Policy WSA3 – Land north of Stonnall Road, Aldridge

Object

Representation ID: 10561

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Asha Patel

Land used for agriculture, graded 3a suitable for wide variety of crops. Provides valuable ecosystem for wildlife, is farmed and produces every year. There is emphasis on providing local produce post Brexit, the plan removes valuable source of income for farmers, livelihood and local employment for those working the land. Local schools are hugely oversubscribed, the road will not accommodate large increase in traffic. The site is enjoyed for natural beauty for local residents and already provides landscape and habitat for enhancement, retention and mitigation for trees and hedges. This plan creates an adverse impact on visual amenity and character.

Object

Representation ID: 10597

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Stone

We object to the fact that my view from my house will be a housing estate. Our schools are packed and the nearest local school has just been demoted to a 2 form entry. You are killing off nature and using more green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 10599

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Claire Stanley

We don't need any more housing in the area

Comment

Representation ID: 10613

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Smith

I am greatly concerned that no mention at all is made regarding GP and dental services, secondary school places, or public transport availability. All are already under considerable demand and will require expansion if a housing development was to go ahead in this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 10619

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Smith

As there is also a proposal for housing at site WAH253, the design principals should include a requirement to widen and improve the road beyond the site WAH237 as far as the junction of Stonnall Road with the Chester Road North.

Object

Representation ID: 10923

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Mr James Lloyd

[WAH237]

I wish to object to WAH237, Reference Aldridge North proposed housing scheme. On looking at the proposal:
1. Local Roads are not suitable for increased traffic
2. there are not pavements on Stonnal Road
3. There is a very limited public transport serivce, ie once per hour.
4. Local GP surgery is heavily oversubscribed
5. Local dentists are heavily oversubscribed
6. Local Schools, ie nursery, infants, juniors, and secondary are all at capacity

With the proposed 363 houses to the north of Stonnall Road this would bring a sustained pressure to the Water, Gas, Electric, telephone-internet, sewage systems within the area.

Walsall Council's policy for bringing new employment to the area is minimal.

It would appear that the Government's Policy on Housing being implemented through Walsall Council is purely to satisfy the growing immigration influx rather than the needs of the local population.

Aldridge's status as a village is being eroded by the constant expansion of housing an affects the health and well being of the local residents. Alternate sites should be sought prior to this area being considered for expansion

Object

Representation ID: 11198

Received: 26/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Porter

Object to housing development in Aldridge, Stonnall road. This land forms part of 100s of peoples gardens and the work will be very disruptive to 1000s of people. It will also lead to considerable devaluation to 100s of properties. Local schools are already at full capacity. The work will impact on my young families health, we will be unable to use our garden.

Object

Representation ID: 11320

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Townsend

WAH237
The proposed land for quarrying and building has always been used for the production of crops. When the country is concerned with food security the allocation of productive farm land for building purposes is a disgrace. Especially when there is so much local land that is used only to graze horses
To extract ‘bedrock, sand and gravel’ over a period of years before building, would blight this peaceful neighbourhood and cause extreme distress to the residents for years. It would unfairly reduce the value of the neighbouring houses and the dust and noise pollution would make living conditions intolerable.

Comment

Representation ID: 11337

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Townsend

WAH237
To extract ‘bedrock, sand and gravel’ over a period of years before building, would blight this peaceful neighbourhood and cause extreme distress to the residents for years. It would unfairly reduce the value of the neighbouring houses and the dust and noise pollution would make living conditions intolerable.

Object

Representation ID: 11345

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Evans

{wah253}

Concerning proposed housing development between stonnall Rd and Lazy Hill Rd .
The objection is that this is agricultural green belt land used for more than 100 years , for farming , producing food for us all.
Also there are not enough amenities already, Doctors, schools
Etc ,To fit the current populations needs in Aldridge .looking at the percentages of brown building sites vs green field sites for building , it’s already nearly 50% of green field sites !! That have been earmarked! ? Therefore I strongly object to this proposed housing development

Comment

Representation ID: 11350

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Evans

The objection is that this is agricultural green belt land used for more than 100 years , for farming , producing food for us all.

looking at the percentages of brown building sites vs green field sites for building , it’s already nearly 50% of green field sites !! That have been earmarked! ?

Object

Representation ID: 11389

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Miller

All the local facilities are full. We need to preserve or increase the Green Belt to help our food security and reduce climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 11414

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Miller

I've made this comment before, but I can't see it online.

