Policy WSA3 – Land north of Stonnall Road, Aldridge

Object

Representation ID: 12457

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carole Cornwell

I live in [Redacted-GDPR] and it is already a very busy road. It is used as a cut-through to Stonnall, etc, and the increase in traffic that these 2 developments would create are not acceptable, in my view. Also there would be more schools, doctors, dentists needed to cope with the extra people. Our MP and Mayor think that there are enough brownfield sites in Walsall to cope with the houses needed and so the use of green belt is unnecessary

Object

Representation ID: 12486

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

2) In relation to the proposal for Stonnall Road, Aldridge (WAH237 and WAH253) I have a number of specific objections : -
Loss of valuable agricultural level; loss of open space for local residents to enjoy; lack of adequate local infrastructure -- local schools, dentists and doctors surgeries are already under pressure; mediocre parking facilities, in the local Aldridge shopping centre; loss of greenbelt land runs counter to all arguments about climate change - surely more brownfield site can be used.
3) utilise the dying high street in town centre for residential development - numerous empty buildings could undergo change of use.

Object

Representation ID: 12517

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Ralph

Comments on the Black Country Plan relating to Walsall, And Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road Development in Particular.

I object to such a large area of green belt land being used for housing when there are so many closed shops and unused buildings in and around the Walsall area.
Local infrastructure is already in place for these areas, and if new housing were spread around it would help to re-generate local communities and high streets. This re-generation is not best served by building large out of town blocks of new housing on green belt land. Once lost this valuable commodity can never be replaced. The Black Country Plan for Walsall states that the plan will identify new areas for new "infrastructure needs like transport, schools and GREEN SPACES, yet the plan does not identify any land for any new open spaces, just the destruction of 347ha of existing green space!

With reference to the proposed development on the Queslett Rd. East / Aldridge Rd. site, I would like to raise several points of objection.

1) The site is about as far away as it is possible to get from any existing or proposed employment areas shown on the map, thus increasing the need for many additional car journeys. Since the pandemic, use of public transport has declined significantly with no sign of it changing. Are you proposing each new house comes with a free electric car?

2) With the building of 960 houses, with an average of 2.4 children per house hold this will be an additional 2,304 children which could not be accommodated by existing schools, necessitating either more green belt land to be destroyed for new schools or many more car journeys. Surly smaller developments in an existing urban area would be ecologically more sustainable.

3) The area is situated in a valley, which means it will be visible from all of the surround area, thus the visual impact would be enormous.

4) According to the BBC news web site (www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46455844) 8% of the worlds Co2 emissions are generated from the production of concrete, and brick manufacture is one of Europe's largest emitters of green house gas (www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Publications/Climate-protection), so re using existing buildings or incorporating them into small new build would be far more environmentally sound. It would appear the Black Country Plan cares nothing about the global environment.

5) Of the 300ha green belt land designated for new development, 203ha falls in the Walsall area which does not seem a fair distribution of the degradation the area will suffer.

Object

Representation ID: 12531

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Colin and Carole Bill

Number of people: 2

Walsall Council. Black Country Plan
Land North of Stonnall Road. Site Ref:-WAH237 and Land South of Stonnall Road. Site Ref:-WAH253.

We moved to [Redacted- GDPR] Aldridge because of the views across open land.
[Redacted- GDPR] "The congestion of suburban living" we look across Greenbelt land, which is 'Farming Land', Growing Feed, to feed the nation. we enjoy Privacy and a sense of wellbeing. There is an abundance of Wildlife, Bees, Butterflies, Birds and mammals.
We feel to build on this land would be more acres of greenbelt land lost, when Brownfield sites should be used first. "More Farm land lost".
The local services such as Schools, Doctors, hospitals and Parking are already under pressure There would be an ENvironmental impact on the infrastructure of such a small village and a Mental Health impact on our lives. "Please us Brownfield Sites First"

Object

Representation ID: 12542

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Simner

(1) The land in question is prime greenbelt land fully used all year with hedgerows neatly trimmed. Crops grown continuously ever year.
(2) Stonnal Road and Birch Lane are already used as a Rat Run from Aldridge to Chester Rd and owards to Stonnal and Shenstone.
Crossing the Chester Road is extremely dangerous and there have been several accidents. Further volume of traffic is unthinkable.
(3) Housing of 400 homes and families would need infrastructure that is just not practical.
1/ Bus routes virtually non-existant
2/ Schools which are already under pressure
3/ Medical services are already under pressure
4/ Aldridge is only a village and cannot cope with the parking problems it already has.
5/ This village has outgrown itself in the last 60 years. Enough is enough.


[No reference is made to which site is being objected to, however it is likely to be allocations WAH237 and WAH253]

Object

Representation ID: 12737

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Bill

Our main concern is the environment and don't want this level of impact on the greenbelt.
As donators to charity specifically for the cause of protection and prevention of destruction to the environment we feel as if these efforts would be diminished.
Our main goal in donating to environmental charities is to plant more trees for wildlife and for eco systems to thrice.
As a parent of young children who we are planning to bring up in the area, who are being taught to protect the environment, feels this would harm much more than is required.
We understand the need for additional housing and are more than happy for additional housing, just not to this scale.
Having spoken with multiple residents in the area that will be directly affected, there is a very big concern this will cause a detrimental affect to our lovely community.

