Policy WSA5 – Land at Yorks Bridge, Lichfield Road, Pelsall

Object

Representation ID: 19236

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Sly

The following comment applies to the Pelsall proposal site numbers WAH236 (Yorks Bridge) and WAH238, WAH240 (Coronation Road/Mob Lane)

I have just received the Black Country Plan through my door which identifies sites for future housing in the Pelsall area and I am absolutely horrified at what they are proposing.
Both the Yorks Bridge site and the Coronation Road/Mob Lane site have grown into areas of natural outstanding beauty.
Climate change is a real issue now and how we need green belt which will act as effective flood planes in the future, are safeguards we cannot afford to lose. I have witnessed personally outside the front of my house how the common land absorbs the now all too frequent heavy rainfall events.
This is not a case of "not on my patch" either. The proposed site for a new Aldi, literally on my doorstep, could provide an area for a number of affordable homes, along with many other Brownfield sites.
This development needs to stop now, before it's too late.

Object

Representation ID: 19240

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Davies

All brownfield sites should be used first before thinking about Green Belt land- before we get a BIG URBAN SPRAWL.
Site WAH236 (Yorks Bridge Pelsall) (GREEN BELT)
If approved they would want to build 580 houses. You are talking about at least an extra 1160 cars on the road in this area!
Its already congested by the Finger Post at certain times. Also the cars through Pelsall Village would be non- stop.
Schools in the area have to be bigger and they have not got the room to expand.

SAVE OUR GREEN BELT AND USE BROWNFIELD SITES FIRST

Comment

Representation ID: 19341

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Susan Collins

Ref: WAH238, WAH240(Coronation Rd/Mob Lane) WAH236 (Yorks Bridge)

With regard to the proposal to build 1343 homes on the above sites, I have the following objections and wish them to noted:

It is green belt land and we must protect it as much as possible, we will lose our natural habitat, animals will be homeless, or have to move miles to find a home so the balance of nature will change even more.
It is only by protecting green belt land that we can assist with climate change, keeping trees, hedgerows etc.

The original name for Pelsall meant 'the land between two streams' which is exactly what the village is. How do you propose to prevent the flooding by building on green belt land. Rainfall is increasing and we do not have the capacity to cope currently let alone if more hard surfaces are created and buildings are erected.

Pelsall does not have the infrastructure for such an increase in residential homes, roads are already 'clogged' at peak times particularly from the direction of Shelfield under the bridge into Pelsall, and also from Yorks bridge in both directions, Lichfield Road surely cannot cope with increased traffic and neither can the centre of the village.

Surely there are plenty of brownfield sites that should be utilised first when considering building, old factory sites etc. Instead of them being an eyesore use them to build the new houses and regenerate these sites, most of these kind of sites already have some infrastructure in place already.

We all know that new homes need to be built but NOT on our green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 22391

