. The economic investment being made in the City and the housing needs related to that
supports the logical conclusion that it is necessary for Wolverhampton to release land from the Green Belt to
accommodate housing requirements within the Plan period. Peveril is therefore supportive of that process and
the conclusion that has been reached (see Table 4 of the BCP).
In terms of the choices made in relation to Green Belt release and proposed housing sites which have fed into
the BCP, Peveril considers the release of Green Belt on the eastern side of the City represents the best option
to provide housing land in accordance with the NPPF advice relating to how to review Green Belt boundaries in
the Local Plan process. In this regard, the contents of NPPF paragraphs 140 to 143 have been complied with to
support the release of the land at Bushbury for housing purposes.
Specifically in relation to paragraph 143 of the NPPF, the review of Green Belt boundaries on the eastern side
of Wolverhampton is consistent with the Development Plan strategy for meeting identified housing needs –
with Wolverhampton one of the four strategic centres in which to locate a proportion of the housing needs
(covering criteria (a) of paragraph 143). As far as criteria (b), (c) and (d) are concerned, it is not necessary to
identify in this case safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt because the proposed
allocation immediately abuts the urban area and is mainly between the existing urban area of
Wolverhampton; the tree belts in the Northycote Country Park and road infrastructure. As far as criteria (e) is concerned (and also related to criteria (f), the boundaries of the Green Belt shown on the masterplan are in
themselves permanent and defensible in the long term. They comprise potentially an estate road and tree belt
on the northern edge of allocation WOH259; established tree belts to the east of WOH258 and WOH257 (with
dedicated land extending the Country Park) and then Bushbury Lane defining the Green Belt boundary to the
east of WOH260. Therefore, these criteria of paragraph 143 are complied with.
In addition, the allocation of the Bushbury area would allow the tree belt to continue to perform the purposes
of the Green Belt in paragraph 138 of the NPPF. Whilst there is inevitably ‘encroachment’ into what is
currently countryside, this encroachment is limited and is defined (see below) by existing and proposed
significant boundaries such as tree belts, roads and other features. The other purposes of the Green Belt are
not significantly offended by the extension of the settlement to the east – to a great extent the eastern
boundary of the allocation is the woodland within Northycote Country Park. However, development on the Bushbury site represents a contained and managed extension of the settlement framework and would comply
with the criteria in draft Policy CSP1.
In this way the combination of the appropriate provision of objectively assessed housing need and the
redefining of Green Belt boundaries in accordance with NPPF policy results in the proposed Bushbury
allocation being considered 'sound' for the purposes of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Peveril therefore strongly supports Policy CSA1 of the draft BCP relating to this area and Policies CSP1 and 2
relating to the provision of objectively assessed need in Wolverhampton in the Plan period. This justifies the
need for the review of the boundaries of the Green Belt around Wolverhampton – in which release of land on
the eastern side of the City for the Bushbury area represents the best of the options that are chosen.
Peveril would welcome further dialogue with the City Council as planning authority (and landowner) to ensure
early delivery of the allocated site should it be confirmed through the Examination process.

ATTACHMENT

Comment

Representation ID: 21463

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Stacey Smith

Table 43 site WHO273

As a resident of bilston in the city of Wolverhampton, I object to any houses being built on this site known as the grapes field. I do so because it is a valuable green open space. This area is used by residents for walking , exercise and recreational uses. It is also an important habitat for local birds and wildlife. The bilston area already has several new housing developments but very few open green spaces. I strongly object to any building development on this site and request it protected for future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 21474

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Phillips

*ATTACHMENTS*
Objection to Table 43. Site WOH273 Moseley Road/Prouds Lane, Bilston

Draft Plan objection
Objection to Section D, Wolverhampton
Table 43 Site WOH273
Moseley Road/Prouds Lane open space, Bilston

