Policy WSA1 (Walsall Strategic Allocation) – Home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall Wood

Object

Representation ID: 15406

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Sault

Site Ref: 10131/SA-0022-WAL
Home Farm Sandhills Walsall Wood WS9 9DJ
The building of this development will not only affect the local residents it backs into taking away privacy but the local surrounding area infrastructure would not be able to sustain the extra traffic, the extra sewage and water. The access points would make the Anchor area a dangerous junction even more dangerous. In past years there have been numerous floods and deaths in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 15540

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Bickley

Site ref:10131/SA-WAL Home Farm Sandhills Walsall Wood WS9 9DJ
I thought farmland was for growing food for the nation!!!
How is a development of 800 houses going to help this cause??
I travel daily for my work and use A461 / A452 to reach A5 / M42 / M6 Toll etc depending where i am heading on said day - primarily because trying to access the M6 / M5 via the Walsall / Gt Barr junction is dier!
Put this housing estate in and I will be trapped in traffic! How am I supposed to get to my service calls.
I appreciate all the relevant "traffic modelling" will be done. but look at the new estate in Norton Canes (old dog track) WHG have houses there I understand - now in a morning 8.30am the queue for exiting Norton Canes, via Hednesford Rd B4154, to join A5 at the Turf island can be back as far as Jerome Road (Yew Tree Rd) - assuming relevant "traffic modelling" was done for this estate - epic fail!
For Home Farm Sandhills, I am told there "could be" a 4 way traffic light junction at Anchor Bridge A452 / B4152 intersection - this junction is already a problem - at peak evening time - traffic can stack up from Anchor Bridge to Shine Oak A452 / A461 now - how are an additional 800 houses going to affect it?

Object

Representation ID: 15712

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Claire Boyes

Number of people: 2

My husband and I strongly object to the proposal to build 800 homes on Home Farm, Sandhills. Our house is close to the current entrance of the farm and benefits from the current countryside view. We have significant concerns that the proposal would de-value our home as a result of this development.
Lichfield Road, Sandhills is already an extremely busy road which is one of the major compromises we made when we bought our house a year ago. The proposal to build 800 new homes would increase the amount of traffic up and down that road even further and we have already seen and heard an increase in anti-social driving down this road. The natural increase in traffic due to new residents, visitors, deliveries to the new homes etc. would also astronomically increase both air and noise pollution in this area.
Residents on lichfield road already have an expanding quarry to the rear of their properties so we strongly object to you taking away our enjoyment of the countryside view and making the road even busier and noisier than it already is. We wholeheartedly do not support this proposal and request you take these concerns seriously.

Object

Representation ID: 15741

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Adams Tours

Site Ref 10131/ SA-0022-WAL
Home Farm Sandhills Walsall Wood WS9 9DJ

Adams Tours operates from Bloxwich, but the nature of our business take us Nationwide - visiting *Drayton Manor Park, *Twycross Zoo, *National Arboritum, To mention 'some' of the destinations we visit in order to access these areas as with as M42 North + South and M1 North, we travel through A452/A461 Junction regularly, I can not begin to imagine the effect of a housing estate of 800 properties could have on the Road Infrastructure.
800 houses - average 2 cars per household potentially 16000 daily vehicle movements - accessing main roads via A461 Sandhills & A452 with its junction with B4152 Lindon Road which is already chaotic!
We operate daily school contracts, visits such as *mentioned above are normally operated between AM + PM school runs, additional traffic delays would risk students standing at schools in the afternoon or in ??
To mitigate this we would need to operate additional vehicles/ drivers therefore increasing our operating costs - which would directly affect our business.
I understand the need for housing - but this proposed site would be disastrous for this area, and surrounding - Traffic already cuts through Gauhangen when Anchor Bridge is backed up - Gauhanger would become a permanent rat run!
Additionally traffic imposed in the A461/A452 area would mean the loss of a useful road network to exit/enter the Northern End of Walsall Borough for any persons needing to travel to/from/ for their work!

Object

Representation ID: 15908

Received: 28/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Broadhurst

{redacted]I / we are concerned and a little angry about this proposal.
We bought our home in 2003 and one of the major selling points was the open fields / farmlands that are to the rear of our property.
The view is outstanding and [redacted] the fact that nothing could "overlook" our garden and rear bedrooms was the main reason we purchased our home. We are concerned that not only our privacy will be compromised, but the proposal will significantly devalue our property. Having spoken to some of our neighbours, they too have these concerns.
We understand that it is likely nobody will address these concerns as hey, money talks. There are other concerns, but sadly no room to write.