Object

Representation ID: 12917

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Vivian Fairbank

Re: housing development on greenfield site between Lazy Hill Road and Stonnall
Road/Birch Lane Aldridge
I should like to object to this development on a number of grounds:
1 The two roads bordering this proposed development are both winding and narrow and would not afford easy access to the site without considerable investment and destruction of an attractive area of hedgerows and trees which provide important wildlife corridors and house numerous birds hardly seen in Walsall, notably the [Redacted-sensitive information].
2 Aldridge and Walsall have significant brownfield sites immediately adjacent to shopping, transport links, schools and health services, none of which apply to this site. They are left derelict and an eyesore, negatively impacting the mental health and well-being of the community.
3 In future the UK may find itself in a position where food supply is less easily obtained from distant countries. How can it be sensible to use good quality agricultural land which produces crops every year and contributes to our home grown food, thus limiting carbon emissions from imports?
Our MP campaigned partly on her commitment to preserving green belt land. This should be paramount in your decision on this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 12939

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: C and I Turnbull

Number of people: 2

Site: Area of land between Lazy Hill Road and Stonnal Road belonging to Birch Farm Aldridge.
1. Use of green belt field site instead of brownfield. This adds urban sprawl to what is a village.
2. There will be a large increase in traffic use on Leighswood avenue on their way to Aldridge. This avenue is barely adequate for the current traffic flow, particularly at school starting / ending times. Extra traffic at these times will make it almost impossible to use and potentially dangerous for young children. Similarly, traffic travelling to Little Aston road will use Noddy Park Road. This road is very narrow and is likely to be accident prone.
3. There will be a large increase in traffic using Stonall Road, the stretch of this road between Malvern Drive and Walsall Wood Road is narrow and it would appear that there is not enough space to widen it.
4. There is a limited amount of motorists parking space in Aldridge. The extra number of vehicles that will enter aldridge are likely to park in public highways causing frustration to pedestrians and house holders, create traffic holdups and possible accidents.
5. Will the local infrastructure cope with the significant increase of people particularly infant/ junior schools? Senior school places could also be a problem.
6. Currently the Aldridge shopping centre is small but adequate for existing residents, will it be able to cope with the extra footfall from the increased number of people from the assumed extra 400 homes?

Object

Representation ID: 13147

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Joyce Williams

JOYCE WILLIAMS, [Redacted-GDPR]
Black Country Draft Plan
Site References WAH237 and WAH253
The number of households for the two sites will put much extra pressure on local health and education provision. Aldridge is popular for retirement apartments with older •people and such developments in recent years are bound to have caused extra workload on local GP practices.
it has long been accepted that countryside should be kept between Stonnall and Aldridge. Once large scale development is allowed between existing housing and Chester Road the precedent is set to allow development up to Chester Road.
Access for so many houses on to Stonnall Road is a matter of great concern. Stonnall Road (which leads into Birch Lane) narrows as it gets nearer Chester Road. There is a blind bend with no footpath. The road is narrow and the banks have a sheer drop so there is nowhere for pedestrians to get out of the way of vehiclés. Horses are ridden along Stonnall Road and many cyclists use the road often in groups. Nearer to Walsall Wood Road there is a residentiali care home. Druids Heath golf club also has an entrance on Stonnall'Road and has a lot of traffic which uses Stonnall Road. The road is also busy because it is used as a rat run for Stonnall village. In addition once traffic has negotiated the narrow part of Stonnall Road and reached the part of the road with a normal width there is a tendency for traffic to sped over the brow of the hill just by the care-home and golf club.
I heard one suggestion at the public meeting at the Compass suites in Aldridge that the frontage of the proposed housing site could be used to widen the road. The extra traffic would then be funnelled onto a narrow road near Stonnall and onto an ordinary road near the Walsall Wood Road end. The Chester Road junction is already a dangerous junction at busy times and extra traffic from hundreds of homes would add to the danger.
I know the Government has given local authorities targets for housing developments but they are also told to protect the Green Belt. There are too many problems with this site to allow the Green Belt to be easily sacrificed.
I went to the meeting at the Compass Suites, Aldridge because a neighbour told people about it. I hadn't seen any publicity for the proposa!s. The meeting wasn't well attended when I went in the afternoon. The planning officers were helpful but it seemed a last minute attempt to consult. Large plans showing possible sites for development were just put on tables rather than being displayed on the walls or 'easels'. This meant people had to queue to see them instead of a few at a time looking at the plan and hearing what the p!anning officer said.
For the above reasons I Wish to register an objection to both proposed housing developments in Stonnall Road.

Object

Representation ID: 13176

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Beck

Proposed housing site WH 237 to rear of lazy hill Rd
as a nation we are constantly urged to protect our precious green belt the above mentioned area of such land hosts many species of wildlife while providing valuable agricultural land which produces a variety of crops
the amazing diversity of wildlife will be seriously affected such privilege hosting and meeting [Redacted-sensitive information] to mention just a few as well as seeing and hearing [Redacted-sensitive information] and many more species of birds and insects. The valuable oak trees which host a miriad of creatures ma y be lost for ever as will wild flowers around the edge of the fields
Whilst appreciating that more housing is needed it is essential that Green Belt land should be the very last option for housing development

Object

Representation ID: 13383

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Hazel and Brian Gillham

Number of people: 2

Black Country Plan Sites WAH237 &WAH 253
I would like to raise these objections on viewing the planning proposals on the above project.
we are well acquainted with it's usage of traffic access and drainage problems with reference to sewerage and storm drainage all of these are at full capacity as at present.
The builder had great difficulty in gaining the license for the pumping station from Seven Trent water authority and it was sanctioned on the understanding it was fully loaded and could not be added too. When you build houses on the field opposite to where we live it will raise drainage problems.

We are objecting to the usage of valuable farming land for growing crops to build housing when other brown field site are available.

The volume of traffic on Stonnall Rd and Lazyhill is- at a very high volume and speeds limit of 30 miles per hour are total ignored therefore it is beyond comprehension for the safety for everyone. Increasing traffic will only make it worse.

Medical services are already limited.
The lack of shopping facilities and parking at Lazyhill and in Aldridge make daily life difficulty. I understand Education could be a problem as well.
No playing areas or facilities for children are near Stonnall Road only in Aldridge or Greenwod Rd less

Object

Representation ID: 13512

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Ruth Westwood

Good evening,

I would like to object to the proposal of housing plans at land north of Stonnall Road in Aldridge.

The local area is surrounded by green belt and is enjoyed by residents of Aldridge for recreation and exercise. I am also concerned about local infrastructure as it is already difficult to book appointments at the doctors surgery located at Anchor Meadow.