Black Country Plan Objection Statement
It's called Fieldside walk not Houseside walk.
Everybody including Andy Street (the Mayor of West Midlands) who was on TV recently saying "People need access to quality green spaces" and we believe people want to get nature back and the Council want to destroy OUR piece of nature for MORE concrete.
Wildlife needs a home and the field gives them that. We have Foxes, Hedgehogs, Squirrels, Bats and multiple varieties of birds, Butterflies, Bees and Insects that live off the clover and other flowers that grow on the field throughout the year. If you take away the flowers you take away the valuable pollinators that help the environment.
Over the last 18 months due to Covid 19 and multiple lockdowns people have needed the field more than ever. It was their closest open space to enjoy fresh air, a bit of piece and quiet to help their mental well-being.
People who live near the field and who use it for walking their dogs, to exercise, jog or just to spend time with their families. They all say the same thing, They don't want more houses they want the field to stay. There are people who feel safer when walking alone on the section directly opposite to Fieldside Walk as you can be seen from the houses and the road.
Building on the field will create a problem for the Air Ambulance. Where will it land if anyone ever needs it again?. I have included a picture of it landed on the field.
There are a lot of elderly people (including me) who live on Fieldside Walk who don't need the stress, anxiety and sleepless nights thinking about the disruption of builders, noise pollution, lorries, dust, air pollution and Traffic congestion with multiple parked cars.
Fieldside Walk will lose the beautiful views and it will also devalue the house prices.
I'm sending multiple forms of signatures from local people that live nearby and use the field and are all in agreement that we don't want the housing development.
I have also included pictures that my family have taken over years of the field and it's inhabitants.
Submitted by Mrs S Phillips, 15 Fieldside Walk, WV14 6LY

Please find enclosed in this form
Objection statement letter
Photographs
Names and Addresses of people who live localy and in the Wolverhampton area and people who use the field daily, who object to the building of houses on the Grapes Field, Moseley Road Bilston
We do not want to see 46 years worth of nature destroyed

Object

Representation ID: 23464

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Macdonald

As a long-standing resident of South-West Wolverhampton, I wish to register my objection to the plan
included in the Black Country Plan document to build new residential housing on the former Wolverhampton Environmental Centre land adjacent to the Smestow Valley Linear Nature Reserve. This is a valuable area of green space, integrated with a very popular and attractive public resource. Many nearby residents fail to understand why a city such as Wolverhampton with its plentiful supply of brownfield land is considering
encroaching on part of its relatively small reserve of greenery. It seems particularly surprising in the light of the support being provided from several quarters for the setting up of a national brown field development centre at the University of Wolverhampton, a development which I note Wolverhampton BC is happy to
publicise.

Object

Representation ID: 23573

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group

Agent: Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group

Broadly and Summarised:
1) We support the exclusion / non-inclusion of the Seven Cornfields as a site for housing development.
2) We support the saving of the Green Belt Seven Cornfields site.
3) We oppose development on the Green Belt and important greenfield sites.
4) We do not support the housing forecast model used. Equality Impact assessment is needed.
5) We do not support the excessive housing target of 76,000 homes.
6) We believe there should be greater equity and equality within the local planning process and Nolan standards of public office be upheld.
7) We believe the Seven Cornfields is an important carbon sink, it contributes to care of the planet and local areas, avoids flooding and provides equality of access.
8) The report addresses amongst others Para 3.15-3.16, Policy DEL2, Policy HOU1, Policy CC1
9) Brownfield, derelict land, retail and office spaces can meet the housing demands.

The Seven Cornfields site comes in the highest of five categories of Green Belt in the South Staffordshire Green Belt survey – loss would be of ‘very high harm’ to the Green Belt - and in the higher of two categories of Green Belt in the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) survey – ‘principle contribution’ - but much of the wedge further out towards Wombourne is categorised in the GBHMA survey in the lower ‘supporting contribution’ and the overall area west of Wolverhampton is one of the areas where it thought that ‘proportionate dispersal’ (small developments) might be appropriate. It is, however, much worse north of the Black Country, where two more proportional dispersal search areas, a ‘development area with an employment focus’, two ‘urban extensions’ and two possible ‘new settlements’ are postulated!
The Seven Cornfields are a microcosm, at present there are patches of woodland surrounded by arable fields, there are, however, wildlife corridors, hedgerows and footpaths where wildlife can move round at night passing unseen down these trails, so the woodland patches are not isolated one from the other. The wedge as a whole allows this connectivity to extend to the open countryside, thus physically linking large areas of Wolverhampton (and Dudley) with rural South Staffordshire.

The ecosystem has developed over centuries but has been able to adapt to minor intrusions of humankind.

If houses are built on all of the Seven Cornfields, hedgerows cleared and the Penn Brook banks manicured and landscaped for the residents of the new estate then these vulnerable corridors will disappear. The wildlife of the woodlands will vanish. Anthropogenic species like foxes will persist but bats, xxxxxx and butterflies and perhaps the birds of prey will be lost for this and future generations.

The road system around the Seven Cornfields site is congested and insufficient for any additional traffic. Access points to the site will become pinch points. At peak times all the housing estate’s feeder roads onto main highways are already gridlocked.

The roads from Penn, Ettingshall Park, Northway and Goldthorn estates towards Wolverhampton and Birmingham are congested and at capacity. Wolverhampton and Dudley residents will bear the brunt of the traffic increase.