Object

Representation ID: 15976

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Judith Wheeler

Number of people: 2

We lodge our objections to the following sites:

Home Farm Sandhill

All of these green belt sites if built on will take away areas of significant natural beauty, have a detrimental impact on wildlife and our environment. There is no need to use these precious sites. There is an abundance of brownfield sites in Walsall as well as disused industrial sites and empty factories to cover all the requirements for future housing requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 16164

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Debbie Etches

I have just seen your proposal for Sandhills Staffordshire. All I’m going to say is why? It won’t affect my view! It won’t affect my social or working life but why oh why would you want to fill such beautiful land where dears roam free with 1000 + houses and school/ medical centre.

Object

Representation ID: 16171

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Hook

Both plots of land [WAH237 & WAH253] identified are currently used for agricultural purposes. In the post Brexit era can we afford to lose productive farm land?
In the Walsall Borough Summary the justification for removing sites from the green belt to provide housing in the proposed new Neighbourhood Growth Areas claims they, ‘are located in highly sustainable locations………where there are existing pedestrian and public transport routes and high levels of access to local services (such as schools or health services). The former are extremely debatable and the latter false and misleading in that local schools and health services are all oversubscribed.
The proposals are for an additional 400 houses in Aldridge, which will have a significant and detrimental impact on the dynamics of this rural community. Aldridge does not have the infrastructure to support such an increase in population and vehicular traffic.
Each household will on average have 1.3 vehicles, source NimbleFinns 2019, I.e. an additional 520 in total. This will have an adverse impact on noise, air pollution, road congestion and safety. Neither Birch Lane or Lazy Hill Road, which are both narrow country lanes, have the capacity for a safe significant increase in road traffic. In fact the junctions of these two roads with the A452 Chester Road are already dangerous accident black spots.
The proposed developments will therefore have an unacceptable highways safety impact both upon vehicular traffic, pedestrians and the wider highways network, specifically the Shire Oak crossroads, the A452 Chester Road, Walsall Wood Road and their junctions with Birch Lane, Stonnall Road and Lazy Hill Road all of which are already heavily congested at peak times.
The nearest town centres for shopping, Aldridge and Brownhills, have extremely limited capacity for parking and therefore any increase in vehicular traffic will not be manageable. Brownhills High Street is already a particularly congested and dangerous commuter/bus route even with parking only possible on one side of the road.
The additional housing will create an unprecedented demand on local amenities, schools, GP surgeries, dentists, leisure etc which is unlikely to be met with the finite existing facilities.
There is currently limited public transport available to support the locations of the proposed new housing developments.
The proposed development will lead to the destruction of habitat in the loss of fields and hedgerows, which will have a devastating impact on local wildlife, particularly small birds and mammals which rely on them for protection and food. Removal of hedgerows has been identified as a factor in the decline of many plant and animal species traditionally associated with farmland. Any removal will require permission from the local authority under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 which I hope will not be granted. Any widening of Birch Lane and/or Lazy Hill Road will exacerbate this problem.
It will also have a dramatic adverse impact on the landscape including the potential for the removal of mature trees and lead to a significant increase in light pollution.
The form ID10162 submitted by the respondent Rosconn Strategic Land states, ‘This site is available, suitable and viable. There are no known constraints other than its location within the green belt. Otherwise it is a very sustainable location, well related to the urban edge of Aldridge and can form a logically rounding off of this settlement and provide a new defensible boundary to the green belt, with minimal harm to the green belt purpose.’
I would have thought the fact that this site is located within the green belt was a major hurdle to development not something to be casually dismissed by the respondent as insignificant The existing boundary to the green belt does not require redefining. To accept their argument would create a precedent for developers to continually encroach on green belt land. How would the boundary be any more defensible if this flawed logic was applied and the development permitted? In addition they fail to mention the site is in a Mineral Safeguarding Area.

Object

Representation ID: 16311

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David John Kay

Present Population of Brownhills is estimated at 21,200 with an annual population change of 0.49%

With the proposed planning going from 54 Hectares and 800 houses to 85 plus Hectares and 1,417 houses with approximately 4 people per house the increase goes from 0.49% to approximately 25%.and vehicles increasing on the now traffic clogged lights at full capacity (Walsall Council 2020 report) by approximately 1000 more cars.

