Policy WSA6 – Land off Sutton Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall

Object

Representation ID: 17951

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Rooney

Objections are as follows: Local Authority Area: Walsall Borough Site Name: Sutton Road/Longwood Lane

1. The additional housing will cause a direct increase on an already congested and polluted road system. Even if enhancements are made to traffic management, resulting congestion is likely to be significant. The junction surrounding Longwood lane is already a bottleneck.
2. Regarding the proposed development of 442 houses at Calderfields. Reducing green space while simultaneously increasing in population will strain local infrastructure and, alter the nature of the neighbourhood for good. Up to this point, when travelling from Walsall in the direction of Streetly/Aldridge, the presence of green space provides welcome relief from the surrounding and over developed areas. Head towards Wednesbury/Wolverhampton or Birmingham for countless examples of over development. Socially and visually, the result of overdevelopment is predicatble and undesirable.

As a general observation, it appears that planners are adopting a short term perspective. i.e. How can we achieve the max no. of houses at the lowest cost. Ignoring the effects on existing residents, while showing disregard for the needs of future residents.
Walsall has experienced a steady decline over the last 20 years. The death of the high street and industry do offer one opportunity, that is, an abundance of brown field sites. Obviously, developing brownfield sites is neither cheap or easy. That said, there comes a point where we need to think holistically. Redeveloping existing sites will improve the area and protect remaining green space.

Object

Representation ID: 17958

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Maurice Rooney

My objections for the following development in particular are as follows:
Local Authority Area: Walsall Borough
Site Name: Sutton Road/Longwood Lane

1. The section of land is a very important and a long established wildlife sanctuary, it is made more crucial by the close proximity of the Arboretum Rewilding Project.

2. The additional housing will cause a direct increase on an already congested and polluted road system.

Object

Representation ID: 17981

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Phillip Barnes

Site Reference - WAH231 - Sutton Road / Longwood Lane/. Strategic Allocation WS.6
Comments below are made in reference to site WAH231 and refer to areas in various sections of the document.

Environment
* As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) there is a serious loss of wildlife habitat which will arise as part of this proposed development. This needs to be protected.
* Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
* Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution/noise.
* Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of green space.

Town Planning, Infrastructure, Health & Wellbeing
* Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also lack of any street lighting on Longwood lane, and pavement.
* Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road with no proposed details of how this would be managed.
* Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that housing on this particular space will result in creation of a bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
* No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
* Design Principles around more capacity for schools, and medical facilities are all hypothetical with no evidence in any of the proposals around how this will be achieved.
Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated is out of character with local area.

Landowners for significant portions of the land have NOT been consulted throughout this process, and do NOT support the proposed development. Based on all the above i believe this should be removed from the Black Country Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 18015

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Doreen Kenyon

Site Reference - WAH231 - Sutton Road/ Longwood Lane. Strategic Allocation - WS.6 Comments below
are made in reference to site WAH231 and refer to areas in various sections of the document.
Environment

• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC) there is a
serious loss of wildlife habitat which will arise as part of this proposed development. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution/noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of green space. Town
Planning, Infrastructure, Health & Wellbeing
------------------------------------------------------------------
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also lack of any street lighting on Longwood lane, and pavement.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road with no proposed details of how this would be managed.
• Neighboring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that housing on this particular space will result in creation of a bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and
businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Design Principles around more capacity for schools, and medical facilities are all hypothetical with no evidence in any of the proposals around how this will be achieved.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated is out of character with local area.

Landowners for significant portions of the land have NOT been consulted throughout this process, and do NOT support the proposed development. Based on all the above I believe this should be removed from the Black Country Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 18017

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dorothy Mcdowell

Site Reference - WAH231 - Sutton Road/ Longwood Lane. Strategic Allocation - WS.6 Comments below
are made in reference to site WAH231 and refer to areas in various sections of the document.
Environment

• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC) there is a serious loss of wildlife habitat which will arise as part of this proposed development. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution/noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of green space. Town
Planning, Infrastructure, Health & Wellbeing
------------------------------------------------------------------
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also lack of any street lighting on Longwood lane, and pavement.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road with no proposed details of how this would be managed.
• Neighboring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that housing on this particular space will result in creation of a bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and
businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Design Principles around more capacity for schools, and medical facilities are all hypothetical with no evidence in any of the proposals around how this will be achieved.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated is out of character with local area.