The development of houses will place a huge strain on the infrastructure of the Goldthorn Park, Northway, Ettingshall Park and Penn estates which are adjoining areas to the Green Belt under threat.

THE STAFFORDSHIRE BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN

The Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan (SBAP) to which South Staffordshire Council are joint partners with other organisations, has been in place since 1998 in order to co-ordinate conservation efforts to deliver the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Several pairs of Skylark breed on the rough grassland at Penwood Farm (The Seven Cornfields) and this species has its own Action Plan in the SBAP.
......
4.Dramatic Weather Patterns and Flooding Few could dispute in Britain, Europe and the World dramatic changes in weather patterns have resulted in Floods which the consequential economic, social and physical damages and costs. It is beyond stupid to develop on sites where the risks of Flooding on the site and adjacent areas is probable or already demonstrated. The Seven Cornfields site, for instance, has suffered from changes in the water layers and there has been frequent flooding of the Penn Golf Club site. This problem will in every likelihood of greater flooding and damage on the Golf course if the Seven Cornfields site is developed. Policy CC1
....
14. Carbon Sink
The Seven Cornfields provide a carbon sink for Wolverhampton. The importance of this asset to address air pollution and store atoms like carbon cannot be overestimated. It is fundamental to survival on this planet and locally that carbon is captured and stored.
....
The Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group do not consider the loss of the Seven Cornfields and other Green Belt sites this is a price worth paying for additional houses. Especially when the forecasting model is questionable and based on assumptions from a economic and social world that was so different prior to Covid 19 than after its emergence.


Here a list of planning reasons behind the objections to development on the Seven Cornfields:
Affordable Housing Mix

The mix of much needed affordable social housing provided is unclear and cannot be guaranteed.

Insufficient local infrastructure

Transport and Traffic Congestion - too much extra housing around the borders of Wolverhampton and Dudley will lead to further pollution and congestion on busy roads.

The road system around Seven Cornfields site is congested and insufficient for any additional traffic. At peak times all the estates feeder roads onto main roads are already gridlocked.

The roads from Penn, Ettingshall Park, Northway and Goldthorn estates towards Wolverhampton and Birmingham are congested and at capacity. Wolverhampton and Dudley residents will bear the brunt of the traffic increase.

The development of thousands of houses will place a huge strain on the infrastructure of the Goldthorn Park, Northway, Ettingshall Park and Penn estates which are adjoining areas to the Green Belt.

No Accident and Emergency facilities exist in the South Staffordshire. Additional pressure will be placed on Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley or New Cross Wolverhampton Hospitals. Both hospitals are at capacity.

Primary and Secondary Schooling provision will be exhausted.

The development of the Wolverhampton part of the Seven Cornfields will make it easy of a developer or developers to build on the South Staffs part of the site. And Vice Versa. There are infrastructure issues which revolve around Policing, Fire Service coverage and Ambulance callouts. Is South Staffordshire likely to increase funding of policing and Fire Coverage at Wombourne? Ambulances would have to respond from New Cross and Russells Hall Hospitals.

Health and Well Being will be affected badly because of the further strain on GP surgeries, hospitals and dental services

There will be a loss of spare service capacity, for example, waste disposal

Environmental issues

The proposed developments are over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity

Increasing hazards and dangers on the roads will follow excess road traffic, there will be a decline in road safety, an increase in accident hot spots, increased noise, floods, fire risks from local warming

Negative Environmental Impact across the area with a loss of wildlife, biodiversity, air quality, open spaces,

Scale of developments would affect the water table and massively increase the extent and duration of flooding, for instance at Penn Golf Course

Unacceptably high density / over-development of the Penn Wood or Seven Cornfields site.

Adverse effects on residential amenity of adjoining estates and neighbours, by reason of -among other factors - noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [ note noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will have to be taken into account, in relation to conditions that may be imposed on the planning permission, dealing with hours and methods of working, etc. during the development around sites where vulnerable people are present - Sedgley Blind Institute]

Quality of life of existing residents will suffer.

Loss of Green Belt will result in urban sprawl, the merging of towns and housing estates

Linked directly to the increase in traffic and the loss of green belt land is the deterioration of environmental factors such as air quality.

Penn, Goldthorn, Blakenhall, Ettingshall Park and Northway estates suffer from stationary traffic during commuting hours, as a result the level of air pollution from vehicle fumes is excessive. An additional 1000s of vehicles would increase the likelihood of respiratory illness like Asthma.

Increased associated vehicle noise levels is inevitable together with accident rates associated with the increase in vehicle numbers.