Crime rates for the area using the latest Police Street Crime for the month of February 2021 is given for Muggings, Burglary and Car theft as Shire Oak 60, Walsall Wood 48 and Brownhills 44.

What type of houses are to be built i.e. for what sector of the population: First Time Buyers, Council Houses for the homeless or immigrants? If for all types what are the percentages of each sector?

What are the proposals for Road Access, Schools, Shops, Doctors surgeries etc., and the presently pathetic police presence in Aldridge/ Brownhills.

What plans have the council to increase facilities for the young people of Brownhills as there appears to be none apart from Oak Park which is continually busy.

What is the present pollution levels on the Lichfield Road between the hours of
7.30am to 9.30am and between 4.00pm and 6.00pm with traffic queuing both sides of the lights?

Object

Representation ID: 16371

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: D.R. Murray Transport

Site REf:10131/SA-0022/WA:
Home Farm Sandhills Walsall Wood WS9 9DJ

My main depot is in Norton Canes, but I purposely have a satellite depot on Marbrook Industrial Estate for a couple of vehicles that services over work in Birmingham/ Burton-on-Trent areas operating from Maybrook, gives us time advantages and saves drivers hours.
Looking at the proposed development at Sandhills and in fact Queslett Road & Sutton Road options), I can only forsee a repeat of the carnage we have and the traffic problems we have saw following the McArthur Glen Outlet Village and subsequent housing development in Cannock/ Heaton Hayes.
As an area we are becoming traffic locked, the direct effects are the daily operation problems to our business, journey delays, loss of valuable drivers hours, but al the indirect effects of driver recruitment - no -one wants a traffic ridden journey to/from work that is forced upon us be developers.
As an industry we are trying to 'do our bit' with more environmentally friendly vehicles - how emission zones are having to be imposed to combat rising vehicle pollution, how is this *development going to help?
Are we going to see how emissions in the West Midlands suburbs due to there plans in the future?

*More Houses = more cars = more delivery vehicles = direct traffic impact

Object

Representation ID: 16425

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Diana Timmis

My objection refers to the proposed future building of 800 houses at the Homefarm, Sandhills site in the Aldridge North and Walsall Wood area in the Borough of Walsall.

The proposed development would entail the destruction of many very large trees which would greatly impact on the carbon footprint and habitat for wildlife.
There are frequently tawny owls seen and heard in these trees and on warmer evenings, bats are to be seen flying around feeding.
As bats are a protected species, the destruction of the trees would considerably decrease their supply of insects making the bats vulnerable.
Hope you will consider the fate of these protected bats and the beautiful trees.

Object

Representation ID: 17007

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mark & Jude Beardshaw

Number of people: 2

My garden backs directly on to this proposed development. How come I'm only just hearing about it
and have received no literature at all, neither has anyone else in the area.Talk about trying to keep it
quiet! I do not listen to the radio all day long and we stopped receiving 'free' papers long ago.Building
on land that has for the last 20 years to my knowledge had crops on it is criminal.We produce less and
less in this [Redacted- profanity] country everyear!

Object

Representation ID: 17064

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hayley Sheldon

Number of people: 2

Home Farm - Sandhills

My husband and I object most strongly to the development at Home Farm, Sandhills. Our main concern is that of highway safety. The Lichfield Road (Sandhills) is already heavy with traffic especially as rush hour when traffic is reduced to a crawl on most days. Adding to this already busy road will endanger lives! On most occasions it can take us 10 minutes just to pull off our drives. How will building 800 homes eleviate this issue? Most accidents will happen!
We should be looking at recycling derelict housing, of which there are plenty in and around the Walsall Borough, and building on brownfield sites - NOT Greenfield sites. Greenfield sites help with our mental health thus not putting an extra burden on our already stretched NHS!
We must protect our flora and fauna at all costs. What hope is there for the next generations to come? We are privileged to be able to see , foxes, squirrels and rabbits to name a few but will they?
HANDS OFF OUR GREEN FIELDS!