Object

Representation ID: 11509

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Treadwell

This development is in the green belt. The area's schools are already full. The health facilities in Aldridge are barely coping with the existing population. The access road from the Chester road is not fit for 363 extra houses on this site and 38 just across the road on WAH253. Any improvement to the road will result in dangerously high speeds past the entrance to the estates as most motorists ignore the existing 30mph limit.

Object

Representation ID: 11744

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Treadwell

The two new estates proposed (WA237 and WA253) would exit to Stonnall Road near other existing roads. Joining Stonnall Road is already difficult because many vehicles ignore the 30mph speed limit.

Sewerage from the site could not use existing drains due to the lie of the land and capacity.

The greenbelt land is currently being farmed and we need local food production.

Prior extraction of minerals could cause slippage of existing gardens and possibly houses, because these are already significantly higher than the fields. Noise and dust would be a major problem causing adverse effects on health and property values.

Object

Representation ID: 11754

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Ikin Family Trust

On behalf of the Ikin Family Trust, our objection to the this development is based on the safeguarding of minerals, our understanding of this issue would be to promote the extraction of all minerals in the area prior to the development of additional housing.

Object

Representation ID: 11758

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Asha Patel

Details on attached document
Affects Enviromental, Drainage, Waste, Education, Green Belt, leisure, Sustainability, wildlife, livelihoods for agriculture.

Object

Representation ID: 11761

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Kanti Patel

Decisions on planning applications for these sites should be made in accordance with specific policy requirements. I object on the grounds that this proposal is not taking into account your policy requirements and design principles and those laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The policy states proposals for redeveloping existing uses within the green belt will only be permitted if very special circumstances can be demonstrated or the proposal meets the criteria set out in national planning policy. The land is currently used for agriculture and no special circumstances exist which suggest this designation should be changed.

Object

Representation ID: 11772

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ryan Patel

Decisions on planning applications for these sites should be made in accordance with specific policy requirements. I object on the grounds that this proposal is not taking into account your policy requirements and design principles and those laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The policy states proposals for redeveloping existing uses within the green belt will only be permitted if very special circumstances can be demonstrated or the proposal meets the criteria set out in national planning policy. The land is currently used for agriculture and no special circumstances exist which suggest this designation should be changed.

Object

Representation ID: 11879

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Evans

OBJECT
The plans state that decisions on planning applications for these sites should be made in accordance with the specific policy requirements. We/ I object on the grounds that this proposal is not taking into account your own policy requirements and design principles as well as those laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The policy states proposals for redeveloping existing uses within the green belt will only be permitted if very special circumstances can be demonstrated or the proposal meets the criteria set out in national planning policy.

The land is currently used for agriculture and should not be changed as per the statement above. There are no special circumstances which suggest this designation should be changed nor would it be in line with the framework principles,

Your policy document states that one of the design principles is "Improvements to local facilities to support residents and to enhance the sustainability of the existing area, in particular improved capacity at the primary school and local health centre". The existing area will not be enhanced as there is no infrastructure for transport and schools are already significantly oversubscribed as well as the local health centre. Widening the local roads will have a significant negative impact to local residents, increased traffic, air pollution, noise all which are identified as factors which should not have an adverse impact on the local area.

There are no existing drainage amenities suitable for such an extensive development and any development will directly contradict your principles of delivering landscape, biodiversity and amenity benefits.

The development will directly and negatively impact your strategy for landscape and habitats creation that provides enhancement, retention and mitigation for established trees and hedges. Any development will have a significant adverse impact on visual amenity and on animal species.

The site is in a Mineral Safeguarding Area and should be safeguarded as per the National Planning Policy Framework, Section 17 "safeguard mineral resources". There is a huge need to safeguard our natural resources and this land should be retained for its original designation, agriculture and minerals.

All developments should be based on the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" and the above factors do not comply with this.

The proposals to allocate the site for housing directly contradict your strategic priority 11 which is to protect and enhance the natural environment, biodiversity, wildlife corridors geological resources, countryside, and landscapes. The site is used for agriculture, grade 3A and is consistently producing crops each year. Any change to this will significantly affect the livelihood and economic well being of the people involved in this valuable food production system.

The proposals to allocate the site for housing directly contradicts strategic priority 12 which is to protect, sustain and enhance the quality of the built and historic environment whilst ensuring the delivery of distinctive and attractive places. Our area is a very distinctive and attractive place which will be completely decimated and the landscape ruined with development. Visual amenity will be lost and economic detriment on house values for all the local residents.