Public transport would need to be reviewed and would in all likelihood require increased investment

Loss of recreation, play and open spaces especially important for people with mental health problems

Access to the rail infrastructure is distant and prohibitive but Option A has the right level of infrastructure in play.

Visual impact of the development making area unattractive to inward investment.

Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood will be detrimental.

Loss of existing views from neighbouring properties and estates would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users.
.
Green belt destruction.

Development of green belt land will negatively contribute to climate change issues in every case.

Loss of enjoyment, discovery and exploration,

Loss of family, exercise and health benefits of fields for walkers, dog-walkers, naturalists

Areas proposed for development clearly on established green belt are close to ancient woodlands, large parts of the established eco systems would be destroyed together with the associated wildlife

Mental Health problems are on the rise and everyone needs quiet places to relax and meditate on established and well used public open space accessible without the use of vehicles. Local residents have a place to relax using a network of very well established footpaths and highways through historic agricultural land.

Loss of habitat and wildlife from the area would be irreversible.

The new roads for homes and associated driveways would contribute to flooding and effect the natural balance of the area.

Massive loss of Green Belt, footpaths and open aspect of the neighbourhood (‘green belt grabbing’ on an unnecessary and industrial scale )


10. THE SEVEN CORNFIELDS CAMPAIGN GROUP
OPPOSES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON THE GREEN BELT AND THE SEVEN CORNFIELDS AND OBJECTS TO ANY LOSS OF GREEN BELT SITES IN OR AROUND WOLVERHAMPTON OR DUDLEY


There should be a basic opposition to dismantling any part of the Green Belt - it is a simple concept which has served Britain well in comparison with other countries in protecting our countryside. Indeed, it might be said that rural - and urban in leafy suburbs - tourism has been a success because of Green Belt status sustained in large visitor centres.

The purposes of the Green Belt include the protection against encroachment from and between adjoining major urban areas. They prevent regions, counties, sub-regions like the Black Country and districts swallowing their green boundaries and then as if by accident become an urban sprawl. They act as a barrier to the coalescence of rural and urban settlements in order to retain the attractive distinctive character of each rural or urban setting of settlements. The original land use planning developed with titles like the Town and Country Act - this showed the importance of the distinction.

Housing development on key Green Belt sites adjacent to housing estates cannot be allowed because infrastructure is necessary and must be sufficient to serve the demands generated.

Additional infrastructure and upgrading will have to take place prior to development of housing. Roads will have to extended possibly widened and traffic management systems upgraded to control flows productively and effectively. Their critical educational issue will be the provision of a secondary school. This will need to be built and the schools made operational prior to the housing development completion.

This in turn will mean that those living on estates adjacent to the site will suffer from:
Loss of clean air
Serious local flooding due to lost natural water drainage
Shortage of local school places as competition increases will be dramatic
Class sizes will in turn increase poor education attainment
Hospital patient face longer waiting lists
Waiting time for doctor appointments will increase
The extent of traffic jams and grid lock on local feeder roads will increase
There will be less recreational space for walks or play
There will be a loss of local wildlife and plants

The Black Country Plan 2039 needs to take account of the Green Belt Review published by LUCs, which seek to assess parcels of land within the Green Belt against the five tests set out in Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.


11. THE SEVEN CORNFIELDS CAMPAIGN GROUP
OPPOSES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON PENNWOOD FARM AND THE SEVEN CORNFIELDS SITE


The Seven Cornfields site comes in the highest of five categories of Green Belt in the South Staffordshire Green Belt survey – loss would be of ‘very high harm’ to the Green Belt - and in the higher of two categories of Green Belt in the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) survey – ‘principle contribution’ - but much of the wedge further out towards Wombourne is categorised in the GBHMA survey in the lower ‘supporting contribution’ and the overall area west of Wolverhampton is one of the areas where it thought that ‘proportionate dispersal’ (small developments) might be appropriate. It is however much worse north of the Black Country, where two more proportional dispersal search areas, a ‘development area with an employment focus’, two ‘urban extensions’ and two possible ‘new settlements’ are postulated!

The Seven Cornfields are a microcosm, at present there are patches of woodland surrounded by arable fields, there are, however, wildlife corridors, hedgerows and footpaths where wildlife can move round at night passing unseen down these trails, so the woodland patches are not isolated one from the other. The ecosystem has developed over centuries but has adapted to minor intrusions of humankind. If houses are built on all of the Seven Cornfields, hedgerows cleared and the Penn Brook banks manicured and landscaped for the residents of the new estate then these vulnerable corridors will disappear. The wildlife of the woodlands will vanish. Anthropogenic species like foxes will persist but bats, xxxxxs and butterflies and perhaps the birds of prey will be lost for this and future generations.