Roads in the area are also a concern. The roads leading to Chester Road from Walsall Wood Road are already being used as a rat run and this would only make the problem worse.

There are fields which are closer to the Chester Road which would be more suitable for development. This location wouldn't affect current residents and would prevent traffic issues.

Thank you for your time.

Mrs Ruth Westwood

Object

Representation ID: 13713

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mary Edwards

Re: Strategic Allocation Policy WSA3
Site Reference WAH237/WAH253 Land north/south of Stonnall Road, Aldridge.
1. J 13.10.3 If allowed, this development would have a serious, detrimental effect on the landscape. It would permanently remove agricultural land currently used for crop production.
2. J 13.10.4 There would be a serious impact on biodiversity, and the good farming noted above supports good biodiversity. Natural habitats including trees and hedges would be destroyed. I have often heard [Redacted-Sensitive information], currently on the 'Red List' as Birds of Conservation Concern, [Redacted-Sensitive information].
3. J 13.10.7 Mineral resources. This area lies within a mineral safeguarding area and this should be safeguarded as noted in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
4. J 13.10.8 It is proposed to build about 400 new homes and this would put unacceptable extra pressure on local schools. In particular, the nearest local primary schools are already full and are at least 2 form-entry (2FE). From my experience of working with primary schools in other local authiorities, including planning for school places, and having been a governor of two primary schools, I consider that 2FE is large enough to give economy of scale but anything larger (3FE) results in a primary school of over 600 children, too large for young children.
Although I have no first-hand experience of planning for health care, I fear that this development would have a similar effect on local provision.
5. J 13.10.9 Transport. With the exception of one limited bus route (35/35A) this area is nowhere near public transport so I assume that anyone living in this proposed development would need to use a car. It is suggested that Stonnall Road would be widened as far as the development is proposed to extend. The whole road, Stonnall Road and Birch Lane, which connects downhill to the A452 Chester Road, is very narrow and has two blind corners; to make it busier at either end would make it even more dangerous than it is at present which would be completely unacceptable.
I agree with Wendy Morton MP that brownfield sites, for which 25m in government support is now available, should be developed first in preference to taking any of the Green Belt and was pleased to hear the Prime Minister support this policy in his speech of 6th October. Green Belt land is precious and must only be used in very special circumstances which are not satisfied here.

Object

Representation ID: 14049

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: David Foskett

Black Country Plan Comments
Document Reference- Strategic Allocation WSA3, Site WAH 237/WAH 235
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 of which are identified as factors which should 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 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 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.
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 policymaking 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 need considerable investment in infrastructure.
Section 15 - Conserving and enhancing 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 under-utilised 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 5 years without any building on our Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 14072

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Craig Harrison

Re : Land adjacent to Stonnall Rd, Aldridge - Walsall Council - STRATEGIC ALLOCATION WSA3

Bulding on green belt is not ideal, I understand the need to build houses, to house the ever increasing population, But Expanding the borough outwards is Easy, Lazy Planning, There are parts of Walsall Borough that are a disgrace, and need re-developing before trying to attract new residents.
I Travel to Leeds a lot and over the last 10 years they have completely re modeled the City Centre and made it an attractive place to visit, this has started to attract big business to invest in the City and now New people want to live there.
I can only speak of the Walsall borough, The town centre is a disgrace, empty shops closed business's and a town in real decay. Start at the begining and have some pride and vision for the town, this will in 10-20 years bring in new people and investment. Not a short term plonking 300 houses on a Green belt site to paper over the cracks.

* Stonnall Rd would need widening at the junction with Birch lane as the brow of that hill is dangerous at the best of times.

* A new junction (traffic lights / Traffic Island) would need to be established at the Junction of Birch lane and Chester Rd, this junction is already very dangerous with numerous Near Fatal accidents each year.

*A new junction (traffic lights / Traffic Island) would need to be established at the Junction of lazy hill Rd and Chester Rd, this junction is already very dangerous with numerous Near Fatal accidents each year.

*If 350 houses are bult on this site then this would add approx 700 cars to the morning and evening commute making the above points more relevant.

* All the local Junior and Senior schools are at full capacity so extensions to the currant schools or new schools would be required.

Object

Representation ID: 14234

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Mitchell

WAH237 & WAH253
As a local resident I am appalled, distressed, flabbergasted & perplexed that there is even a consideration to develop our beautiful green belt land in Aldridge. This proposed development not only affects myself directly, it also affects our whole community. We take so much pleasure in our green spaces which invigorates us, provides peace of mind, and brings us together as a community! Why is this even being considered when there are many suitable brown sites across the borough?! I can't stress highly enough that once our green belt is lost it is lost forever!!! Degradation to residents mental health will be catastrophic, let alone the environmental affect to local nature and wildlife. The required housing allocation in Walsall can be met without building on green belt, so to reiterate, I am appalled that this is even being considered.

My [Redacted-GDPR] one of the proposed sites (WAH237), which is our eutopia and is the sole reason myself & my partner [Redacted-GDPR]. Many mornings, afternoons, and evenings are spent admiring the beauty of the view and for this to be taken away from us and my fellow residents would be a crime. To be subjected to years of development byway of an ongoing building site and development would cause a catastrophic and unmeasurable decline in our wellbeing, taking our precious green space and view away forever.

I appreciate houses are to be built BUT NOT ON OUR GREEN BELT LAND which is supposed to be protected for future generations!!!

As confirmed at our consultation meeting with Walsall Council on 1st October, hedgerows can't be disturbed and must be retained. So how can a housing estate be developed on the proposed site, as Stonnell Road would need to be widened to accommodate the significant increase in traffic, which would result in the hedgerows being removed from each side of the road!!! This in itself should be a reason to scrap the proposed site!