Object

Representation ID: 17065

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Round

I strongly oppose the proposal contained within the Black Country Plan to take our precious greenbelt land in order to build thousands of new homes. I am disgusted by the proposal to build thousands of new homes between Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road, Sandhills and Sutton Road - all important green spaces near where I live. Most notably, the proposal for the building of almost 1000 homes between Queslett Road East and Aldridge Road. This will mean increased pressures on local amenities and schools, more pollution due to increased road useage, and will mean our area becomes subsumed into a greater Birmingham. It will result in irreversible habitat loss, for many important animals and insects (as well as, in regards to Doe Bank Lane, rare birds.) With climate change, greenbelt lands are more important than ever: they are carbon sinks and help prevent flooding in our local areas. They are bio-diverse, allowing important species to thrive. Once our greenbelt is gone, there is no hope of ever regaining it - a sickening realisation. Our local green spaces give us a sense of wellbeing, and contribute to positive mental and physical health. They allow us a tiny sense of being in nature, separating us from the urban developments (and the littering, anti-social behaviour and crime) of the city centre and Walsall town centre. I fear that without these green spaces, we will experience higher incidences of these issues. Andy Street has assured us that there are plenty of brownfield sites, which are prefect for re-development, which would be ideal for the developments you propose - not our last remaining piece of nature that protects us from the imposing developments sprawling from the town centre. Almost all of our council leaders have vehemently opposed building on our greenbelt land, which speaks volumes, and these voices of wisdom should be listened to.
There are online petitions that number over 6000 - people who strongly oppose the developments cited in the Black Country Plan, as I do. Will you just ignore these thousands of people, like me, who will fight to protect our greenbelt land?
I would urge you to reconsider, in light of strong opposition, and seek instead to build on brownfield sites. For the sake of the climate, the wildlife, the residents who these green spaces mean so much to, please do not take them away!

Object

Representation ID: 17126

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Hammerwich Parish Council

The propose building on Greenbelt Land in Shire Oak, Page 507, Home Farm Sandhills, outlines the 1,417 houses planned for Shire Oak, and 538 the plans for Industrial release on Greenbelt.

The Governments National Planning Policy Framework 2021 clearly states
13. Protecting Green Belt Land

137. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim
of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open;
the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their
permanence.

138. Green Belt serves five purposes:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighboring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and
other urban land.

Proposals affecting the Green Belt

147. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should
not be approved except in very special circumstances.
148. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should
ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special
circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason
of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly
outweighed by other considerations.

You have a duty to communicate with neighboring Councils, to date Hammerwich Parish Council have not been contacted.

Object

Representation ID: 17128

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Grimmett

The Aldridge Road/ Queslett Road/ Doe BankLane Development - WAH235

Main point of objection
- Are this number of homes really required ? - I feel the government target needs to be challenged by the Black Country
- Tory Housing Policy - new proposals were announced at the Tory party conference by Gove - Have these been factored in?
-IE - Brownfield sites & Land banks to be used prior to green spaces being considered.
- Why is the number of homes being suggested in Walsall greater than across - Dudley, Sandwell & Wolverhampton? Should everyone not taking their fair share?
- Infrastructure - Schools, Doctors, Traffic - I appreciate that funding would be sought to improve these, but GP's Teachers etc. are difficult to recruit.
- The net density of site WAH235 is higher than most other developments - (45dph) why is this?
- The site is completed would mean that 2 wards would be joined. Becoming an Urban Spawl .
Not acceptable

Object

Representation ID: 17192

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Revitt

My comments are regarding the proposal for 800 houses to be built on the Home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall

May I first say that this information was put through my door on 3rd October and you want our response no later than 11th October. This does not give me chance to view the draft plans at the libraries due to commitments this week.

We chose to live in this house for the wonderful views which would completely disappear if this proposal goes ahead. This would also compromise our lovely wildlife. Having countryside to look out on promotes our wellbeing immensly.

My main concern is the noise and traffic pollution. Since living here the heavy traffic up the Lichfield Rd, Sandhills has increased tremendously. Frequently, despite the alteration of the traffic lights which did make an improvement, traffic is still at a standstill regularly leading to traffic fumes and noise.
It is hard to have our windows open for any length of time due to noise and difficult to have a conversation at the front of our house.
If 800 houses are built opposite that could potentially give us an extra 1600 cars. Most households have a least 2 cars.
It does not bear thinking of how this would affect the Lichfield and surrounding roads. Most of Burntwood roads are narrow and it would have an impact on them.