The proposed allocation of this site wholly and significantly contradicts your policy CSP 3 which states “A defensible green belt to help promote urban renaissance within the urban area and that provides easy access to the countryside for local residents; with the landscape safeguarded and enhanced where possible for its heritage, recreation, agricultural and nature conservation value” and “the landscape, nature conservation and agricultural land will be protected and enhanced where practical and possible”.

The further areas of the national planning policy framework which are contradicted include:-
Section 11- recognise that some undeveloped land can perform many functions, such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, cooling/shading, carbon storage or food production;

By developing this land you are not giving suitable recognition that this land is already performing several of the above (wildlife, recreation, food production) without the need for development.

Section 13- protecting green belt land. Strategic policy making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the green belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the green belt or towards locations beyond the outer green belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release green belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well- served by public transport.

The land has not been previously developed nor should it as being in a MSA. It is not served well by public transport and would be considerable investment in infrastructure.

Section 15 - conserving the natural environment. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
a) Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils
b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services- including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;

Any proposal to develop this site for housing does not conserve or enhance the environment, it will be completely destroyed. The valued landscape will disappear as well as all the current biodiversity generated from the agricultural operations. Our beautiful countryside will be removed and as stated previously the economic benefit from versatile agricultural land will be lost. This is simply unacceptable and wrong to affect so many livelihoods and extended beneficiaries of the ecosystem especially when it is perfectly and reasonably possible to use suitable brownfield land which all authorities need to give substantial weight to as well as using other suitable sites which can be remediated and developing underutilised land and buildings to meet housing needs where available sites could be used more effectively.

Our local MP also considers that the proposals do not explore enough the brownfield first policy and she has launched a petition to support the fact that we must promote regeneration on derelict and neglected urban sites in the Black Country and we have won millions in government funding to do just that. As it stands, Walsall's housing allocation can be met for the next five years without any building on our green belt

Object

Representation ID: 11941

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise O'Reilly

Environment - today the media has reported that the UK is the worst in the G7 for biodiversity at only 50% yet here is Walsall council proposing to take yet more green belt. This is an outrage.
Infastructure - Aldridge is a semi rural village. We do not want to become a town filled with housing estates. Our children benefit from seeing fields and wildlife. Schools/GPs - under served already.
Conjestion & Pollution - Aldridge is one of the few places you can move freely through without traffic jams everywhere.

Object

Representation ID: 12139

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Josh Porter

The mineral extraction required will seriously affect the air quality in the area and potentially cause adverse health problems for the local community.

The development will have a negative effect on the local landscape.

Local infrastructure is not able to cope with the current local population. How will adding 363 properties help with this? School's are full (Aldridge only has one secondary school!), GP's are at capacity and local roads are often busy. A traffic light system would be required to access the Chester Road.

There's a limited amount of footpath for pedestrians along the road.

Object

Representation ID: 12160

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr clinton stopford

agricultural land, green belt, poor local resources for nursery’s, doctors and schools. Noise pollution and the oak trees located within field

brown field first

Object

Representation ID: 12199

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Woolley

It's agricultural land,
It's Green belt land
W already have poor resources for Schools,
We already have poor resources for Nurseries
We already have poor resources for Doctors, Dentists & Hospitals!!!!!
Will destroy the Wild life within the area

Object

Representation ID: 12266

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Derek Edwards

Number of people: 2

Strategic Allocation WAH237 to the rear of properties on Lazy Hill Rd, Cotswold Close, Clifton Avenue, Malvern Drive, Ledbury Close, Linkside Way
The Land designated for future building of Houses is in a green belt, plus is Agricultural land
We are desperate for land to feed our popullation, as it Consistanly grows. Taking away this Land to build on is totally inappropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 12270

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Adrian Brook

In reference to Queslett Rd/Aldridge Rd. I object on the grounds that building houses on every available inch of ARABLE LAND undermines FOOD SECURITY in this country at a time when this issue has become more pressing than ever.

Object

Representation ID: 12309

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Margaret Holyman

The land has not been previousley developed nor should it be as it is in a designated MSA site, it not served well by public transport and would need considerable investment in infrastructure. The widening of Stonnall Road Birch Lane would only cause more problems with the approach to Chester Rd, crossroads which are extremely busy throughout the day and night. There has been many accidents here and an increase in traffic is dangerous. This location is totally in-adequate for proposed development.

Object

Representation ID: 12324

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Barry and Joan Richards

Number of people: 2

Dear Sirs.
We as long residents of Aldridge appose this plan for dozens of reasons mainly the damage it will do to Aldridge village with overcrowding, fewer available parking places, increased crime. There are many more which you will hear from this research.