Back to my point around the many other suitable sites being available. Why can't the site on Middlemore Lane be proposed where they are now building a super tip. This site would be ideal, as already has the access for traffic, and the development would not directly affect any existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 14412

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Nicholls

Walsall council, Black Country Plan
- Land North of Stonall road. Ref: WAH237
- Land south of Stonall road. Ref: WAH253

I have lived in the Aldridge area my whole life. I am very concerned about the proposed building above as there is already heavy pressure on local schools and GP services not to mention the extra traffic it would create in the area. Also I have two very young children who love visiting their grandparents house on Lazy Hill Road and get much pleasure at looking at the crops growing in the fields and watching the tractors. I do not understand how "GREENBELT LAND" is a proposed site for building houses! It is also farmland and I feel this would be disaster for our local area but also nationally if this kind of building plans go ahead on existing farmland and greenbelt.
I understand that more houses are needed for the population but is there not brown land that could be used!?!
We have just had a global health crisis and I believe we need to look after our planet and these proposals do not preserve nature they will just contribute more to further climate issues and in turn health issues for us all! Please build on more appropriate land.

Comment

Representation ID: 14710

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Jan Spicer

I would like to share my comments connected to the proposed plan to build 363 houses on a field close to where I live. We do not back on to the area, but we can see between the houses to the beautiful countryside of fields and mature trees.
I understand the need for building many more homes, but I feel it is tragic that we are even considering destroying another area of our green belt.
A big focus at the moment is the environment and the connection to people's mental health. These green belt areas provide a space for everyone who can see them or passes through to connect to nature and to 'step away' from built up areas. Where will this stop if this field is built on? Lichfield is a prime example. A beautiful city, with beautiful countryside being covered with housing estates. This land is gone now for future generations.
If the Stonnall Road field is built upon that will be another area lost forever. It will have an impact on the wildlife in the area too which would be a terrible loss.
Stonnall Road is more of a country lane, with a sharp bend, rather than a road. This surely would not be the ideal road for a housing estate with 363 houses to enter and exit from.
I hope that brownfield sites will be considered and developed before more of our beautiful green belt countryside is built upon that is a treasure for us all to preserve.

Object

Representation ID: 14904

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Annette Cook

Black Country Plan: Draft Plan Regulation 18 consultation

Re: Strategic Allocation Policy WSA3, site WAH237 & WAH 235

I would like to object to the draft plan for the above sites as it is my considered opinion that it would have a negative effect on the local environment and contradicts principles laid out in both the National Planning Policy Framework and numerous Government documents concerning housing development and the environment. The land in question is, as you acknowledge, currently a green belt site and the development proposed is a 'large housing site' which will have a major impact on both the natural environment and the local community, in my opinion, a very negative impact.

The Plan states that removing this particular site and others from the green belt will not cause harm to the natural character of the Black Country. You do not state what criteria is used to make this judgement but, as we have seen in other areas, releasing green belt land for development is a permanent, irreversible and potentially escalating process which most certainly does cause harm to the natural character of a district.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2021) claims that the Government attaches great importance to green belts and that 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." This development would add considerably and permanently to the built up area in Aldridge.

The Framework also states that
“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by
- protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils
- 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
- minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity.”
These proposals would contribute to none of the above and would, in fact, do the exact opposite.

I believe that the area is in a Mineral Safeguarding Area as well as being used for agriculture. The Framework comments on the facilitation of the sustainable use of minerals thus; "It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. Since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation."
Long term conservation of this resource will not be ensured by this plan.

In the Government's 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment (2018) the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, stated that "Our natural environment is our most precious inheritance. The United Kingdom is blessed with a wonderful variety of natural landscapes and habitats and our 25 Year Environment Plan sets out our comprehensive and long-term approach to protecting and enhancing them in England for the next generation. Its goals are simple: cleaner air and water; plants and animals which are thriving; and a cleaner, greener country for us all. By using our land more sustainably and creating new habitats for wildlife, including by planting more trees, we can arrest the decline in native species and improve our biodiversity."
Releasing areas of green belt land for building, when other areas are available, means that we are eradicating this 'most precious inheritance' for future generations. Each section taken is irretrievable, its benefits to the environment lost and its potential for improvement wasted.

The Nature Recovery Network (updated policy paper 2020) is supposed to be a national network of wildlife-rich places with the aim of expanding, improving and connecting these places across our towns, cities and countryside. How can building on green belt land help to achieve such aims? For documentation and bills to have any effect they must be put into practice, not be circumvented or ignored. If, as stated, we "need to do more to recover nature and increase the benefits it provides to our people and our economy" and are to "enjoy and connect with nature where we live, work and play - benefiting our health and wellbeing” then developers should enhance brownfield sites and areas in need of regeneration, not destroy the natural environment.

The Environment Bill (2020) highlights starkly that nature is in decline globally and in the UK and that species and habitats are being lost at an alarming rate. Biodiversity gain plans are theoretically positive, but as is often evident locally, developers' green promises often result in token gestures, broken agreements and detrimental action which cannot be undone. Swathes of farmland and countryside in Lichfield have been given over to development; it would seem that once one site is agreed, it opens the floodgates for others. Once gone, our countryside areas are lost forever.

The Government's Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution repeatedly stresses the importance of immediate action to "protect future generations from climate change and the remorseless destruction of habitats." It speaks of supporting Britain's farmers "so that, alongside producing high-quality food, we ensure healthy soils which will also retain and – over time – capture carbon." Building on green belt and agricultural land will do exactly the opposite. Farmers are surrendering and selling their land not because they no longer care about their industry but because of a lack of support and encouragement to sustain agricultural work. The British farming industry makes a significant contribution to the national larder, environment and economy, but making ends meet has become so difficult, they are being forced to sell land to developers.

Regardless of Party Politics and loyalties, it cannot be denied that we need policies and legislation to halt the destruction of the natural environment and, more importantly, we need to take immediate action. Extensive research has gone into each document, bill and plan cited here. To ignore it and erode the green belt scheme will inevitably have grave repercussions, both now and in the future.

As householders we are being encouraged to 'do our bit' for the environment by planting trees, retaining gardens rather than tarmacking over them, rewilding areas where possible as well as other measures to encourage wildlife and biodiversity. None of our efforts will be effective if planners are simultaneously destroying swathes of greenbelt land.

