Policy WSA7 – Calderfields West, Land at Aldridge Road, Walsall

Comment

Representation ID: 10616

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Smith

It is important that the the trees in the Grouped TPO area are protected both during and after building construction.

Comment

Representation ID: 10731

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jagiro Lallie

I object on the grounds of how this will spoil the 'open space' character of the area. It will have adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbouring owners. Threaten wildlife. Create a lot of traffic and cause loss of privacy and overlooking. Homeowners have bought these properties because of the open aspect views and without these views, the properties will significantly reduce in value.

Object

Representation ID: 10764

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Georgina Mitchinson

I am very concerned about the Calderfields farm development. As well as completely spoiling one of the few open spaces in Walsall, the rise in traffic and the pressure it would put on the already busy Aldridge/Mellish road and subsequently Lichfield street/road junction would be huge. With the prospect of 1000's more people living in the area, it would also severely affect the nearby parks and amenities which are frequently at full capacity. By building on the greenbelt and destroying habitat, it would also have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 11030

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Dr Kartik Ray

I am opposing the planning proposal at Aldridge Road, Walsall Thanking You, Yours Sincerely

Object

Representation ID: 11043

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sally Matthews

Use of greenbelt for housing - Site WAH242
This proposal will
Destroy swathes of irreplaceable greenbelt land which should be kept for future generations to enjoy. It is imperative that our town should not lose any of what little greenbelt land it has.
Threaten the movement of wildlife through the greenbelt corridors.
Spoil the open space character and landscape of the Arboretum and for people using the A454 Aldridge Road.
adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring homes which will lose the open space aspect of greenbelt land and lose their privacy
Enormous pressure on existing infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 11415

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Hemming

Objections to housing in areas WAH242 & WAH233 etc
It is Green Belt land so should be protected.
The housing proposals will fragment the Green Belt which will affect all Green Spaces concerned, leading to a loss of the Open aspects surrounding Walsall Arboretum & Country Park.
Rare species of birds will lose their habitat on the Calderfields Farm area and the wildlife corridors present will be destroyed. Hedges that are natural nesting and food sites will also be destroyed.
A planning application was rejected in 2014 as it would result in significant harm to Green belt & openness.

Comment

Representation ID: 11583

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

I wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections I have with regards to the above Black Country Plan WAH242 and the proposed development of Green Belt land.
As an immediate neighbour to the site and whose property, as part of Calderfields Farm, will be entirely surrounded by this proposed development I am of the view the addition of 592 houses on our precious, irreplaceable, green land will cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenities and disrupt the quiet and peaceful character of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 11623

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Annie Tolley

Regarding your recent letter re Great Barr Conservation Area building plans and also for the Sutton Road and Calderfields areas. I strongly object to such a massive building plan being put forward. The following points are the reasons why;
1. Lack of suitable traffic management- HGV lorries already use this lane although this means motorists having to reverse if unfortunate enough to meet one
2. Lack of schools, surgeries in the area- more houses would be ridiculous as our schools are all over subscribed now.
3. Wildlife, hedgerows would all be destroyed- against what we are trying to do at present to reduce our carbon footprint.
4. The recent pandemic showed how vital it was for green spaces for people's well being. Building work obviously would greatly diminish this.
5. Traffic on the Sutton Road/ Beacon Rd/ Queslett Road is already packed beyond belief at rush hours and would certainly not cope with this influx of new premises
6. As a nation where a more plant based diet is being looked at - we need fields to grow produce not cover it with bricks & mortar.
Walsall has many derelict & disused properties including shops. I feel that your first port of call should be to reuse these before destroying the conservation and green belt areas.
I'm also concerned that many of the residents where this building work would affect have not been notified and only by word of mouth become aware of any of the proposals.
Finally when I looked online at the proposals it incorrectly states that "Little Oak Barn" is the major property. Pool House Farm is the original property on this land with the barn conversion "Little Oak Barn" being completed in the late 90's.
I feel very strongly that green belt & conservation land should be disregarded so easily. I feel that more could be done to make Walsall town centre more appealing before all the green that surrounds us is taken for developments which can not be supported by the local infrastructure.
I would urge the council to reconsider these proposals & to look at brown sites as the way forward to provide new homes.