The local GP practices are unindated already, only yesterday I was 15th in line to have a call answered. The hospital is up to capacity and then there is the issue of schools and shops, green space for recreation.

Brownhills High st would be the closest shopping area I assume which has been allowed to get very run down. The nearest large shops are Tamworth or Cannock again increasing traffic pollution and congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 17351

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor Baker

Site ref 10131 / SA-0022-WAL Home Farm Sandhills Walsall Wood WS9 9DJ

I gave up driving when the traffic became so heavy that I couldn't leave where I lived without taking my life in my hands and hoping for the best. It was a nightmare attending appointments as we had to leave 10-15 mins earlier than necessary just to be on time.
Please spare a thought for all us oldies on the site before clogging up the road still further.

Object

Representation ID: 17586

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Wileman

I wish to object to the proposal to build on green belt land, in particular “Home farm” Brownhills.

Once green belt land is gone it is gone for ever. We already have the sand and gravel quarry just across the road from here, this proposal to build 800 houses just meters away will make life here intolerable. This area is not suitable for this number of housing. The lack of transport alone makes it unworkable, the pressure that this volume of housing would place on the local schools, Doctors and environment is unimaginable.

Brownhills has, over many years, been overlooked by the local council. The only shop worth talking about which Brownhills has is a Tesco store. Brownhills is more or less derelict, and the prospect of 800 more houses on a broken system would not work.

There is almost next to nothing in employment in the area, and any promise made to “Build” the area back up can be taken with a pinch of salt. The congestion on the roads in the area alone make any proposal unworkable.

Object

Representation ID: 17647

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Fleetwood

I am referring to the two sites of Home Farm Sandhills and Queslett Rd East/ Aldridge Road which I believe both come under the jurisdiction of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. With regard to the Queslett Rd. East site, has much thought been given to the shortage of doctors surgeries in the area? We are forced to wait - sometimes up to two weeks for an appointment, where are all these proposed families to obtain medical attention? Also the schools seem to be at full capacity bearing in mind they have already had substantial extensions built to house present students.
Lastly the amount of further traffic congestion on the Chester Road and the Queslett Rd / Aldridge Road would in my opinion be horrendous.
I think there must be numerous brownfield sites in the area that should be utilised first if only to enhance this (at the moment) green area to live in.

Object

Representation ID: 17678

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pat Dexter

I am totally against the use of the large swathes of farm land for housing development,
Why can't there be more smaller developments?
800 houses on Home Farm - by it's name - farm land
600 houses on Farm land
202 houses on the precious land along side the Arboretum - the only Jewel in Walsall's Crown, but with the way planning is going it will be totally surrounded by houses.
Keep the Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 17705

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Beardshaw

Regarding: Proposed development site on the Home farm, Sandhills, Walsall Wood WS9 9DJ.
I purchased this property at inflated price for the view and the wildlife, we frequently have bats, deer, buzzards and many other creatures which would be driven out. Roads around the area are already extremely busy with Shire oak school and the quarry as well as through traffic with the Lichfield rd being the main route from Walsall to the A5/A38.The junction of Chester rd/Lindon rd by the Anchor public house is also extremely busy. The Chester rd (A452) has recently had two serious motorcycle accidents ,and not so long ago a child was hit and killed. Giving up much needed farmland for housing is ridiculous when there are so many other sites that are not being used for anything. I understand the land in question is owned by a property management company who obviously want to make a killing. This country needs to produce more and import less in my opinion.

Object

Representation ID: 17717

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Harris

Site Ref 10131/SA-0022-WAL
Home Farm Sandhills Walsall Wood WS99DJ

Traffic traffic traffic is the problem & more house's will make more trouble I live in Claychanger Brownhill is horrid for traffic & we dont need more leave it how it is & all the wildlife we have what will happen with them?