Pennwood Farm is an important wildlife corridor and represents one of the more ecologically rich and varied mosaics of habitats in the wider farming community, where the wildflowers on adjoining farms have been destroyed by spraying, and these farms have been virtually sterilised by over-intensification and are much less rich in invertebrates and the birds that breed and feed on them.

The farm has important hedgerows for breeding Yellowhammers and the rough grassland supports several pairs of Skylark. Both species are Red Listed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as species of National Conservation Concern.
The Horse paddocks and associated bridleways and rough ground support good populations of nectar sources which in turn support 22 species of butterflies, making it a 'hot spot' in South Staffordshire.
Ancient woodland and hedgerows around the farm are important breeding areas for a variety of birds and 72 species have been recorded on the farm in recent years.

The Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan

The Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan (SBAP) to which South Staffordshire Council are joint partners with other organisations, has been in place since 1998 in order to co-ordinate conservation efforts to deliver the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Several pairs of Skylark breed on the rough grassland at Penwood Farm (The Seven Cornfields) and this species has its own Action Plan in the SBAP.

See Appendix 2. Extracts from Staffordshire County Council Protected Species Advice Document
which includes planning advice and guidance on biodiversity conservation.

Detail of Butterflies population on the Seven Cornfields can be found in Appendix 3. Butterflies recorded annually at the Seven Cornfields, Pennwood Farm.

Flooding

Currently, Penn Golf Course suffers from frequent flooding and there are concerns that the water table will be affected to bring other areas into zones of high risk of flooding if development of housing proceeds on the Green Belt without an assessment of the likelihood of flooding in a particular area so that development needs and mitigation measures should be carefully considered.

There is an important water course on the Seven Cornfields known as Penn Brook, this was originally called Lloyd brook, it flows westwards across the common from its source on Colton Hills. When the brook leaves the common it becomes the River Wom (after which Wombourne is named).

Penn Brook is one of the key tributaries of Smestow Brook. It falls 90 metres (300 feet) in 8 kilometres (5 miles). The Penn Brook rises in the natural amphitheatre created by the heights of Goldthorn Park, the Northway and Colton Hills.

Development of the sloping site of the Seven Cornfields is likely to cause additional flooding problems especially as annual rainfall appears to be increasing.

Significant transport investment is needed to support options.

The thinking on growth is wanting and depends too heavily on extinguishing Green Belt status.

Economic Development perspectives are weak within the policies and the proper benefits of a Local Plan are lost as no attempt has been made to link the changed technological, sociological and economic landscape into a cogent framework for the future. More work needs to be done.

There is a need for additional infrastructure with an extra range of alternatives to support the requirements of integrated transport to effectively and efficiently accommodate such excessive housing growth as promoted.


Appendix 1

KEY POINTS MADE TO SOUTH STAFFS
AN EXTRACT FROM SUBMISSION

That South Staffordshire expects their distinctive character to be maintained whilst destroying others is a matter that needs to be considered fully. What holds as a valid principle for guiding Local Plans must have an equivalence when used as an objection to a proposal.

Whilst the South Staffordshire Local Plan’s movement for growth does not obliterate high proportion or significant high percentages of South Staffordshire’s total Green Belt land ( ‘Much of South Staffordshire (80%) lies within the West Midlands Green Belt (32,089 hectares)”). It does affect and obliterate important proportions or a high percentage of the very limited Green Belt available in Dudley and Wolverhampton that creates a distinctive character of Green around urban local settlements in Dudley and Wolverhampton.

A loss for Staffordshire of Green Belt sites has very minimal effects on the local Shire character because South Staffs has so much Green Belt.

The erosion of Green Belt in South Staffordshire by our boundaries, however, has a disproportional negative affect on the distinctive character and quality of life of neighbourhoods in Wolverhampton and Dudley.

At the end of the Forward,

“South Staffordshire has historically proven to be an attractive location for people to live. It has been a destination for people moving from the West Midlands major urban area and other nearby towns. Pressure for housing growth over and above the needs arising purely from within the district has continued. South Staffordshire’

Then in the Executive Summary of the Housing Strategy,

“Our preferred approach, Option G, is very much Member led. We believe Option G will meet our housing numbers, make a contribution (under our legal Duty to Cooperate) to the wider unmet housing need and also take account of the impact of development on current infrastructure and what opportunities there are for new and improved infrastructure. This approach will, however, lead to Green Belt release and this is something that has been very carefully considered in formulating the options. We know there are very difficult decisions to be made in providing new homes and protecting the Green Belt.”