Yours sincerely,
Mrs A Tolley

Object

Representation ID: 11813

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Penelope Byatt

As is acknowledged below, this development would affect the visual amenity and character of the arboretum. It is essential to preserve this so that the arboretum can continue to provide much needed physical and mental health benefits and views over green space for the local community.

Object

Representation ID: 11814

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: 11847

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Knight

This allocation will have a significant impact on bio-diversity and will also impact the greenbelt in contravention of policy CSP3.
This development is next to the Walsall Arboretum and is likely to severely detract from its amenity, particularly its value as a tourist destination and local asset.
This allocation should be removed from the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 11892

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Roberta Owen

It is my belief that site ref SA-0078-WAL is not suitable for development of housing based on the following issues
Objection 1 – Green Belt THIS IS GREEN BELT THAT ADDS TO BEAUTY OF WALSALL ARBORETUM AND THE ENJOYMENT OF VISITORS WHO VISIT THE ARBORETUM
The proposed development of 592 houses on green belt land sits alongside Walsall Arboretum. It is the only stretch of the park with open field views of grazing animals and as such is particularly popular with families. The rest of the park is close bordered, the proposed development will destroy the openness of the views for all Arboretum users.
The NPPF July 2021 states:
137 the government attaches great importance to green belts the fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of green belts are their openness and their permanence
The proposals do exactly the opposite to this as the areas of Walsall , Aldridge and Streetly merge. Indeed, the site assessment rates the green belt harm as very high harm and high harm. the definition of this red RAG rating in the draft Black Country plan site assessment report: assessment and selection methodology and results is
“there is a very substantial negative effect or issue that is unlikely to be capable of acceptable mitigation”
The NPPF states:
138. Green Belt serves five purposes:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
The proposed development would directly contravene a, b, c and e and the NPPF also states that:
147. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
148. When considering any planning application local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the green belt. ‘Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Objection 2 – Selection does not follow the Black Country Plan’s own methodology
Draft Black Country Plan Site Assessment report: Assessment and Selection Methodology and Results. Aug 2021, Chapter 3, Page 16, Paragraph 5 states:
“sites located in areas where development is likely to cause very high harm to remaining green belt and where landscape sensitivity to development is likely to be moderate-high or high have been considered not suitable for development”
Appendix C-4, Page 137 Sites Assessed for Housing and Selected (Walsall), St Matthews, Site Reference SA-0078-WAL has rated the site as follows:
Green Belt Harm: North East Very High Harm, West High Harm = Red
Landscape Sensitivity: Moderate High = Red
According to the Black Country plans own methodology this site is not suitable for development. Why has it been selected as suitable?
Objection 3 – there has been no Ecological Report and Bat Survey for the site
Draft Black Country Plan Site Assessment Report: Assessment and Selection Methodology and Results. Aug 2021, Page 18, Biodiversity and Geodiversity states:
“Existing council records inform the status. Ecological appraisals which informed local site assessments were carried out for the most sensitive sites and their findings are included in the assessment. impacts on local sites such as these can sometimes be mitigated by providing environmental enhancements to net biodiversity gain on the site or nearby land.”
Although this site is green belt assessed as likely to incur very high harm there has been no ecological survey of the site.
This site has:
- [redacted - protected species] (photographs available). The known sites exist on [Redacted-Ecology] the development site, so it is difficult to see how [Redacted-Ecology] the developers would avoid damaging or destroying [Redacted-Ecology] are a protected species.
- [Redacted-Ecology] this development will cause he loss or fragmentation of their habitat it will expose him to dangerous light pollution which in turn has ecological impacts; [Redacted-Ecology] being the principle predators of night time insects. [Redacted-Ecology] are protected species
- [Redacted-Ecology]
Currently there are unrestricted wildlife corridors from Calderfields Farm to:
- The Arboretum
- The Arboretum extension. The extension is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and
- Stencils Farm, a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC)
Additionally, Park Lime Pits to the North West of Stencils Farm and Hayhead Wood are local nature reserves, SINCs and Hayhead Wood is an SSSI. These areas provide an even greater biodiversity and also form part of the UNESCO global geopark. These sites surrounds Calderfields so the development of 592 houses will destroy the wildlife corridors and the light and noise pollution will significantly and negatively impact the wildlife in each of these sites
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1982 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 all demand that the local planning authority request a detailed ecological survey including a bat survey before any decisions are made. This can also take account of any pond life butterflies etc.
The Black Country Plan Site assessment report, assessment and selection methodology and results (August 2021) defines an Amber RAG as “There is a moderate negative effect or issues which may be able to be adequately addressed but only subject to mitigation.”
This alone should be enough to demand that the ecological report was completed before the site was selected.
Objection 4 – the concept of a ‘call for sites’ on green belt land is flawed
It is common knowledge that it is more expensive and challenging to build on brownfield sites. It is more profitable to build on green belt. When green belt land is made available developers will choose to develop it ahead of brownfield. So the concept of a call for sites including green belt land actively discourages redevelopment of brownfield sites
Objection 5 – Brownfield First (Two source documents: Brownfield Land Register supplied by BCP and Walsall Brownfield Register 2017-12-29_for_web)
There are 100 Brownfield sites listed on the more recent register providing a total dwelling figure of 3,100.
Of the 100 sites on the register they are all annotated ‘First Added Date’ of 29-12-2017. One item says it was added 20-03-2020 and yet strangely it received planning permission 17-01-2019. So there have been no new sites added to the Brownfield register since 2017.
Brownfield Sites given Permission
41 of the brownfield sites on the recent register have permission for development (1169 dwellings)
Permission was given: 2015 – 7 sites, 2016 – 13 sites, 2017 – 13 sites, 2018 – 1 site, 2019 – 2 sites, nothing since although 5 sites have no date stating when planning permission was given.
15 of thes e41 sites on the recent register have not been updated since 29-12-2017
3 sites are under construction (50 homes). 6 sites have completed (76 homes).
So basically, no new sites have been added to the register.
Brownfield Sites without Planning Permission
There are 59 sites without planning permission (1487 dwellings) of these 37 sites are annotated ‘planning permission expired’ (599 dwellings) or 59 sites were transferred from the 2017 register. 56 of these sites have not been updated on the register since 2017.
Additionally I am told by the BCP team that the Walsall town centre health check indicates that as at July 2019 26.5% of retail units were vacant. I am sure this is significantly higher now. Walsall town centre is dead. The 2019 index of multiple deprivation ranked Walsall as the 25th most deprived English local authority out of 317 placing Walsall within the most deprived 10% of districts in the country (33rd in 2015, 30th in 2010 and 45th in 2007) everyone can see the pattern. There has to be opportunity to develop parts of Walsall town centre to provide family homes positively impacting access to services climate control (less cars), town centre etc, etc.