Object

Representation ID: 17787

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Maria Sealey

10131/ SA-0022-WAL
HOME FARM, SANDHILLS, WALSALL W OOD, WS9 9DJ
85.05 HECTARES
I wish to wholeheartedly object to the above-mentioned site proposals.
I would like to make several points:
(1) Lack of information given to local residents & home owners
We purchased our home on [redacted - sensitive information] and prior to completing contracts, I contacted Walsall Council Planning Department as our surveys had picked up that the site had been mentioned on the Urban Development Plan at that time.
I was advised by the Planning Department that the idea that the landowners submitted had been removed from the latest version of the UDP which was going through the approval process with the planning team. They had mapped the land to continue to be greenbelt area with no development and made particular note to the fact that the landowners had tried to get planning twice previously but both times it was rejected by Walsall Council & the Planning Department.
At no point, in the [redacted - sensitive information] years since then, have we been notified, advised or pre-warned of another idea of development for Home Farm, Sandhills. This is despite our road being mentioned in the Gallagher Estates surveys and documents found on the Black Country Plan website.
It is only on 30th September 2021, with just eleven days to go until the consultation period ends on 11th October 2021, that somebody has hand delivered a copy of your comments form and a Black Country Plan document regarding the Draft Plan Consultation.
It is abhorrently wrong that local residents are expected to discover potential development sites by themselves without being notified well in advance and being given the opportunity to be involved and prepare their objections where appropriate.
I appreciate that Black Country Plan have put leaflets in local libraries and have advertised on the back of buses, however, the advert on the back of the bus does not do anything to alert people that they need to be on the ball checking the proposed plans for their area and the leaflets in the libraries also do not alert anyone either. I also saw a short video that was posted on Sandwell Councils Facebook page; however, you should not be assuming that local people follow all of the borough council's social media channels. None of these methods are a fool proof way of ensuring that local people know what is going on, you should have contacted everyone in writing months ago.
The Black Country Plan have incorrectly assumed that people are out and about, looking at the back of buses and using public libraries. I can assure you they are not. Not only do people work full time and use online resources for reading, but you have elderly residents who are less mobile, suffering with ill health and may also not be internet savvy.
You have completely failed to give local residents sufficient time to prepare their responses to the draft plan.
(2) Affect on views from our home (and all of the other homes that surround it) & the risk to views only being categorised as "Moderate"
I strongly feel that the impact upon the views from our property, should the site be developed, would be catastrophic.
The category for risk to views should absolutely be increased to SEVERE!
Having reviewed the Gallagher Estates files that are on the BCP website, I wish to firstly refer to their report, namely: Gallagher Estates 2 - Tech Comp -- Home Farm Sandhills - Landscape and Context
Within this report, specifically section "2.5 Views and Visual Receptors" you will find various descriptions of the land with photographs that have been included in the report in an attempt to address the issue of property views being affected by the development.
I would like to object to this report on the basis that it is disproportionate and does not provide an unbiased evaluation.
In the below photograph you will see, taken from the report, the points (marked in yellow circles) where the photographs were taken. [redacted - sensitive information] sits approximately where I have placed the big blue arrow.
To provide an impartial and unbiased evaluation of how views would be affected, photographs should have been taken at the rear of properties and not from various outer points of the proposed site. In fact, had you of asked to visit our home we would have gladly allowed you to take photographs from our garden to get a real and true representation of how we would be affected.
[See fig.2.1 in attachement]
The next photograph, also taken from the Gallagher Estates report, shows how [redacted - sensitive information] has been assessed on the report and you will notice that the photograph taken is right over the other side of the site and therefore is disproportionate and does not give a true representation of the risk to our views:
[See attachment]
Now I will show you photographs [redacted - sensitive information]. This will give the Black Country Plan, Walsall Council, Gallagher Estates and whoever else needs to review this objection the TRUE affect that building 1200 houses plus amenities on Home Farm would have on our home.
[See attachment, some images have been redacted - sensitive information]
(3) Risk to local wildlife
The next point that I would like to raise is that development of the site would have a dramatic, and absolutely heart-breaking, affect on the local wildlife.
Whilst living here we have experienced a huge array of species, including but not limited to, [species redacted] to name but a few. There is a home a few doors away on the Chester Road which also backs onto the site which regularly has [species redacted] in their garden, also a protected species.
At night you can hear [redacted] are flying around our gardens and we have been lucky enough to capture many stunning photographs of our wild friends visiting our garden.
Nothing that anyone can say, or any report can state, will convince us that developing Home Farm would not have a dramatic effect on the wildlife and nature. It doesn't matter how many small provisions are made when developing sites (i.e bat boxes, hedgehog tunnels), it does not make up for the devastation it would cause. Below you will find just a snippet of the many photographs I have taken [redacted - sensitive information]. This is not something that happens every now and again, it is a daily occurrence.
[See attachment]
(4) Lack of infrastructure to support development
It is suggested in the plans that a main entrance/exit to the site could be provided from Lichfield Road with a secondary entry/exit at the bottom of the Chester Road adjacent to the entrance to the Anchor Pub carpark.
This is absolutely impossible, and more importantly unsafe.
The Shire Oak 4-way traffic lights are already at their absolute maximum capacity and have been for several years. Despite welcomed improvements with additional lanes for turning added etc, there continues to be long queues of traffic every day in all directions.
Traffic gathers all the way down the Lichfield Road (both directions) and Chester Road (both directions) and adding a housing estate and further entries/exits to this route would severely impact local road users, home owners and residents.
Added to this, there is a safety aspect included. You should already be aware that there was a young student [redacted - sensitive information] killed on the Chester Road in 2014 whilst trying to cross the road on his way home from school.
To propose to put an entry/exit at this point is preposterous and wholly unsafe. You have the pub traffic and vehicles also turning onto the Lindon Road.
[See attachment]
To close the objection, I would like to state that development of this site would destroy our views, decrease our property value, affect our happiness and mental health and subject us to years of facing a building site and being overlooked. Our light would also be dramatically reduced given that the rear of our property is [redacted - sensitive information]
The site should remain greenbelt and should be given protection from this issue continually arising every few years.
It is unfair that residents and property owners whos lives & homes would be damaged should have to continually face the uncertainty of how long the land will remain as it is. Brownfield sites should be used, derelict buildings developed etc and our green spaces should be left alone.
I am happy for any persons involved in the Black Country Plan, with prior appointment, to visit our home and see for themselves.
Wold YOU want to lose this view?!