I find it very difficult to believe that in an area such as the Black Country there are not enough brownfield sites and areas which would benefit from regeneration, resulting in a need to build on valuable, irreplaceable green belt land. With so many local areas falling into decline, so many towns struggling to thrive, surely planners should be encouraged to bring life and rejuvenation to them rather than carving out and building upon farmland and areas rich in wildlife and beauty.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that to go ahead with plans to build on local green belt land is short sighted, immensely damaging and the thin end of a wedge which could cause massive, irretrievable harm to our countryside and the wider environment. I write not in a spirit of 'Nimbyism' but as one who cares for the future of our neighbourhood, our country and our planet. We need to act now to prevent permanent destruction to our world, and that prevention needs to begin with ordinary people standing against projects such as this. The Government has supposedly committed to "build back greener and leave the environment in a better state for future generations". Let's see evidence of this commitment here in Aldridge.

Object

Representation ID: 15090

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carole Leach

objection to development of land off stonnall road aldridge ref:WAH237 and WAH253 . Whilst i agree everyone is entitled to housing and the need to build new homes is a goverment priority. But building new homes needs to be in line with the existing community. The land proposed floods on a regular basis and backs on to a quarry. There is no infrastructure in place on this country lane to put a housing estate with all the added trafic this will bring to the surrounding roads. Local schools are over subscribed and so are local gp services. Building on green belt and agricultural land should be a very last resort and as yet walsall council do not need to approve these totally inappropriate plans

Object

Representation ID: 15424

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Dave Stanley

I am totally opposed to the proposal to build houses and allow gravel extraction on green belt land in Aldridge, for the following reasons:

1/ We should preserve all green belt land for the growing of food crops - giving us food security.

2/ we need to preserve the green belt to give nature a home, because once it's gone its' gone forever.

3/ We should build houses on unused brown field sites, not on the green belt.

4/ Our green belt land is used as an amenity by the local residents and providing a haven during the epidemic for exercise, mental anxieties and general wellbeing, this would all be lost if the housing plan was approved.

Please think again, for all of our sakes!

Object

Representation ID: 15789

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Benton

Thank you for the opportunity afforded to me, to be able to comment on the Black Country
Draft Plan Regulation 18 Consultation (August 2021)

My comments are specifically addressed to the proposal to build 363 houses, on Green Belt farmland, to the rear of my property, defined in the Plan, as Site ref WAH 237.

Background History

You will appreciate that this site has history, clearly documented, as far back as 1981

"Wood A. A. (1981) Aldridge/Brownhills District Plan. Draft Written Statement (West Midlands County
Council).

Wood A. A. (1983) Aldridge/Brownhills Local Plan. Revised Policies and Proposals (West Midlands
County Council).
Wood A. A. (1984) Aldridge/Brownhills Local Plan (West Midlands County Council), Written
Statement."

I contend that the criterion for rejecting proposals to build houses on this Site at that time,
and within other subsequent revised plans, one assumes, were based upon good and sound planning considerations, and the grounds for rejecting development at the Site previously therefore still apply.

Whilst I appreciate that there is tremendous pressure from central government for local authorities to increase the available number of houses within their conurbation, it should not, in my opinion, be at the cost of ignoring previous sound strategic planning decisions to reject development at this Site, and therefore to follow the easy option of building on further Green Belt.

Having had substantial interaction with major house builders within my past career, it is fact that house builders, in general, are sitting upon large parcels of land for which they have existing permissions to develop and are not doing so, because it is in their financial interest to release them slowly, thus maintaining the "market price" for the units that they build (the scarcity principle applies)

Planning Governance and Sustainability criteria

My understanding of good planning governance is to assess that there is adequate infrastructure in place to support a development of this magnitude.

It is not unreasonable to assume that 363 houses, (which seems a very precise number) with an average of 4 persons per dwelling, would attract an additional 1400 inhabitants into the area and it may be more.

Currently there are three schools within walking distance of the proposed site and my understanding is that all are oversubscribed, and I am aware that people with young families, have moved from other areas, into Aldridge, to be within the catchment area of those
schools because they are highly rated by Ofsted.

Additionally, the medical facilities and GP Services etc. in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, are all currently under pressure from the existing residents of the area, as Aldridge has an aging demographic and this is well documented, as being the case and has probably been exacerbated by previous planning decisions to allow multiple care home facilities and the attraction of retirement living into the area.

Having read officers recommendations pertinent, to development at this Site, and noting that, funding for new road infrastructure, schools, medical and GP services, which have been identified by officers , as being required, to support such a development of this
magnitude, how is it envisaged that funding for adequate new school(s) and medical and GP Services, will be funded from revenue generated, from the development of the Site and moreover has the land for those school(s) and medical and GP Services been identified, given the scarcity of land that officers have identified and my understanding that primary
level pupils have to be schooled within walking distance of the proposed Site?

Past performance of developers in my experience, has shown that it may well be in their interest to fund the road infrastructure, but not all the other infrastructure that has been identified by officers, pertinent to this site, as being required.
Therefore, is there the likelihood that those other infrastructure requirements, will not be
provided by the developer(s) of this proposed site and will consequently add additional pressure, to the over stretched resources which are currently provided to residents of the area?

Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( as amended), gives little power to local authorities to place obligations ,or conditions, pre development, upon the developers of sites and therefore in my opinion, it is very unlikely that Walsall Metropolitan Borough
Council will be able to enforce conditions upon a developer or developers of the proposed
Site to fund the adequate infrastructure such as ,new school(s) ,medical and GP services and given this observation, the proposal to include the proposed Site in the Black Country Plan should be discounted, as it lacks credibility.