Andy Street, Wendy Morton, Valerie Vaz, Mike Bird have all gone on record opposing building on green belt sites but still the proposals move forward
“Our policy of tackling the many contaminated sites within the borough would allow much needed quality housing to be built on these brownfield sites, while protecting our precious green belt.” Mike Bird in April 2016 when he was campaigning!
Finally a quote from CPRE “there are unbuilt permissions for 1 million homes already, according to Government data analysed by the Local Government Association. (https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/research-morethan-a-million-approved-homes-not-built). We also note that in 2016 there were half a million unbuilt permissions (https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/half-a- Changes to the Planning System CPRE Response 30 September 2021 Page 5 of 21 million-unbuilt-homes-industry-reacts) so this number has doubled in four years.”
I am not sure of the homes referred to here are Brownfield but I assume they are.
Objection 6 – Infrastructure
Existing road school and health facilities cannot support this additional housing. 592 homes will potentially create another 900 plus cars. The plans state that access could potentially be via either the Aldridge Road or Buchanan Road. Buchanan Road is currently a residential road that is not a through road. Residents were not advised at the potential impact by BCP. Neither road could cope with the additional traffic as current commuters will attest. The traffic jams in the area attest to the fact that the infrastructure does not exist to support this proposal. There are already insufficient school places and doctors’ appointments.
Objection 7 – Sprawl
The green belt developments in the BCP blur the boundaries of Walsall, Aldridge and Streetly.
Objection 8 – Flood and drainage
The Arboretum, the Aldridge Road and the proposed development site all have a history of flooding. Hard surfacing of the development site will aggravate the existing flooding issues. The subsequent flooding and drainage issue costs will ultimately be borne by Walsall Council long after the developers have disappeared.
Objection 9 – The basis of the number of dwellings required: CPRE – Changes to the Planning System CPRE Response 30 September 2020.
“Reliance on centralised prescription and formulae instead of on judgement and local evidence. They will prevent local authorities and local communities from establishing appropriate quantities and types of housing provision that are relevant to localities”.
it is not realistic for a nationally based mathematical formula to generate these outcomes, which can only be determined at pursued using local knowledge.”
These extracts say it all.
Objection 10 – Consultation
Is it really acceptable to call this a consultation where none of the impacted residents were specifically advised of the development I E the information was available online and in libraries but how are people expected to know that the information existed? Available in libraries is also contentious as a number of concerned people have been unable to acquire comment forms in either Walsall or Aldridge libraries
As a resident at Calderfields, I was notified when the golf driving range wanted to build an adventure golf course but it wasn’t important to tell me and my neighbours of proposals to build 592 homes around our homes.
The spirit of this consultation causes distrust and suspicion. It doesn’t feel like consultation and it does feel like a done deal. We say ‘why haven’t you done an ecological report and you say ‘we can do it later and then build in mitigation’, in other words we always find mitigation and this is a done deal. Shame on you.
your version of consultation appears to assume that development of some sort will go ahead and you seek the mitigation needed to make it happen rather than asking is it desirable?