A forensic examination of this statement and its implications reveals an underlying ethical, moral, professional and political intent. This is inherent and pervasive within the documents which support the Housing Strategy and Local Plan, it reveals a prevailing and unwanted sympathy.

The Preferred Option and majority of other Housing Options that allow a Housing Target build of 8,000 as presented or captured in the South Staffordshire Housing Strategy and Local Plan can only be possibly categorised in harsh terms as parasitism, imperialism and colonialism. Although harsh, a quick turn to the Oxford Dictionary of English allows a judgement and check:

a) “Parasitism ‘habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return’.”
b) “Imperialism ‘a policy of extending a country’s [local authority’s] power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means’ ”
b) “Colonialism ‘the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country [local authority area], occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically’ ”

Globally, policies of that nature were detrimental to indigenous populations and ecosystems and disregarded the care, needs and demands of those existing populations, residential communities, people, groups and individuals. Applied in more local practices within the Local Plan, they are equally unpalatable since the strategy seeks to impose a leadership or dominance by one state - South Staffordshire Council - or social group (Elected members as this is after all a member-led strategy) over others, the Wolverhampton and Dudley communities adversely affected at the boundaries by development on the Green Belt. It relies on exploiting others and gives nothing in return.

It is also not clear why in Plan B, urban extensions are biased towards west of the Black Country. There is a key question that follows this bias and it needs to be answered: Why was it found necessary for urban extensions to be biased towards west of the Black Country in this particular plan?

There is as much, or more, Green Belt land of less than high or very high harm in the north and more land beyond the Green Belt but still in perfect reach of the whole conurbation via the A5, M6 and M54. This is much less true of Green Belt west of the Black Country, however close in proximity to the conurbation. A requirement for development to be in ‘close proximity’ to the conurbation would inevitably impinge on high harm Green Belt.

It’s more about Income and Wealth rather than Planning and Housing Considerations

South Staffordshire Council’s Local Plan highlights land for development as requirement of central Government however, the extra 4,000 above target largely is made largely on economic basis to increase their income collected by the Council.

Housing development claims on South Staffordshire Council’s infrastructure investment would be at a very low relative level with additional residents being serviced by neighbouring boroughs, whilst allowing a steady revenue stream to South Staffordshire Council through the chargeable Council tax for higher band "more expensive" properties. The costs of infrastructure would fall unfairly on the adjoining areas of Wolverhampton and Dudley who would not receive the Council Tax receipts. Imperial, parasitic and/ or colonial what words best describe this relationship?

South Staffordshire is rightly proud that it is prosperous with the proportion of those employed within the top three professional and managerial sectors being above the national average. Many if not most of these are people employed outside the area who bring the income from elsewhere into South Staffs to create a wealth base there.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Different Options in South Staffordshire Housing Strategy

The Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group has fully considered the various Housing Options which are presented in summary form in the Appendices. There was much discussion of the advantages and disadvantage of these but reason, logic, planning considerations and the common purpose of community interests lead to a series of objections, endorsements and comments which are provided in much greater detail below in the following pages.

Option B includes development of Green Belt and achieves the full plan of 9,130 dwellings between 2018 and 2037, including the unnecessary full contribution of up to 4,000 dwellings to the GBHMA, but avoids allocating growth to Green Belt areas of high or very high harm. The Save the Seven Cornfields Campaign Group acknowledges this is the second best (after Option A) in terms of protecting the Green Belt.
.

Appendix 2.
Extracts from Staffordshire County Council Protected Species Advice Document
Skylark
A national BAP target species with a costed action plan and a Staffordshire BAP target species. Ground nesting in grassland or low vegetation including crops. Skylarks require open areas with an absence of features such as trees and hedgerows that act as perches for potential predators. They will not nest in confined areas. Spring planting is key where arable land is used for nesting.
Yellowhammer
UK BAP species of conservation concern and Staffordshire BAP target species. Nearly always nests on the ground, if not, always close to it hidden among grass and herbage, typically against a bank or at the base of a hedge, small tree or bush. The yellowhammer begins laying from April to early August and frequently produces two and sometimes three broods, each taking up to 28 days to fledge and therefore they have usually cleared the nest site by mid-September. skylark begins laying between late March and late April and may produce four broods, each taking between 21 and 30 days to fledge and therefore they have usually cleared the nest site by August.