Brownhills is surrounded by land unsuitable for farming whereas the land targeted is good arable farm farmland producing cereal crops in its entirety year on year. It is also rich in minerals which when exhausted can be turned back to farmland. Leaving the EU has left us at their mercy and buying food from them in the future is going to be expensive.
There are much better opportunities all round and certainly Brownhills which would benefit from the regeneration possibilities increased population would bring.
We once lived in a situation where such a development took place after we had bought the house and the crime rate went through the roof and the value of our properties suffered greatly and that will happen here and has probably started since your intension were made clear.
Above all, Andy Street in his election promises said that there would be no invasion into GREEN BELT! That statement, together with the regeneration of the West Midlands in general is why we voted for him turning politics aside.
Please do not do it.

Object

Representation ID: 12338

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Lucas

objection to planning application: Stonnal Road, Lazy Hill Aldright (WAH 237/ WAH 253 - I think these are the codes - The road names are very hard to read.

DESTRUCTION OF GREEN BELT AREA - The Local Authority ought to be identified and utilising brownfield sites before even considering encroachment on green belt areas. To say there are none is incorrect. Wallsall Council is proposing to build a huge recycling centre at the former site of McKechnie Brass Ltd, Middlemore Lane, Aldridge. why not use that site for housing development?

Environmental issues - it is not environmentally friendly to build on green belt land no matter how the Local Authority decides to "dress it up". we MUST preserve green areas for both current and future generations to enjoy. Such areas are good for our mental health and well being. Preserving Green areas runs in tandem with the Green Agenda which politicians are desperate to flag up as a priority issue. Furthermore Green areas contribute to food production, flood prevention and Climate Change mitigation.

INFRASTRUCUTRE -
Current infrastructure is already insufficient to meet the existing needs of the current population. There will be additional pressures on GP's, dentists, schools, shops etc etc.

TRAFFIC ISSUES/ POLLUTION -
It will increase traffic congestion as more people will need to travel to work and the shops. This in turn creates more pollution Carbon Monoxide from vehicles. 400 properties could equate to 800 additional vehicles. The main feeding lane to enter/ exit the development (Stonnall Road) is narrow. It also leads onto the junction of the busy Chester Road where there have been accidents as traffic attempts to join it.

This Plan should not be sanctioned as it will lead ultimately to the irreversible destruction of our Green belt areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 12342

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Christine Leahey

Document Ref. Strategic Allocation WSA3, Site WAH237/ WAH235
The plans state that decisions in planning applications for these sites should be made in accordance with the specific policy requirements. I object on the grounds that this proposal is not taking into account your own policy requirements and design principles as well as these laid out in the Nation Planning Policy Framework.
The policy states proposals for reveloping existing uses within the green belt will only be permitted if very special circumstances can be demonstrated.
The land is currently used of agriculture and should not be changed as per statement above. There are no special circumstances which suggest this designation should be changed nor would it be in line with the framework principles.
Your policy document states that one of the design principles is "improvements to local facilities to support residents & to enhance the sustainability of the existing area, in particular improved capacity at the primary schools and local health centre". The existing area will not be enhanced as there is no infrastructure for transport and schools are oversubscribed as well as the local health centre. Widening the local roads will have a significant negative impact to the local residents, increased traffic, air pollution, noise all of which are identified as factors that would not have an adverse affect on the local area.
There are no existing drainage amenities suitable for such an extensive development and any development will directly contradict your principles of delivering landscape, biodiversity and amenity benefits.
The development will directly and negatively impact your strategy for landscape and habitat creation that provides enhancement, retention and mitigation for established trees and hedges. Any development will have a significant adverse impact on visual amenity and character on aminal species.
The site is in a Mineral Safeguarding area and should be safeguarded as per the National Planning Policy Framework Section 17 "Safeguard mineral resources".
There is a huge need to safeguard our natural resources and this land should be retained for its original designation, agriculture and mineral.
All developments should be based on the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" and the above factors do not comply with this.
The proposals to allocate the site for housing directly contradict your Strategic Priority II which is to protect and enhance the natural biodiversity, wildlife corridors, geological resources, countryside and landscapes. The land is used for agriculture Grade 3a and is consistently producing crops each year. Any change will significantly affect the livlihood and economical well being of the people involved in this valuable food production system.
The proposal to allocate the site for housing directly contradict Strategic Priority 12 which is to protect, sustain and enhance the quality of the built and historic environment whilst ensuring the delivery of distinctive and attractive places. Our area is a very distinctive and attractive place which will be completely decimated and the landscape ruined with development. Visual amenity will be lost and economic detriment on house values for all the local residents.