Object

Representation ID: 11926

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

WAH242 Calderfields West, Aldridge Road Walsall.
Simon Atkinson Head of Conservation at The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country in his comments to the BCP concludes;
The Site Assessment process should not have selected this site. The site has been identified as Potential Site of Importance for nature conservation and they strongly object to the allocation because no site assessment has been undertaken.

Object

Representation ID: 11927

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

The NPPG states that a site should also be supported by the local community".

Object

Representation ID: 11928

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

Please see attached letter

Object

Representation ID: 11944

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lauren Sayer

The proposal for development of such a huge number of houses on this site would have a catastrophic on one of the most precious areas of biodiversity and wildlife in Walsall's green belt. The land adjacent to the arboretum is an established wildlife corridor, home to a variety of protected and rare species. Planting of trees on the south arboretum border could not possibly migitate the extensive and irreperable damage this development would cause.

Comment

Representation ID: 12360

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: hà lê Le

Dear sir/ madam,
We are the residents who live in [Redacted-GDPR]. We
strongly believe that the plan of building new home in there will affect our life. This is too many new
house to be build in the plan therefore its will increase the number of traffic in the area, change in
atmosphere around here, impacts on the wildlife in the area, therefore we disagree with the work will
be conducted near our home. We believe that not only us have that opinions but also the others
residents in the area.
Please consult the plan and consider about our recommendation

Object

Representation ID: 12453

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Finn

Site Ref WAH242 - Calderfields West Aldridge Road

Site Ref wah242 - Calderfields Aldridge Road
I object to the proposed development of 592 homes on the above Green Belt Land.
There is no excuse for building on green belt land. Review your Brownfield sites, again and again and force development on these sites. I am sure it is more expensive and more challenging to build on the brownfield sites but the easy and more profitable option of green belt should not be considered until brownfield sites are exhausted. All the local politicians say they support 'Brownfield First', even Mike Bird campaigned in 2016 saying "Our policy of tackling the many contaminated sites within the Borough will allow much needed quality housing to be built on these brownfield sites, while protecting our precious green belt. "
Walsall Arboretum is a precious local resource and the development of the land alongside the arboretum will spoil the landscape of open fields. My god children love to see the sheep and cows and horses. This is not just Green Belt land it is Green Belt land that is very important to the local population. Planting trees along this border to hide the new builds will be detrimental to the beauty of the arboretum and to the Users. It will also surely impact the wildlife.
I also think Streetly, Walsall and Aldridge will become one if you do not keep the green belt boundaries. I object to this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 12454