Planning Guidance and Protected Species Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation includes a set of Key Principles that should be applied to all planning decisions. These include: • Planning decisions should be based upon up-to-date information; • Planning decisions should give due weight to protected species and to biodiversity interests within the wider environment; • Planning decisions should aim to maintain biodiversity interests and to enhance, restore or add to these; • The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity interests. Where significant harm may ensue from planning consent, planning authorities should be satisfied that the development cannot be alternatively located. Should alternatives not be available, adequate mitigation must be put in place before planning permission is granted, or, if mitigation is not feasible, appropriate compensation measures must be included in development proposals. • Planning consent should be refused if harm cannot be prevented and adequate mitigation or compensation cannot be secured.

In addition to legally protected species, PPS9 (paragraph 16) advises that local authorities should ensure that species of conservation priority and their habitat are protected from the adverse effects of development. A list of these species was drawn up in response to section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and can be found on the Defra website. This list is also referenced by sections 40 and 41 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 (see s.2.5 and Appendix 1).

Guidance on the application of legislation related to planning and nature conservation is found in Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (ODPM Circular 06/2005, Defra Circular 01/2005) which complements PPS9. Paragraph 98 advises that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration in considering planning proposals. Paragraph 116 advises that the presence of a European protected species should be given due weight in making planning decisions and may justify refusal of planning consent. Paragraph 99 states that the presence or otherwise of a protected species, and the extent to which it might be affected by a proposed development, must be established prior to the granting of permission, otherwise all material considerations may not have been addressed.

This means, as the Circular advises, that ecological surveys should be carried out prior to consent and should not be conditioned except in exceptional circumstances. Measures for species protection should be incorporated into planning proposals prior to consent and be implemented through conditions and/or planning agreements. While the presence of a protected species does not need to be already recorded, survey should only be required where there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being affected by the development. It should be noted that planning consent does 11 not provide derogation from the requirements of protected species legislation which must still be met, including through the acquisition of licences where relevant.
APPENDIX 3.

Butterflies recorded annually at The Seven Cornfields, Pennwood Farm, Wolverhampton
(compiled from personal records by David Jackson on behalf of the West Midlands Branch of Butterfly Conservation)

1. Essex Skipper – Fairly common along grassy strips and uncut field margins.
2. Small Skipper- ditto as with the above-mentioned species.
3. Large Skipper- Several usually encountered in uncut field edges and on Bramble patches.
4. Orange Tip – several seen each Spring, along banks and in damper patches where Garlic Mustard and Cuckooflower, its larval stage food-plants grow.
5. Large White- Not as common as it was 4-5 years ago but still frequently seen.
6. Small White – common in the planted fields.
7. Green -veined White - as with Orange Tip requires damper patches of farmland where Garlic Mustard and Cuckooflowers grow. Up to a dozen are recorded each season.
8. Brimstone- scarce.
9. Speckled Wood – common along hedgerows and by edges of shady woodland.
10. Ringlet – common along uncut hedgerow bases, in longer grass.
11. Meadow Brown- common in set aside and longer grass in uncut paddocks.
12. Gatekeeper- Several usually seen basking by gates on Bramble and Bracken.
13. Marbled White - occasional visitors stray onto the farm from a strong colony on Sedgley Beacon.
14. Red Admiral – singles frequently seen on the farm near to Common Nettles.
15. Painted Lady – on a good ‘Painted Lady Year’ several can be encountered on the farm.

1. Peacock- singles frequently seen on the farm usually near Nettle beds which its larval stage requires to breed.
2. Small Tortoiseshell – up to a dozen encountered each year on the farm usually near Nettles used by its larva to feed.
3. Comma – ditto as per the two above-mentioned species.
4. Small Copper- scarce but recorded annually near Common Sorrel its larval stage food-plant.
5. Purple Hairstreak- usually seen high up in the woodland Oaks in small discrete colonies.
6. Holly Blue- several seen each year in and around Holly bushes and Ivy covered trees.
7. Common Blue - over the past two years there has been a resurgence from six or seven individuals seen per year, now up to two dozen recorded on a good day in the uncut meadows and horse paddocks, where its larval stage main food-plants Common Birds foot Trefoil and White Clover grow.

Object

Representation ID: 44814

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Consortium of Developers

Number of people: 4

Agent: Turley Associates

Wolverhampton City Centre upper floor conversions

5.61 Being unallocated sites, the upper floor conversions source of supply comprises a windfall allowance.

5.62 The principle behind reliance on a significant windfall from ‘upper floor conversions’ in Wolverhampton presumably comes from the NPPF reference at paragraph 71 which states that any allowance can consider expected future trends.