Previous Strategic Plans

Consideration of the inclusion of this Site in previous strategic plans were deemed not suitable for housing development given a variety of grounds: •
• lack of adequate infrastructure being in place to support such a development
• it's encroachment into Green Belt, which would provide precedent for other Green
Belt development to go ahead, in the vicinity of the proposed Site
• sterilisation of strategic mineral reserves and which were of economic importance to the wider development of the West Midlands conurbation
• its proximity to an already permitted waste processing site for Green Waste
• its impact on the uninterrupted view from Lichfield along the Vale of Lichfield, as the
proposed Site, given its topography, sits on a high point of a ridge, which is the
highest point in the surrounding area and currently affords spectacular uninterrupted views, both down the Vale of Lichfield towards Lichfield Cathedral and beyond, and across to Little Aston Park/Four Oaks and beyond
• sterilisation of productive arable farmland

Feed Back

Following my discussion with officers at the open consultation session at the Aldridge Compass Suites on Friday the 1October 2021 ,where I raised many of the points, which I have detailed, I understand that to mitigate the Site from being obtrusive, in respect of damage to the views along the Vale of Lichfield, it would be proposed to set the development back from the ridge and the Proposed Site's topography, flowing downward from the ridge would afford screening along the sight line.

However, having reviewed this point, following a walkover of the Proposed Site, this (the officers) hypothesis is flawed, unless the Northerly end of the Proposed Site (approximately 30%) was designated as low rise, one storey development, like that condition, imposed upon
KR Hardy Estates, when they developed land off Greenwood Road.
Given the need for generation of maximum revenues from the development of the Proposed Site, to fund the necessary infrastructure, to support its development, I contend would cast doubt on the viability of the Proposed Site upon economic cost grounds, if such low-rise restrictions were placed upon its development. However, I do accept that my point could be ignored, and two-story development allowed across the whole Proposed Site and to deal
with the consequences of such actions, after the houses were built and the subsequent effect upon the sight line.
In support of the point concerning the erosion of the view, the Proposed Development would
cause, to the view down the Vale of Lichfield, I refer to a letter on House of Commons headed paper, dated in July 2005 written by Richard Sheppard, the member of parliament for Aldridge -Brownhills that "looking from Aldridge across open country towards Lichfield. On a clear day the cathedral spire can be seen. The land forms a ridge at this point before falling away to Stonnall and the Vale of Lichfield and it is not presently cultivated with few trees.
I would suggest that this site is of great scenic importance in that it commands a strategic view from the ridge across Staffordshire. Other than Barr Beacon I do not think there is such a view which links the community to its wider context, I personally think it is the finest uncontaminated elevated long view of Lichfield and the Staffordshire plain.
I therefore believe that development contravenes PPG2 and Policies ENV2 and 3 of
Walsall's Unitary Development Plan"
Whilst Richard Sheppard's reference to Walsall's Unitary Development Plan may have been superseded, his fundamental sentiments, expressed in the letter remain.

Reference to a specific number of houses (363) assumes that a detailed plan and feasibility study for the Proposed Site was made, at the stage when there was a call for sites.
For the consultation process to be open and transparent, may I suggest that the plan
submitted at the stage were there was a call for sites, be made available to the residents, in the vicinity of the proposed Site, for them to see what is proposed, and how the initial layout for the Proposed Site, relates to the existing properties around the curtilage of the Site, and
in relation to their property. This, I believe would assist in making an informed decision about the proposal

No information has been provided concerning where any new school(s), or medical and GP Services are to be located, to support the Proposed Development, therefore, is it envisaged that further Green Belt land will be required and if that is the case, has that parcel, or parcels of land required to support the Proposed Development been identified?
If, as part of the Council's feasibility study, the land has been identified, can its location be provided to residents, again to make an informed decision concerning the Proposed Development

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and copies of my representations concerning the
Proposed Site have been circulated to:•

Wendy Morton
Member of Parliament for Aldridge Brownhills
Councillor Keith Sears
Aldridge North & Walsall Wood

Object

Representation ID: 15811

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Steve and Claire Jennings

1, The sites in question are Green belt and the allocation of such sites for housing development should be resisted when there are alternative numerous brownfield sites within the Black Country area and specifically Walsall. The proposals appear to be an easy option to address central government demands for future housing rather than investigating former unused and available industrial sites in the Borough.
2, At a time when climate change is a key issue the impact on what is now arable land is catastrophic. The proposed extraction of bedrock and sand and gravel will have a massive impact on the local community causing disruption, noise, smell, fumes and a threat to health.
3, The proposed widening of Stonnall Road to accommodate large industrial vehicles and increased traffic will further erode the rural nature of the area to aid an urban sprawl with little or no demarcation.
4, If this development is permitted the real winners are the land owners who sell, and the developers who build the housing. The so called improvements to the local facilities such as a local primary school and health care, are a sop to the existing community which will suffer from the increased demand for services. Coupled with the change in the environment this proposed development cannot be justified.
5, The land in question has always been farming land and should be maintained as such if Britain is to be addressed self sufficient rather than being held to ransom by foreign market forces.

Object

Representation ID: 15915

Received: 19/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vicky Owen

I am writing to complain about the proposed development of a large housing site (strategic allocation) WAH237. I live..., Aldridge and this site will ruin the value of my property. It would also result in having my garden overlooked and a block to my daylight. I live in a flat and instead of overlooking fields, I would be overlooking a housing development. This would completely alter the character of the community and would mean that the village of Stonnell (on the other side of the fields) would cease to be a village and would merge into the development. I would also object to any prior extraction of bedrock, sand and gravel, which could take place ahead of the development due to noise and environmental damage.
This development would completely ruin the quality of my life with all of the additional noise, pollution and traffic and alter the character of the community (from semi rural - overlooking fields) into a busy housing estate. This will financially damage my future as this will reduce the value and saleability of my home. The entire proposal seems ridiculous and Ill thought out - in simple terms I object.
Finally, can I also complain about the fact that no official paperwork has been posted to me from the developer about this proposal - no consultation has taken place and communication has been poor

Object

Representation ID: 15981

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David Roberts

Dear all, please see attached PM speech pledging to protect our greenbelt. Please include this in our
objections for housing development in Walsall with particular reference to land on Stonnall Road / Birch
Lane, Aldridge, as part of the Draft Black Country Plan consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 15992