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association Lichfield

Poiicy WSA5 - Land at Yorks Bridge, Lichfield Road, Pelsall
This site is an important area of countryside alongside the Wyrley & Essington Canal. It is part of the West Midlands Green Belt which serves to check the sprawl of built-up areas, to encourage the regeneration of urban land, and to safeguard the countryside. Its proposed removal from the Green Belt would undermine those purposes and damage the setting and economy of the canal. Therefore, IWA objects in principle to its allocation for development. However, if exceptional circumstances can be proven then it is important that the adverse impact of development on the canal is limited and mitigated by sensitive layout, design and landscaping.
The Wyrley & Essington Canal is a historic waterway and a valuable amenity and recreational corridor, providing leisure boating, walking, angling, cycling and nature conservation benefits to the area. It is part of the national waterway system which attracts millions of visits each year from local people and holidaymakers from home and abroad, and is a major component of the nation’s tourism industry.
The rural environment of the canals plays a vital role in attracting and sustaining the recreation and tourism use of the whole canal system, which contributes to the visitor economy and helps support local businesses. The income from boating activities provides a major part of the funding necessary for the Canal & River Trust to maintain the canals for public use and enjoyment.
Although much of the canal network in the Black Country is urban or suburban in character, the northern parts of the system in Walsall in particular include several attractive countryside sections. Because of their limited extent, these are of particular value to sustaining tourism as well as an important amenity for nearby residents.
However, major built developments in the countryside adjacent to the canal system destroy the rural setting that contributes to their heritage interest, wildlife, amenity value and recreational use. Visually intrusive built development alongside the canals damages their tourism potential and economic benefits.
The Wyrley & Essington Canal currently enjoys a pleasant open rural outlook across this site that enhances its attractiveness for recreational use. The canal towpath is open to the public and provides an accessible footpath. However, the attractive countryside setting of this section of the canal will be largely lost by this proposed allocation. Whilst the canal corridor will provide an amenity for the new residents, its overall value to the local community and the visitor economy would be diminished if the development is visually intrusive.
It is therefore important that the visual impact of the development on the canal is limited by sensitive design, layout and landscaping through appropriate masterplanning of the site. The canal and an adjacent wetland, woodland and grassland area is shown as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) on the Strategic Allocation plan. This should be preserved and enhanced by setting back the built development behind this buffer zone with additional landscaping and public realm uses to help preserve the setting of the canal.
This will be in line with the aspirations of Policy ENV7 – Canals, that development affecting the canal network should (1) “deliver a high quality environment”, (2e) “protect and enhance its visual amenity, key views and settings”, (3a) “enhance and promote its role in providing opportunities for leisure, recreation and tourism activities”, and (3d) “positively relate to the waterway by promoting high quality design, including providing active frontages onto the canal and by improving the public realm”.

Object

Representation ID: 23097

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Craig Cotterill

WAH236 (Yorks Bridge)
There are far too many houses on green belt land. No provision for schools, doctors. The amount of traffic it will cause which is already a major problem at peak times. This could see a further 2,500+ cars on the road (approx 2 per household).
The loss of both animals / birds as well as flora and fauna . The leisure facilities for walks and bike rides will be lost. I suggest looking at other brown field sites like the Goscote Lane site currently being built on.
Pelsall will lose its village identity and become a urban sprawl. I don't want that

Object

Representation ID: 23113

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Swann

Coronation Road/MOB Lane WAH238
WAH240

I have serious concerns that the development of this land will result in devastating and irreversible consequences for the local wildlife including the deer that live within this area.

I appreciate the need for the new housing nationally and the impact of this at a local level, however there are much more suitable sites on brownfield land which could be reclaimed for housing with the political will of Walsall Council. The cost of this is nothing when compared to the impact on local wildlife. Although this is my primary concern I also feel for the impact upon health of local residents both mental and physical, this land is invaluable as a 'green lung' for local residents.

I would also ask you to carefully consider the ongoing judicial reviews across the country in respect of population growth.

I a monitoring the development of these cases with interest as i am sure are you planning department.

Comment

Representation ID: 23133

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraphs 6.1 - 6.4 - Not clear whether these are policy requirements, if they are they are not evidenced or justified or just supporting text.

Comment

Representation ID: 23134

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.7 - "While RPS supports the principle of provide a new primary school on the Site, it is unclear whether this is to be single-form and multi-form entry facility. In order to remedy this uncertainty, more detail is required in the policy."

Comment

Representation ID: 23135

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.8 - "The Site spans two local planning areas and so raises a strategic matter to be addressed under the duty to cooperate. It is unclear, at present, what engagement has occurred between Walsall MBC, Cannock DC and Staffordshire CC (for example, with respect to education provision)."

Comment

Representation ID: 23136

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.9 - "The draft wording does not clarify the preferred method or approach to managing the SLINC as part of the development of the Site."

Comment

Representation ID: 23137

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

6.10 - Site constraints reduce the developable area by 2.8ha, there are site constraints which increase this area to 4.2ha. Further discussion is required.

Comment

Representation ID: 23138

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.11 - The developable areas between the site assessment and allocation do not match and differ from RPS.

Object

Representation ID: 23249

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Dafydd Huw Rogers

Please do not build on green belt and the Yorks Bridge extension will only allow HGV vehicles to have access to the high street in Pelsall. many children use these roads and inevitably there will be accidents and a build up of traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 23276

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.12 - Objection to the site being assessed in the green belt study as part of the larger B117A parcel which is not considered representative.