5.63 Following consultation in December 2020, the Government proposed a number of amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) which have now been laid before Parliament in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021. The changes include Class MA business and commercial to residential permitted development rights, which in practice provide permitted development (‘PD’) from Class E to Class C3 residential. The rights took effect from 1st August 2021.

5.64 There is no evidence to show what delivery has materialised from this source in previous years and there can be no up-to-date and reliable data to show the potential from this source as a result of the expansion of the above PD rights.

5.65 Paragraph 71 also states that where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply.

5.66 To this end, the NPPF clarifies that windfall allowances should be realistic, with regard had to the strategic housing land availability assessment and historic windfall delivery rates. There is no evidence in the SHLAA or any data on historic windfall delivery rates of this nature in the Black Country.

5.67 There is no compelling evidence currently provided that a windfall allowance of this nature will provide the supply claimed.

5.68 There are limitations on the scale, conditions to the rights (including that the building must be vacant for 3 months prior to application) and the take-up/market impacts of this change remain to be seen in practice.

5.69 If upper floor conversions are to form part of the Councils’ supply, then they should be considered a part of the windfall allowance, which is identified as a separate source.

5.70 We suggest removal of this source entirely (812 homes), as no compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this will constitute a source of supply in the plan period, nor can possibly be available given the time elapsed since the relevant policy change has been in place. If evidence is provided that a realistically consistent source of windfall will arise from upper floor conversions, then they should be considered as part of the main windfall allowance.

Support

Representation ID: 44856

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: City if Wolverhampton Council

Ref support exclusion of the Seven Cornfields site from the Black Country Plan:

I am a resident of 40 years and Councillor in Blakenhall ward and organiser of the Save the Seven Cornfields campaign. I wanted to say thank you to the four Leaders and the four local authorities, and by extension our friends at South Staffs Council, for returning a decision to exclude the Seven Cornfields from the Black Country Plan.

The cornfields are a precious resource, representing a unique resource, Inner City greenbelt. Most Greenland is at the edge of our communities. The Seven Cornfields however are slap bang in the middle. They represent 350 acres of land separating three authorities; South Staffs, Dudley and Wolverhampton. The Cornfields are as important to each of the prevailing authorities, but in particular the people of Blakenhall, Sedgley Blind institute area, Northway estate, Penn and S Staffs.

Some 4000 people joined the campaign, which was cross party, supported by the Metro Mayor, Police & Crime Commissioner the Four Leaders, MPs for Wolverhampton SE, Dudley N, South Staff, the City Councillors of Blakenhall, Penn, Springvale, Ettingshall and Graiseley, and the Country & district Councillors of South Staffs and of the Dudley North Area.

In particular the gargantuan efforts of the local media; BBC Wolverhampton, BBC & Central news, The Express & Star, Birmingham Mail and Birmingham Live.

I would also like to thank [redacted] and [redacted] who have worked tirelessly on the Black Country plan. Barratt Homes will be disappointed with the result, ut it has been a pleasure negotiating with the regional director Sam Stafford of Barratt Homes who at all times has acted with care and diligence for the community.
We are delighted with the result. It will protect our ancient woodlands, green space for families to ramble and enjoy fresh air and will please conservationists and those of us working towards a green new future for all our communities. The following groups and individuals made significant campaigning contributions; The Save the Seven Cornfields committee based in Penn, The Northway Neighborhood Watch, Blakenhall Community Group. Pat McFadden MP, Kath Smith, Tony North, Rachel Burford-Turner, Caroline Shea, Carol Hyatt, Dr Arko Sen, Liz Roberts, Debbie Peach, Councillor Martin Waite, Councillor Paul Singh, Councillor Barbara McGarrity, former MP Eleanor Smith, Stuart Anderson MP, St Barts Church & Rev Ben Whitmore and the 4000 Campaigners in the community. The Seven Cornfields should always remain as open land. These are the clear wishes of our Community and as a reminder to politicians; voters.

Object

Representation ID: 45018

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Nichhola Walters

Bilston over the past 10 years has been heavily built on
- Old Sankeys is now 100's & 100's houses
- Old Villors pub is now houses/flats
- Happy Vaderer site will be houses/flats
Chinese restaurant on Bilston Road was converted to flats
- Bilston Baths site now houses
Barclays bank/old art college - into flats
The list goes on! I moved to Bilston 20 years ago as I loved the green areas here and the people, the area is being ruined by development. We understand that houses need to be built but there are empty buildings like the huge one on Colliery Rd that are an eyesore and are prime location for being converted & made useful. And therefore leaving our precious green spaces what are left ALONE!!