Landowners for significant portions of the land have NOT been consulted throughout this process, and do NOT support the proposed development. Based on all the above I believe this should be removed from the Black Country Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 18025

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dorothy Whitehouse

Sutton Road, Walsall is unable to cope with any increased traffic. It is very difficult to get out or our drives now. There is severe traffic congestion at Longwood Lane / Sutton Road junction now and has resulted in many accidents and any Longwood Lane access would cause more traffic congestion.
The extra traffic pollution and noise would cause severe health risks to the residents of Sutton Road.
There is no capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and no capacity for more patients at G.P. Practices in area. The proposed dwellings would be completely out of character with the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 18044

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Morris

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC) there is a serious loss of wildlife habitat which will arise as part of this proposed development. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution/noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of green space.

Town Planning, Infrastructure, Health & Wellbeing
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also lack of any street lighting on Longwood lane, and pavement.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road with no proposed details of how this would be managed.
• Neighboring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that housing on this particular space will result in creation of a bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Design Principles around more capacity for schools, and medical facilities are all hypothetical with no evidence in any of the proposals around how this will be achieved.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated is out of character with local area.

Landowners for significant portions of the land have NOT been consulted throughout this process, and do NOT support the proposed development. Based on all the above I believe this should be removed from the Black Country Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 18213

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Taj Sing Bhogal

Black Country Plan Development Objections
Freedom of Information Act 2000 request
To Whomever it may concern,
Why is the site WAH231, Sutton Road/Longwood Lane included in the plan when it was clearly unsuitable? The current owners of 50% of this site, [Redacted-sensitive information] were never consulted about the proposed development and do not support it!
From a personal point of view, my young family and I recently moved to this area; the high quality schools, vast green space, high value property and a generally family
friendly, healthier environment were major contributing factors for our move.
Having invested so much into this move we now feel like this proposal directly impacts on each of those points and more.
Furthermore, the site is unsuitable because:
Infrastructure
Sutton Road unable to cope with increased traffic.
Any Longwood Lane access would cause increased traffic congestion.
Longwood Lane has no pedestrian/cycle access.
Severe traffic congestion at Longwood Lane/Sutton Road junction.
No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools - [Redacted-GDPR]. With even
more residents local education facilities will be further stretched
Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 out of character with local area.
Health and Wellbeing
Serious health risk to Sutton Road residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Environment
Serious loss of wildlife habitat [Redacted-sensitive information]. WAH231 is a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) and should be protected.
Why was the site included in the plan when it is clearly not suitable?
Who put forward the site for inclusion in the plan when the land owners of 50% of it do not support its development?

Object

Representation ID: 18330

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Bishop

[Site Ref: WSA6 / WAH231]

Sutton Road/Longwood Lane/ Pheasey Park Farm
Black Country Plan proposal
In general, I oppose the Proposal. I have two prime objections.
I. Environment
The extensive rural area between Sutton Road and the northwestern horizon has been cherished over many generations by Walsall Councils. [Redacted-GDPR], when I moved into my present home [Redacted-GDPR], I was told that it had a 'white' status (beyond 'green'). In recent years it has become decidedly more 'green' in character and has more wild life.. The current proposal 'nibbles' at its unique status.
The owner of the land [Redacted-GDPR] does not wish to sell. The manner in which she has been deliberately misquoted is disturbing.
2. Traffic
If new housing proceeded, each house would have 1-2 cars. The related introduction of one or more road entrances to these houses would put extra pressure on the local traffic situation, particularly in Longwood Lane. This route to the motorways is used by HGVs from
Aldridge. In rush hours on weekdays traffic is very slow-moving at its junction with Sutton Road. An additional entrance point would obviously complicate and aggravate the situation.
Sutton Road and Mellish Road are attractive routes into Walsall.
The proposed housing would transform and jeopardise their future appearance.

Object

Representation ID: 18360

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roden

Hi - the Black Country Plan is a great idea and naturally this document needs a lot of reading to fully understand.
Unfortunately I have only just heard about the draft plan with less than a week before the 11th October deadline. Consequently I have had to focus on the key issues that effect my neighbourhood in Walsall which are as follows:

Additional housing:
1) WAH231 - I have lived on [x] for over [x] years and can't believe how incredibly busy traffic now is. Building many new additional houses here will not only be adding to the problem but is building on very important greenbelt land*

Question: why is Walsall building more net homes than the other 3 larger regions? This doesn't seem fair - please advise.
* there are sufficient brownfield and town centre sites available within Walsall that should be used instead of precious Greenfield areas.