Received: 15/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

I wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections I have with regards to the above Black Country Plan Wproposed development of Green Belt land.
[Redacted-GDPR] I am of the view the addition of 592 houses on our precious, irreplaceable, green land will cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenities and disrupt the quiet and peaceful character of the area.
My specific objections are as follows:
NON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE. NPPF states that Greenbelt is to be protected and requires 'Very Special Circumstances' to be built on. There is nothing special about plans to build on unspoilt land just to meet current housing targets. I question the use of a computer based algorithm to assess the housing needs which seem totally overinflated. Local Councils rather than the government are surely better equipped to judge housing targets for their particular area.
The projections assume the population of the Black Country will rise at an alarming rate from 2023 - 2039 well above normal growth and does not take into account that this could also decrease as well as increase.
If growth were normal, all future developments and improvements to our infrastructure can be fully accommodated within the urban area. Brownfield First. Surely there is more than enough Brownfield, old Industrial and windfall sites and developments that already have planning permission available to accommodate housing targets without the permanent destruction of Greenbelt.
In 2014 Walsall Council in a refusal decision of planning for 14 houses on the same land said: There is a plentiful supply of available housing land in Walsall without requirement of Green Belt. Sites with planning permission provide capacity to meet the boroughs housing well beyond 15 years including the additional NPPF 5% buffer. The loss of open space as a result of the proposed built development would have a significant detrimental impact to the character of the area which is defined by open countryside which contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlooks the application side.
I would also ask 'has the pandemic changed the housing supply equation'. Working from home and shopping online have hollowed out many urban centres. Walsall in particular is full of offices and shops empty and unused. Could Walsall's struggling high street and business zones with its good transport links be repurposed as residential neighbourhoods rather than our beautiful countryside.
An example of this would be Crown Wharf Retail Park. Many of the retail units are sitting empty why not relocate the remaining shops to the now deserted town centre, and use this site for housing with it's excellent access to shopping, leisure and public transport.
HISTORIC CONSERVATION AREA. The development, due to its location and layout, would result in significant harm to the 'openness of the green belt' being visually prominent from the Arboretum which is Walsall's flagship historic park and conservation area where visitors enjoy beautiful views in and out of the park.
The loss of 'open space' which contributes to the quality of the Arboretum would have significant detrimental impact to the historic assets of the park which is of a high local importance. Walsall Council should exercise their planning power to pay special attention and recognise the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character of this conservation area.
Walsall Council commented in the refusal planning for 14 houses on the same land said The loss of open space as a result of the proposed built development and incidental landscaping would have a significant detrimental impact to the of the area is defined by open countryside which contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlook the application side.
Many of the adjacent and surrounding properties postdate the formation of the park in 1840 and they form the framework of the park and as such are important contributors of the landscape.
Calderfields Farm which dates back to mid 1800's and the surrounding greenbelt with its [Redacted-Sensitive information] forms an essential part of the setting of the arboretum. The development of 592 houses will not sit comfortably within the landscape.
PROTECTING OUR WILDLIFE. The BCP was developed before the pandemic hit, therefore it is out of date and needs to be revisited and reassessed. We have to take into account the dangers posed by climate change that has emerged. Now more than ever we need to protect our local wildlife.
The site itself is known to have the protected species of [Redacted-sensitive information]
The proposed development site would sit in the middle of the Arboretum, Arboretum extension, Park Lime Pits and Hayhead (SNICs) which would destroy wildlife corridors and light overspill may negatively impact the [Redacted-sensitive information] and other wildlife causing destruction of habitats. The wildlife will perish as a result.
I would also point out that there has been NO ecological assessment of the site. As mentioned the site has protected species as defined by the UK legislation and the development would cause potential harm to any populations of these species present on site and therefore are not in compliance with ENVI, ENV2, ENV3 & ENV4 of the BCR
If required I have photos [Redacted-sensitive information].
I also have concerns for the preservation of the 'protected' trees which surround the proposed development and the potential damage from heavy excavation equipment on the root systems.
FLOOD RISK. It is known that the Arboretum, the Aldridge Road and the proposed site have a history of flooding and concreting over the countryside will exasperate this.
The SFRA acmowledges that global climate change is having a huge effect. The proposed development may pose an unacceptable risk of causing detrimental impact to groundwater quality and potentially result in contamination to the brook and watercourses that lead to the Walsall Arboretum. SFRA notes a blockage scenario would flood parts of walsall including major infrastructure. I would NOT consider that the site meets the sequential test for flooding and the development is contrary to CC5 & CC6 of the BCP
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY. The proposed greenbelt is an integral part of the landscape. Loss of the existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners. If developed on, this connection local people have with their natural environment, will be lost forever.
LOSS OF PRIVACY AND OVERLOOKING The proposed development will have an adverse effect on both loss of privacy and overlooking 'Cramming' 592 houses on the plot will mean being uncomfortably close to neighbours and this will allow very little space for planting and landscaping and the gross overdevelopment of the site would significantly alter the fabric of the area resulting in a serious invasion of privacy.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BCCS states that the proposed development supports the council's objective with regard to affordable housing. The proposed housing has to take into account the surrounding characteristics of each site so I would ask what the definition of affordable housing is. House prices in the area are typically anywhere between 450,000 and 800,000. I'm not sure this, on average, would be considered affordable housing.
TRAFFIC GENERATION/SECURITY Traffic generation from the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the traffic in the area in particular the island from Buchanan Road and the Mellish Road. This already has severe congestion during busy hours. Air quality and noise pollution will also be an issue.
Access from the Arboretum to the proposed development would surely offer poor levels of security and would raise a fear of crime in the area.
Finally, the coronavirus pandemic exposed how important good quality outdoor green space is for our physical and mental wellbeing. With work-from-home becoming the normal, people have been re-evaluating their lives and as a consequence popularity of rural and coastal properties have seen people moving away from towns in search of a better quality of life.