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Benton

Thank you for the opportunity afforded to me, to be able to comment on the Black Country
Draft Plan Regulation 18 Consultation (August 2021)
My comments are specifically addressed to the proposalto build 363 houses, on Green Belt
farmland, to the rear of my property, defined in the Plan, as Site ref WAH 237.
Background History
You will appreciate that this site has history, clearly documented, as far back as 1981
"Wood A. A. (1981) Aldridge/Brownhills Distict Plan. DraftWitten Statement (West Midlands County
Council).
Wood A. A. (1983) Aldridge/Brownhills Local Plan. Revised Policies and Proposals (West Midlands
County Council).
Wood A. A. (1984) Aldidge/Brownhills Local Plan (West Midlands County Council), Written
Statement.'
I contend that the criterion for rejecting proposals to build houses on this Site at that time,
and within other subsequent revised plans, one assumes, were based upon good and sound
planning considerations, and the grounds for rejecting development at the Site previously
therefore still apply.
\Milst I appreciate that there is tremendous pressure from central govemment for local
authorities to increase the available number of houses within their conurbation, it should not,
in my opiqion, be at the cost of ignoring previous sound strategic planning decisions to
reiect de'ielopment at this Site, and therefore to follow the easy option of building on
further Green Belt.
Having had substantial interaction with major house builders within my past career, it is fact
that house builders, in general, are sitting upon large parcels of land for which they have
existing permissions to develop and are not doing so, because it is in their financial interest
to release them slowly, thus maintaining the "market price" for the units that they build (the
scarcity principle applies)
Planning Governance and Sustainability criteria
My understanding of good planning governance is to assess that there is adequate
infrastructure in place to support a development of this magnitude.
It is not unreasonable to assume that 363 houses, (which seems a very precise number)
with an average of 4 persons per dwelling, would aftract an additional 1400 inhabitants into
the area and it may be more.
Curently there are three schools within walking distance of the proposed site and my
understanding is that all are oversubscribed, and I am aware that people with young families,
have moved from other areas, into Aldridge, to be within the catchment area of those
schools because they are highly rated by Ofsted.
Additionally, the medicalfacilities and GP Services etc. in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed site, are all cunently under pressure from the existing residents of the area, as
Aldridge has an aging demographic and this is welldocumented, as being the case and has
probably been exacerlcated by previous planning decisions to allow multiple care home
facilities and the attraction of retirement living into the area.
,
Having read officers recommendations pertinent, to development at this Site, and noting
that, funding for new road infrastructure, schools, medical and GP services, which have
been identified by officers , as being required, to support such a development of this
magnitude, how is it envisaged that funding for adequate new school(s) and medical and GP
Services, will be funded from revenue generated, from the development of the Site and
moreover has the land for those school(s) and medical and GP Services been identified ,
given the scarcity of land that officers have identified and my understanding that primary
level pupils have to be schooled within walking distance of the proposed Site?
Past performance of developers in my experience, has shown that it may well be in their
interest to fund the road infrastructure, but not all the other infrastructure that has been
identified by officers, pertinent to this site, as being required.
Therefore, is there the likelihood that those other infrastructure requirements, will not be
provided by the developer(s) of this proposed site and will consequently add additional
pressure, to the over stretched resources which are cunently provided to residents of the
area?
Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), gives little power to
local authorities to place obligations ,or conditions, pre development, upon the developers of
sites and therefore in my opinion, it is very unlikely that Walsall Metropolitan Borough
Council will be able to enforce conditions upon a developer or developers of the proposed
Site to fund the adequate infrastructure such as ,new school(s) ,medical and GP services
and given this observation, the proposalto include the proposed Site in the Black Country
Plan should be discounted, as it lacks credibility.
Previous Strategic Plans
Consideration of the inclusion of this Site in previous strategic plans were deemed not
suitable for housing development given a variety of grounds: -
r lack of adequate infrastructure being in place to support such a development
o it's encroachment into Green Belt, which would provide precedent for other Green
Belt development to go ahead, in the vicinity of the proposed Site
o sterilisation of strategic mineral reserves and which were of economic importance to
the wider development of the West Midlands conurbation
o its proximity to an already permitted waste processing site for Green Waste
o its impact on the uninterrupted view from Lichfield along the Vale of Lichfield, as the
proposed Site, given its topography, sits on a high point of a ridge, which is the
highest point in the surrounding area and currently affords spectacular unintenupted
views, both down the Vale of Lichfield towards Lichfield Cathedral and beyond, and
across to Little Aston ParUFour Oaks and beyond
. sterilisation of productive arable farmland
Feed Back
Following my discussion with ofiicers at the open consultation session at the Aldridge
Compass Suites on Friday the 1st October 2021 ,where I raised many of the points, which I
havedetailed, t understand tfrat to mitigate the Site from being obtrusive, in respect of
damage to the views along the Vale of Lichfield ,
it would be proposed to set the
development back from the ridge and the Proposed Site's topography, flowing downward
from the ridge would afford screening along the sight line.
However, having reviewed this point, following a walkover of the Proposed Site, this (the
officers) hypothesis is flawed, unless the Northerly end of the Proposed Site (approximately
L
30%) was designated as low rise, one storey development, like that condition, imposed upon
K R Hardy Estates, when they developed land off Greenwood Road.
Given the need for generation of maximum revenues from the development of the Proposed
Site, to fund the necessary infastructure, to support its development, I contend would cast
doubt on the viability of the Proposed Site upon economic cost grounds, if such low-rise
restrictions were placed upon its development. However, I do accept that my point could be
ignored, and two-story development allowed across the whole Proposed Site and to deal
with the consequences of such actions, after the houses were built and the subsequent
effect upon the sight line.
ln support of the point concerning the erosion of the view, the Proposed Development would
cause, to the view down the Vale of Lichfield, I refer to a letter on House of Commons
headed paper, dated in July 2005 written by Richard Sheppard, the member of parliament
forAldridge -Brownhills that "looking from Aldridge across open country towards Lichfield.
On a clear day the cathedral spire can be seen. The land forms a ridge at this point before
falling away to Stonnall and the Vale of Lichfield and it is not presently cultivated with few
trees.
I would suggest that this site is of great scenic importance in that it commands a strategic
view from the ridge across Staffordshire. Other than Ban Beacon I do not think there is such
a view which links the community to its wider context, I personally think it is the finest
uncontaminated elevated long view of Lichfield and the Staffordshire plain.
I therefore believe that development contravenes PPG2 and Policies ENV2 and 3 of
Walsall's Unitary Development Plan"
Wtrilst Richard Sheppard's reference to Walsall's Unitary Development PIan may have been
superseded, his fundamental sentiments, expressed in the letter remain.
Reference to a specific number of houses (363) assumes that a detailed plan and feasibility
study forthe Proposed Site was made, at the stage when there was a callfor sites.
For the consultation pro@ss to be open and transparent, may I suggest that the plan
submitted at the stage were there was a call for sites, be made available to the residents, in
the vicinity of the proposed Site, for them to see what is proposed, and how the initial layout
for the Proposed Site, relates to the existing properties around the curtilage of the Site, and
in relation to their property. This, I believe would assist in making an informed decision about
the proposal
No information has been provided concerning where any new school(s), or medical and GP
Services are to be located, to support the Proposed Development, therefore, is it envisaged
that further Green Belt land will be required and if that is the case, has that parcel, or parcels
of land required to support the Proposed Development been identified?
!f, as part of the Council's feasibility study, the land has been identified, can its Iocation be
provided to residents, again to make an informed decision conceming the Proposed
Development
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and copies of my representations concerning the
Proposed Site have been circulated to: -
Wendy Morton
tember of Padiament for Aldridge Brownhills
Councillor Keith Sears
Aldridge North & WalsallllUoo