Object

Representation ID: 18436

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Davies

Site Reference — WAH231 - Sutton Road / Longwood Lane. Strategic Allocation - WS.6 Comments below are made in reference to site WAH231 and refer to areas in various sections of the document.
Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC) there is a serious loss of wildlife habitat which will arise as part of this proposed development. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution/noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of green space. Town Planning, Infrastructure, Health & Wellbeing
•
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also lack of any street lighting on Longwood lane, and pavement.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road with no proposed details of how this would be managed.
• Neighboring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that housing on this particular space will result in creation of a bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Design Principles around more capacity for schools, and medical facilities are all hypothetical no evidence in any of the proposals around how this will be achieved.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated is out of character with local area.
Landowners for significant portions of the land have NOT been consulted throughout this process and do NOT support the proposed development. Based on all the above I believe this should removed from the Black Country Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 19348

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Dorothy Mcdowell

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing
development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19349

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Kinnear

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing
development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19350

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Edith Yarnold

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19351

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Arthur Yarnold

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19352

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Wendy Yarnold

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19353

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Davies

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19354

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Huskisson

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19355

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Miller

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19356

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pat Clowes

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19357

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Margaret Askey

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19358

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Stone

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19359

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Eileen Archer

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19360

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lorna Simpson

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19361

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Scattergood

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19362

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Wilkes

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19363

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Paula Homer

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19364

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Rita Eaton

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19365

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Coleman

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 19366

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Phillip Barnes

I'm writing in reference to the Black Country Plan of which you should be aware. I would like a response regarding a particular site (WAH231) Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall. I would like to understand why this site is included in the Black Country Plan when it is clearly not suitable for any proposed development on a number of factors. The fact that the current landowners of a significant portion of land where the housing developments are proposed have NOT been consulted and do not support it raises concerns about this and the overall process.
Specifically, to the WAH231-- Sutton Road/Longwood Lane Walsall site, there are various reasons why
the site is unsuitable and I am disappointed to see that time, effort and presumed taxpayer money has gone into proposals which were never suitable for development.

Environment
• As the site is a designated Site of Local Importance for Nature conservation (SLINC), I cannot understand how it is considered as part of the proposed development sites. Serious loss of wildlife habitat [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] would be a factor. This needs to be protected.
• Various inconsistencies between plan and local site assessment reports (provided through the same process) around various environmental factors all relating to the WAH231 site.
• Loss of green space within the area going against manifesto pledges around drive towards brownfield first approach.
• Serious health risk to Sutton Road/Park Hall/Orchard Hills residents from increased traffic pollution and noise.
• Increased stress to Sutton Road residents with construction work and loss of Green Space.
Town Planning, Infrastructure &Education
• Proposed site has no pedestrian and no cycle access. Also, Longwood Lane has no street lighting.
• Sutton Road/Longwood Lane would be unable to cope with increased traffic congestion including access issues into Sutton Road. Any Longwood lane access would cause increased traffic congestion which cannot be managed as Sutton Road is a key route connecting surround areas.
• Neighbouring areas such as Orchard Hills, Park Hall will see increased traffic as a result, only compounded by the fact that this particular space will become the bottleneck within the local area causing disruption not just to residents but schools, and businesses too.
• No capacity for increase in pupils at local schools and increased traffic as there is no feasible options for walking to schools which is encouraged across all local authority schools.
• Proposed dwellings per hectare (dph) of 35 indicated within the proposal are significantly out of character with local area.
I have listed some of the reason above regarding unsuitability of this particular site (WAH231 - Sutton Road/Longwood Lane). I did want to remind you that within the conservative 2021 Manifesto summary you championed protection of Green Belt, Sites of Local Importance, and a 'Brownfield first approach' to development. A couple of statements and references from that Manifesto.
• Build Thousands of Homes Where They Are Wanted [Pg. 6 • Conservative Manifesto2021-Summary.pdf]. This is clearly not the case here. The drive was to adopt a 'Brownfield first' approach, and work with the local community to fight in protecting the green belt, and green spaces.
• Ensure Everyone has High-Quality Affordable Housing [Pg. 12] -"..continue a policy of 'Brownfield First' housing development." and "...protect the green belt."
I think it is clear from the above that this site is not suitable and goes against manifesto pledges. Who put this land forward when the owners of the land do not support development and were not consulted? Can we count on your support for removing this site from the Black Country Plan?