Good quality green space should be accessible to all, now more than ever. Nature needs green space to thrive and our access to nature needs to thrive too.
The Priority 6 of a 'Vision for Walsall' says 'encourage everyone to feel proud of Walsall.' We should be Proud of our Past our Present and our Future. How can we feel proud when the BCP allows the permanent destruction of our beautiful countryside.
Once our green space is gone it's gone forever.

Object

Representation ID: 12456

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Peter Kendrick

WSA7 - Calderfields West
I am somewhat amazed that the development above is being proposed by Walsall Council in view of the fact that previous applications to develop the land concerned, in a much less ecological damaging way, have been refused in order to preserve the green belt and wildlife habitat thereon. The green space threatened by the proposed development is known to have protected species if [Redacted-sensitive information]. These would all be threatened.
Protection of our greenbelt is essential as confirmed by our West Midlands Mayor Andy Street who in Sept/Oct 21 Pioneer Magazine said quote "At the heart of any work we do together will be brownfield generation as we focus on breathing new life into former derelict industrial sites and their surrounding areas, protecting our precious greenbelt in the process".
In the same article Councillor Mike Bird supported this saying he was encouraged by the commitment to use Brownfield sites to reduce pressure on our green spaces.
There are still many brownfield sites in the borough some of which already have planning permission but not yet developed, Other sites have been granted permission but that permission has elapsed which together with other sites when planning had not been requested could be used.
Associated with the 442 houses that are proposed i suggest there would be a minimum of 900 private vehicles leading to some 2000 journeys a day in and out of the immediate area. This area is unable to cope with the current volume of traffic with tailbacks on Lichfield Street, Mellish Road, Argyle Road, Cameron Road, Buchanan Avenue and Buchanan Road. the Ecological harm will therefore be severe to an area already suffers.

Object

Representation ID: 12465

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Phil Williams

I wish for it to be placed on record that I strongly oppose the proposal within the draft Black Country Plan
which seeks to develop valuable Greenbelt land adjacent Walsall Arboretum and Calderfields Farm (Site Ref
WAH242).
I would also like to lodge my dissatisfaction over how inaccessible this consultation was to respond to, with
the online portal being unavailable at the time of writing and no notification of this proposal being received
other than via letter drops by local residents.
This feels very much like a backdoor way of getting things done, a view supported by the fact I have just
witnessed a helicopter carrying out a LiDAR Survey of the site. Given that the consultation window is open
until 11th October (i.e. another 6 days) it feels very much like this 'consultation' is merely a box ticking
exercise.
This development proposal is simply unacceptable, there are numerous other sites within Walsall which
could and indeed should be developed before any consideration is given to this most valuable Greenbelt
space. Not withstanding this point I also feel this development is totally out of keeping with the surrounding
environment, will have significant negative impacts upon the quality of the Arboretum being Walsall's
premier park and also the adverse impact the proposals will have on the quality of life of residents and
detrimental effects on wildlife.
As a local resident and staunch supporter of Walsall I am horrified by the lack of common sense being
applied and simply cannot support this proposal.
Not withstanding this point I also feel this development is totally out of keeping with the surrounding environment, will have significant negative impacts upon the quality of the Arboretum being Walsall's premier park and also the adverse impact the proposals will have on the quality of life of residents and detrimental effects on wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 12471

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Bailey

Objection to allocation WAH242

Site Assessment-SA0078-WAL Calderfields.

I have spent most of my life living in the countryside or by the coast am new to the Walsall area. I am quite happy to be living in a built up area but love the pockets of green space that exists from alongside the canals, to the arboretum to the fields and parks that exist.