Object

Representation ID: 23277

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.13 - Objection to the site being included in a much larger parcel used for the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment which Yorks Bridge site is not representative of the whole of the LSA parcel.

Object

Representation ID: 23281

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.15 - Evidence provided to demonstrate that the site is 6 to 12 minutes walking distance of a health centre.

Object

Representation ID: 23282

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.16 - "Page 25 of the main SAR document indicates that a journey time of less than 15 minutes either by walking or public transport is required for an amber score. The Aldi store at Brownhills can be reached by bus with a journey time of between 5 and 12 minutes starting from the edge of the Site."

Object

Representation ID: 23283

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.17 - The site assessment scores Yorks Bridge red for cycle access. The site is capable of being connected to National Cycle Route 5 to the East and the canal towpath is part of the Beacon Way.

Object

Representation ID: 23284

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.18 - The strategic allocation lists a density of 35dph, table 31, 45dph and the SAR 45dph.

Object

Representation ID: 23285

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.19 - Strategic policy refers to 580 dwellings, Sustainability Appraisal refers to 774 dwellings and both are contrary to the submitted Vision Document which proposes 340 dwellings.

Object

Representation ID: 23286

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.20 - No evidence or information to support the need of a health facility other than its proximity estimated to be more than 15 minutes away.

Object

Representation ID: 23316

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 6.21 - 6.22 - Evidence and justification is required in the strategic policies.

Object

Representation ID: 23399

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: West Midlands CPRE

Agent: Gerald Kells

WAM236 (WSA 5) Walsall Pelsall
This is open fields on the very edge of Pelsall. There does not seem to be a clear boundary either on the Walsall or Cannock Chase sides of the boundary. It is reason ably well served by bus.
Green Belt assessment in Land Use Consultants’ 2019 Green Belt Study – High

Object

Representation ID: 23558

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Pelsall First Councillor Team

Number of people: 3

WAH238 Vicarage Road/Coronation Road
WAH240 Mob Lane, High Heath
WAH236 Land at Yorks Bridge

This form is submitted on behalf of Cllr Edward Lee, Cllr Rose Martin and I [Cllr Gary Perry]. In short the proposals for neighbourhood growth housing allocation across the aforementioned footprints is both nonsensical and inappropriate.

The consultation has fuelled an anger the likes we have not seen for sometime. Selection of this land in the Green belt, whilst beneficial to housing need allocation, will cause a level of harm that will never be rectified. Green belt land has environmental benefits and once it is lost it is lost for good. The proposed sites if approved and furthermore acted on will create urban sprawl, changing neighbourhood identity, pressurising local services and will require significant investment in infrastructure. Infrastutcture costs that will fall on the taxpayer and ill affordable as we recover economically from covid.

School places are already at capacity locally, GP access is diminished, changed and challenged, the surroudning road network is overloaded - Lichfield Road, Coronation Road, Mob Lane, Norton Road, Fordbrook Lane - all arterial routes experiencing traffic volume, speed and congestion - very much evidenced at peak times. Access to all sites would be difficult and would only excercabate the already disruptive effects described. The aforementioned sites and land volume acts as a natural flood plain. Again building on this land would create signifiant issues locally - some of the adjacent roads already experiencing problems with the flood risk real and heightened by loaclised events during storms.

Ecologically the effects are also significant - resulting in loss of habitats, loss of wildlife, forestry, and agriculture. Building on such land can affect our rarest species such as [Redacted-sensitive information] - whose habitats can and will be devastated by the noise and pollution from the extra traffic developments generate. The strategy needs switching - we dispute the figures used in the consultation re Brownfield and if all brownfield sites were realised would negate the need for the idle proposal where Green Belt is the convenient choice.