Object

Representation ID: 16033

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David & Lola Cox

Black Country Plan, Walsall. Proposed large Housing site (Strategic Allocation) WAH237 & WAH253; Draft Policy Map.
Reasons against, Green belt is extremely valuable for, food production & Climate change mitigation. The irreversible loss of open countryside & the negative ecological environment & social impact of this. greater demands on rural roads & utility not works that may already be operating at full capacity. Property in this area is within an air quality air management area (AQMA). The council is required to create & follow an air quality action plan to improve air quality. It is also in an area with a rating of two, this means there is a moderate chance of pollution levels, exceeding healthy levels, particularly in poor weather conditions. If the proposed plans to build new homes are adapted, this could greatly affect pollutions within the area, & increase carbon footprint.
Maximising the potential for brownfield sites should be the priority for the local authority for various social, physical, economic & environmental reasons. For alternative & more suitable brownfield sites priority options for development see list below;
1) Old Bush Inn, Pelsall, WS3 4BP
2) Walsall Saddlers Centre
3) Oak Park/ KFC site, Lichfield Rd
4) Dale street Family Centre WS1 4AH
5) The Rising Sun b'hills West
6) Former Packaging RUS, Reservoir - Pt Walsall
7) Moat Street, Willenhall WV13 1SZ
8) Whittimere Street Intown Row, Walsall
9) The Brown Dog Willenhall, WV13 1SZ
10) Travellers Rest, Great Bridge Road, WV14 8LG
11) The Eagle, Cresswell Crescent, Mossley

Object

Representation ID: 16049

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Palfreyman

Objection
Black Country Plan Comments

Document Reference-Strategic Allocation, Site WAH 237/WAH235

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 or agricultural and should not be changed as per the statement above. There are no special circumstances which suggest this designation should not be changed not 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 over subscribed as well as the local health centre, Widening the local roads will have a significant negative impact to local residents, increased traffic, air pollution, all of which are identified as factors which should 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 and on animal species. *see attached photos* *
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, agricultural and minerals. and visual appeal.

All developments should be based in 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. This 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 proposal 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 the house values for all the local residents*
*see attached photographs*
(Images included in the Submission – see attached PDF)

The proposed allocation of this site wholly and significantly contradicts your policy CSP3 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, agriculture 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 first give 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 MSA. It is not served well by public transport and would need considerable investment in infrastructure.

Section 15 - " Conserving and enhancing 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 under-utilised 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 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 5 years without any building on our Green Belt.

*Writing surrounding photographs, which can be seen in the PDF*
Strategic Allocation WSA3, Site WAH237, WAH235.
Objection - outlook across proposed site Winter/Summer
Greenbelt/Agricultural Land with diversity of wildlife/birds etc. Brown field sites should be used first to protect such valuable land.

Object

Representation ID: 16085

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Cattell

It is with great sadness I find myself having a need to write this letter of objection to the reckless, destructive and unnecessary building development in Aldridge (Lazy hill/Greenwood road). As a local resident the building of property here will not only have a catastrophic impact on the local wildlife, environment, air quality, individuals health and quality of life but also the local infrastructure which would not be able to sustain such a thoughtless proposition.

There are many more suitble areas to develop rather than on green belt!

Object

Representation ID: 16170

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Hook

SPECIFIC TO STONNALL ROAD DEVELOPMENTS WAH 237 & WAH 253
Why was the site WAH 237 not included in the list of large housing sites in the Draft Plan/Walsall Borough Summary as it accounts for a total of in excess of 350 new houses yet Pheasey Park Farm with 202 was. What was the logic/criteria for inclusion?
The site is in a Mineral Safeguarding Area and is additionally green belt land and consequently should be considered in accordance with the Council’s strategic priorities, ‘to protect and enhance the natural environment, biodiversity, wildlife corridors, geographical resources, countryside and landscapes.’ Walsall’s Site Allocation Document identifies managing and safeguarding mineral resources and specifically refers to sand and gravel extraction in Birch Lane.
Why has the land therefore been identified as a ‘Neighbourhood Growth Area’ , which appears to be a fait accompli, and not been classified as ‘protected’ where development would generally remain restricted, together with a presumption that top quality agricultural land will not be developed on? Both plots of land 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.