PLEASE do NOT destroy the few green spaces that still exist in this very built up area. They are valuable to the residents who live here and to the wildlife that lives in it. Once the green space is destroyed it will never be returned. Use the brownfield sites that exist or convert derelict buildings for the housing that is needed.

The Calderfields field that runs alongside the arboretum is a delight. I and many others love seeing the open space and the animals that graze in there

Object

Representation ID: 12484

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Ann Burton

Site Ref : WAH242 Calderfields West Site alongside Walsall Arboretum.

I object to proposals to develop the above site. I grew up in Walsall, I went to school in Walsall and lived in the area for many years and return regularly to visit friends.
It breaks my heart when I visit and see Walsall Town. The town is sad and broken. Long gone are the individual local businesses and now the large chains have also disappeared in large numbers. Walsall Arboretum is Walsall's jewel. It doesn't look as if it belongs to a sad and broken town, It is so much more than a park and yes it has been improved over the years and it is very well cared for. I applaud and congratulate the council for this.

Please do NOT build alongside the arboretum. The green belt land is precious. Look to the brownfield sites first. Be proactive, be brave, search out the brownfield sites, move them / push them forwards. Do not build on Green Belt Land. Once gone, forever gone. Do not be weak and give up the Green Belt. Be strong, find alternatives. Look at some of the great regeneration success stories and learn from them - some of them are on your doorstep. Broad Street/Brindleyplace in Birmingham is a great example of housing and business co-existing and bring life and prosperity to an area. Surely, Walsall deserves and needs more than just more housing aimed at the more affluent. What about housing for the younger generation looking to start out on the housing market.
I know you will say 'We will plant a line of tree to hide the houses'. This isn't good enough. The open field views, the grazing animals add another aspect to the arboretum and visitors enjoyments of it. The pandemic demonstrated how important our open space is both physically and mentally. This particular view gives that feeling of 'space', it is different to the rest of the park. When I visit I see families enjoying these views. Don't wait until it is too late to realise how important this is.
I also object to the damage to the wildlife. The building of houses on this land will destroy wildlife corridors and will, at best, limit and push back the wildlife in the arboretum itself, at worst it will destroy much of the wildlife in the arboretum. The noise and light from so many houses will drive them away. I am sure there are [Redacted-sensitive information] and other protected species in the area. I know there is a wide variety of birds. I have seen the [Redacted-sensitive information].
Finally, I have seen the arboretum and the Aldridge Road dual carriageway flood. Surely, building on fields between two flood zones will exasperate these issues.

Object

Representation ID: 12489

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Summers

I am objecting to the proposed housing development at Calderfields West alongside the arboretum for a number of reasons the main ones being that I am against using Green Belt land when there is plenty of brown sites available.
The development would put a great risk to the Wildlife in the area being so close to the arboretum and being a coridor from the arboretum, arboretum extension, Park Lime pits and Hayhead. I am aware that protected species are living in the middle of the proposed site such as [Redacted-sensitive information] among other wildlife, I cannot see these would be protected if they are surrounded by houses.
I am also concerned that this would greatly change the aspect from the arboretum, currently these are the only views from the arboretum of open fields which I believe is an integral part of the character and landscape from the Walsall Arboretum.
The pandemic has shown us how important it is to appreciate the open green space.

Object

Representation ID: 12492

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christiane Saunders

The proposed housing development at Calderfields West would significantly harm the openness of the green belt which is an integral part of the character and landscape from the Walsall Arboretum. Loss of the existing views would adversely affect the amenity.
As a regular user of the Walsall Arboretum (especially since the pandemic) has taught us the value of this open space to the health and mental wellbeing for myself and other Walsall residents. I feel that the Greenbelt land contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlooks the open fields with its grazing animals and forms an essential part of the setting of the Walsalls Arboretum, I am also concerned on the impact it will have on the local wildlife. the development site itself is known to have protected species of [Redacted-sensitive information].
The development site sits in the middle of the Arboretum, Arboretum extension, Park Lime Pits and Hayhead (SNICs) which would destroy wildlife corridors and light overspill may negatively impact the [Redacted-sensitive information] and other wildlife causing destruction of habitats.