Object

Representation ID: 17831

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Martin Wickson

Site REf: 10131/SA-0022-WAL
Home Farm Sandhills Walsall Wood WS9 9DJ

, I object in the strongest terms.

Not only on the grounds that idilic outlook/view will be totally abliterated and the peace and quiet we enjoy from our house's location will be lost, but also:
1) The current road infrastruture Chester Road A452/Lichfield Road A461 can not cope with the current traffic usage, at peak times we struggle to exit Shire Lea onto Chester Road A452 due to queuing traffic in both directions.
2) Shire Oak School is nearby, this alone causes additional traffic, there was a fatal accident near the junction of Chester Road and Lindon Road, with the death of a student.
There has also been 2 serious accidents on the A461 recently
An additional 800 houses is only going to make a bad situation worse!
3) The farmland, the proposed development will affect is a haven for wildlife, with deer regularily spotted along the treeline adjacent to the canal, we have sparrowhawks, buzzards, foxes, bats and woodpeckers spotted on a daily basis on said land, what will happen to their habitat?
Is this really the way we want go, killing what little countryside habitat we have?
4) I thought as a nation we were proposing to grow more seasional crops to make Britian more self surfficent, this proposal is in no way going to benefit that cause.

We brought our property some [x] years ago, because of its location and situation and obviously we paid a premium for this, the proposed development will significantly affect our quality of life, as well as the devaluation our property, whilst I appreciate as a nation we need additional housing, I feel there are far more sensible options, for example where rundown areas would benefit from redevelopment investment or the numerous delapidated industrial sites across the West Midlands could be utilised.

Object

Representation ID: 17833

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Martin Wickson

Site REf: 10131/SA-0022-WAL
Home Farm Sandhills Walsall Wood WS9 9DJ

Our business is in [address given] we provide parking/operating centre for several companies operating commercial vehicles, the potential impact this development could have with the additional vehicles, on the already stretched road network, primarily A452 and A461 which are both main routes for commercial vehicles, is unthinkable.

My tenants are already struggling to operate their business's to full capacity due to the current driver shortage, if there were to be additional delays due to increased traffic in the area, it would make a bad situation worse for them.

Ultimately would it mean these business would have to relocate?

This would mean loss of to our business!!

Object

Representation ID: 17904

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Penny Taylor-farley

[Site WSA1/WAH235] Home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall

I am objecting to the building on green belt land at home Farm, Sandhills, Walsall.
The main purpose of green belt and is to control and restrict urban sprawl thus maintaining land for agriculture, forestry and habitats.
urban sprawl (or building on green belt) is the biggest threat to climate change. Sprawl is low density it is resource hungry and an inefficient use of land.
Brownfield land is a renewable source. The green belt is not. We are not running out of brownfield land anytime soon. When the green belt is gone it is gone forever.
Also the Lichfield Road and surrounding areas is blighted by heavy traffic day and night. Building 800 homes in an area, which has traffic related problems, traffic jams, pollution (which the greenbelt we have absorbs some of this pollution) and accidents, which we seem to have every month. In September we had two accidents in one day! It is insanity to even contemplate this planning proposal.