Object

Representation ID: 45032

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Nicole Norris

WAH236 (Yorks Bridge)
WAH238 WAH240 (Coronation Road/Mob Lane)

We object to planning on all of these green belt sites when there are plenty of brown field sites across the Midlands. By building in these areas it puts increased pressure on existing infrastructure including road networks, schools, doctors and dental surgery and other adjacent green spaces. It is also a policy which is counterintuitive to a greener future which protects echo systems and green spaces. The argument that house building, creates new jobs is not in dispute, however building on brown field sites would create an equal number of jobs, if note more. The only argument for building on green belt is by property developers keeping costs low and profits high.

Object

Representation ID: 45379

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Noel Davies

Site Ref WAH236 (Yorks Bridge)
WAH238
WAH240 Coronation Road/Mob Lane

Can't believe that yet again the greenbelt is being chipped away at for housing development. We are forever being reminded about the environment and how we should look after what we already have and especially resources eg "farm land" which provides food. I fully understand the need for housing for the future growing population but why are we allowing more people into the country when we cant house or fully support the population we have. How do you feed people if you remove all farmland?
The greenbelt provides habitat for such a large varied wildlife population the 'deer' roam freely why destroy this precious habitat and resource.
Hope this isn't money making exercise for land developers!!
N.Davis

Object

Representation ID: 45398

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Farmer

I object to houses being built on green belt land. This includes land in Walsall (Calderfields) and Pelsall. Not only is developing our precious green belt land against the best interests of the people of Walsall, it also appears to be in direct opposition to government policy - I note in the Prime Minister’s speech from the 2021 Conservative party conference he committed to building on brownfield not green field sites

Object

Representation ID: 45437

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Pearce

WAH236, WAH238, WAH240

Save our villages
Use Brown field Site
Not Green belt

Object

Representation ID: 45440

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen O'Neill

The proposal to build on green land is appalling and is detrimental to the whole of the area of Pelsall. We are a village and as such have limited facilities and infrastructure to support what in theory is a large number of houses. In total you are proposing to build 580 houses at York Bridge and 763 houses at Coronation Rd/Mob lane this being a total of some 1343 new homes which I am sure would be welcomed with open arms but not on green belt land and especially not in a village that would not be able to support that kind of influx.

Central and local government keep saying that we should build on brown field sites and protect the green belt. There are many brown field sites in the West Midlands so why not build and them and save the green belt for future generations.

Pelsall is unique in that from wherever you approach it you have to pass over water, we have a number of commons and an area of Special Scientific interest with which the proposed Yorks bridge development is near to being encroached on.

A recent document that we have received off Walsall council about the proposed new waste and recycling centre in Aldridge finished with this final paragraph.

"Our preference is always to focus on brownfield sites for re-development as our green belt is hugely valuable and our aim is to protect it."

So protect it and do exactly what you have said use brownfield sites. It has taken about 30 years to agree on a replacement for Yorks Bridge. Funny how this proposed development suddenly appears when a new more accessible bridge is about to be built.

Have the courage of your convictions in protecting our green belt especially for future generations as you have publicly stated in you proposal for the new waste site in Aldridge.

Object

Representation ID: 45478

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Sue Hill

Site No's WAH236 (Yorks Bridge) and WAH240 (Coronation Road)
I feel very strongly against the 2 proposed sites in the Pelsall area (both Walsall MBC sites) as
listed above.
There are plenty of opportunities to explore the development of Brown Field sites around the
Walsall Borough, as well as unused shops/shopping centre in the middle of town, without messing around with Green Field sites. Whilst I read that the Plan has considered certain Brownfield sites, more work should be done to explore more plots, including domestic development of the mostly
disused white elephant that is the Saddlers Centre!
Not enough consideration is being given to the destruction of wildlife habitats in the planned sites. It will also destroy possibilites for walking/recreation time in the area .... a facility which has been highlighted in the past 18 months especially, an important factor in mental well being. Even if the fields are left as they are and people not allowed to walk across them, the site of hundreds of
buildings in their place must have a detrimental effect upon well being.
There is currently insufficient infrastructure in the way of GP surgeries, schools and hospitals, in Pelsall and its surrounding areas to facilitate so many new properties being built.
Furthermore, the villages and towns surrounding Pelsall are fast moulding into one, with no
distinction between their individuality. Both of these proposed developments can only add to that "fudging" of boundaries. A sad day indeed!