Comment

Representation ID: 12586

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Samantha Owen

I would also suggest that this is a wildlife corridor. Surely the building of so many homes with the associated light and noise pollution will destroy these corridors. I see [Redacted-sensitive information] in the arboretum and I am sure there are other species that will be impacted. Park Lime pits are across the other side of the proposed development - this can not be allowed to happen. In future years, I want to be able to bring my children to the arboretum not just for the manicured Victorian areas of the park but for the sheep, the cows, the [Redacted-sensitive information] (that I have admittedly only seen once) and the various birds and for the feeling of space that the open field views provide. Every inch of Green Belt is precious and every inch sacrificed squeezes the wildlife further.

Object

Representation ID: 12803

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Sukhbinder Dhillon

I am objecting to The Black Country Plan in general where it plans to build houses on the Walsall
Green Belt and to the Calderfields Farm / Aldridge Road development alongside Walsall Arboretum
in particular, where there are plans to build 442 homes. This development will destroy greenbelt,
wildlife corridors and increase flooding. Protected species of [Redacted-sensitive information] habitats will be
destroyed. The [Redacted-sensitive information] will be lost to the area as they try to navigate around the noise and light pollution. It will also deny the population of Walsall access to open green space, rural views, clean air and exercise.

The covid pandemic has highlighted the need for open green spaces, accessible within walking distance of town dwellers who may have no gardens or transport to be able drive into the country.
This particular walk which runs alongside the fields proposed for this development (Calderfield Farm/Aldridge Road) is particularly heavily utilised by adults and children from every socio economic and ethnic group. It is also accessible to wheelchair users, push chairs, cyclists and of course walkers. The walk has trees on either side with views of the fields and grazing sheep which would be lost if this development goes ahead. This rural view and tree lined walk have a positive impact on the mental and physical well-being of town dwellers who need it the most. During covid this walk has been a lifeline. I have seen it full of people walking in small groups to the extent that at times it was difficult to maintain a safe distance. I realise that we need to build more homes for the future, but we also need to realise the damage we are doing to the planet. I could understand this proposal if there were no other options, but many parts of Walsall lie derelict crying out for
development. New housing developments should be built on these brown field sites with renewal of the landscape in order to increase the amount of green space in Walsall and improve people's lives.

Instead, this plan does the total opposite and leaves the derelict areas to decay further whilst polluting vital green space in the green belt with new housing developments.
I am not a seasoned objector and understand the need for new homes, but this type of destruction of valuable resources is unnecessary. Developers need to build on brownfield sites. This may be expensive but please do not take the easy option and deprive Walsall residents of the Green Belt. If this isn't stopped, we will look back in 10 years and the Green Belt will be gone, whilst the
brownfield 'difficult' sites will still remain as eyesores for local people. Greenbelt should only be considered when there are no brownfield sites left. For the physical and mental health of Walsall residents and for the wildlife STOP building on our Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 12882

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Roberts

Proposed housing area WAH242 surrounding Calderfields Farm, adjacent to the Arboretum, is very beneficial to wildlife. [Redacted-sensitive information] fed in these fields nearly on a daily basis.

In the autumn and winter months and leading up to spring large flocks of [Redacted-sensitive information] also use these fields on a daily basis. [Redacted-sensitive information] inhabit the treeline and hedge between the Arboretum and the fields and the fruiting hedge between the two fields. [Redacted-sensitive information] are occasionally seen, visiting from the nearby fields by the Rushall Canal.

This hedge acts as a useful food source in the autumn and a roosting sight for [Redacted-sensitive information]. Birds are RSPB Red Listed species (Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (BOCC 4)) and are categorised as sharply declining and of major concern. Indeed we have noticed falling numbers of these species over the last 20 years as it is.

The hedge between the two fields at Calderfields Farm smothered with hawthorn berries. September 2021.

Object

Representation ID: 12911

Received: 20/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Lloyd

Objections to development of this site.

Object

Representation ID: 12977

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Andrew Lloyd

Objections; loss of farming land to supply locally leading to the impact on carbon footprint, loss of wildlife and plant species by destruction of habitat, increase in congestion, negative impact on polution due to the loss of green spaces, possible increase in risk of flooding, damage of wildlife corridor to other green spaces in the town.

Brown field sites should be completely exhausted for building and redevolopment work so as to protect our green belt for positive enviromental reasons, e.g. people's health and wellbeing, protection of nature and limit of urban sprawl in an already built up area such as Walsall