Strongly object the Home Farm Sandhills planning proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 17915

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Maureen Osborne

[Sites Ref: WSA8/WSA1]

We do not agree to use any of the green belt for building purposes. There is not enough
countryside around us as it is without making the spaces Smaller. The world is telling us to
save our planet yet this proposal will get rid of habitat for wildlife and fauna but put many
more cars around with emissions in the atmosphere.
Countryside is so important for so many reasons and particularly for mental health. We do
not know all these sites but I know well the Aldridge Road site and the one at lindrosa
streetly and Pelsall and Brownhills. Houses there will do nothing for the landscape
The Aldridge Road has always given us great pleasure and to many others when leaving the
city of Birmingham and suddenly seeing the fields from the Sutton Oak Road. The houses
there will just join us up within Brum and no gap in between. We bought our homes in
Streetly to get away from city life and have countryside around but not too rural to have no
bus services, hospital, and schools near for our children. Can you imagine 960 houses with
roughly 2000 cars all trying with the very busy traffic already in Streetly to get off the estate
in the mornings etc. Bedlam!!!
Lots of people I have spoken to have not had any information at all of this subject or only
just had them with 3 days to go to the 11th of October this is not good enough when it will
effect so many people and not for the good.
I can understand it must be difficult to come up with more houses but the area is crowded
already and it does not need for the area to get any larger.
We do realise that people are hardly ever listened to. The opinions of the minions are not
taken into too much account and it is usually business and money that will prevail the yay
or nay. But we do have to stand up and be counted.

Object

Representation ID: 17970

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Philip and Valerie Rhead

Number of people: 2

800 Homes to be built on Green Belt at Home Farm. Sandhills.

I cannot believe that we need 13,344 new homes and 164ha of employment land in Walsall.
I am nearly [age redacted] years of age and when I was younger Walsall was a fantastic town with fantastic shops. My family and myself were regular visitors to the town and we always enjoyed our visits. Now the town is a disgrace with many empty shop units and we only go there if we have to, which is very rare.
I have walked along Brownhills High Street and counted an empty garage workshop, a closed public house and 52 empty retail units. These empty units will not be used as shops again. Many have been empty for years. Even I have relented and purchased some goods online, this week, from Amazon, so the future of retail is now very much reduced from what it was.
I know that it is more expensive to convert existing buildings or demolish and re-build, but this must be the way forward. To take the easy and cheaper route and build on Green Belt land will destroy the planet in a very short time.
Building on this scale also requires a large increase in services, water, sewerage, gas, electricity, schools and medical care: are these available or can they be provided at reasonable cost?
By building on Green Belt we are also reducing our ability to provide food for ourselves so we are becoming reliant on food from other countries and they can hold us to ransom if they desire.
In addition, by building on Green Belt we are adversely affecting our climate and are not creating healthy and safe places to live, which is another requirement of the Draft Black Country Plan.
This development has so many negative outcomes that there is no way that it should be allowed.

Object

Representation ID: 18168

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Edwards

[Site Ref: WAH235/WSA1 Home Farm]

HERE ARE POINTS SUPPORTING MY OBJECTION.

1) Lack of consultation time
2) Loss of farmland
3) Massive increased risk to flooding, in particular to Anchor Bridge Brownhills further flooding inevitable Lichfield Rd, bottom of Shire Oak Hill
4) Increased car pollution
5) Increased traffic queues on Chester Rd Shire Oak & Lichfield Rd
6) Increased noise pollution
7) Loss of local wildlife e.g. [Redacted-sensitive information]
8) Loss of views across valley for local residents
9) Loss of greenbelt land used for important arable crops
10) To few facilities to support such a large increase in population in an already deprived area such as Brownhills which is already the forgotten corner of Brownhills
11) House prices will drop in the area

Should this development be passed any development money promised to the local authority will not be spent in Brownhills residents are sick of the years of false promises made. THIS will lose you votes in the next election.