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

Object

Representation ID: 12990

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Ashok Hargun

Policy WSA7 CALDERFIELDS WEST LAND AT ALDRIDGE ROAD, Walsall Council Site Ref WAH242
[Representation 1]
It would affect climate a lot by using up greenbelt land.
In our area there is a lot of wild life which would be effected badly (I myself have bird besting boxes in my garden for birds)
[Representation 2]
Wild life will be badly effected lots of small birds habitat will be destroyed. It would effect climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 12996

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Narinder Badyal

My husband and I moved to Argyle Road earlier this year and our main reason for buying the property was because of the quiet location and the garden being overlooked by beautiful green farmland (Calderfields Farm). The land beyond our garden is a beautiful piece of greenery which has several types of animals grazing on it including horses, sheep and cows whom we have grown to know and love. In the short me we have lived there we have grown to appreciate the beauty of the land and the animals and feel blessed that we have found somewhere that gives us a feel of rural living and will be the ideal location to raise a family.

In the short me we have been here our lives have physically and mentally improved, having been through the pandemic and the endless lockdowns of not being able to see our family and friends our move to our new home lifted our spirits and we consider ourselves lucky to have found such an idyllic home and surrounding area. Since we have been living here my sense of wellbeing and mental health has gone from strength to strength and I'm sure my surroundings have contributed vastly towards it. We overall have a better quality of life being surrounded by greenery, fresh air and nature at its best.

The proposal to build 592 houses on this land is shocking not only because of the loss of nature conservation and the conservation status but because of the impact to us personally on our privacy and enjoyment of our home and garden. It also has a much wider impact in that the value of our property will reduce dramatically as our view will be ruined and overlooked by the proposed development. A major factor in our buying the property was that we were not overlooked by anyone and we had the freedom to please ourselves but this development will put a stop to that as on looking out from our property we will see a concrete jungle of houses and accommodation, they in turn will most likely see directly into our property hence taking away our privacy.

My husband and I have worked hard to buy our first home and to be closer to nature is something we have aspired to achieve for our mental health and our future family's wellbeing. Now that there are plans to significantly change the landscape by a huge development project on the beautiful green belt it has started to cause us stress and anxiety which is the thing we were trying to alleviate by moving here.

On a wider scale the neighbourhood is not suited to an increase in population. It's a small estate with already busy roads. There would be added pressure on all the local amenities including transport, schools, GP and medical centres. It would be incredibly irresponsible to increase the population of this area not only for its current residents but for its potential ones. This development would drastically change the landscape of this semi-rural location. It would destroy the green and nature friendly haven we call home. If our objections are not a concern to you them please spare a thought for the wildlife who don't have a voice. This area is home to some amazing animals and plants. The light, noise and general pollution will have a devastating effect on the ecosystem. The wildlife needs a buffer from humans and building new houses on their land would drive them away. I plead with you to refuse any building on the green belts of Calderfields Farm. It is an immoral plan that will destroy some much of what this tight community is.

Comment

Representation ID: 13007

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Baggott

As a resident of Walsall Borough and a non driving person who lives within a few minutes walk of Walsall Arboretum I object to the proposals to build on this much loved, valued green belt land which is fondly held in the hearts of very many generations of Walsall residents. Walsall Arboretum and the farm fields and livestock which use those fields provide much needed stress relief and relaxation to many thousands of us who live in the increasingly concrete and tarmac Walsall Central. They have through out the pandemic been the reason many of us left the house to exercise, to see a tree, watch the cows, sheep, horses - to feel free as if in the country side whilst listening to the sirens and since lockdown ended sadly the returned roar of the traffic. I have lived in Walsall all of my life and my friends and family all say that the only thing left of any beauty or character of Walsall is the Arboretum and now that is to be taken.
Why would anyone want to live here now? I find few reasons to stay.

The building of houses on the only access to a rural type environment may of us get will lead to:

People like me who stopped driving having to drive again to pollute the planet and contribute to more noise and global warming if those of us non drivers who don’t seem to count as human beings any more are ever to walk in a field or see cows, sheep etc again.

Increase traffic volume and congestion in the area.

Reduce educational opportunities for children in low income deprived families in the area. Not everyone can afford holidays or trips to zoos or theme parks.


Will increase the flooding in the area. We had a death a few years ago on Lichfield Road from flooding.

Will drive up rate of decline of biodiversity as more space for birds and insects and animals to live is taken.

Walsall now feels too busy and claustrophobic to live in. The park and these fields provided literally the only air to breathe.

I visit the park daily and the one positive of the pandemic for me has been seeing an increased use and appreciation of the park and the adjacent green belt land by a diverse range of people. Having shared space to breathe and relax aids community cohesion. There is enough tension.

Object

Representation ID: 13086

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: J Whittim

Black Country Plan - RefWAH242 (policy WSA7)

We wish to register our objections to the above Black Country Plan and the proposed development of Greenbelt land.

We feel there is enough Brownfield Land and old industrial sites to accommodate housing targets within Walsall without the destruction of precious Greenbelt land.

The proposed development would significantly harm the openness of the green belt which is an integral part of the character and landscape. Loss of the existing views and both privacy and overlooking would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners.

We also feel that the Greenbelt land contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlooks the open fields with it's grazing animals and forms an essential part of the setting of the Arboretum, which is Walsall's flagship park and conservation area. We need to protect the towns few exceptional assets.

We are also concerned on the impact it will have on the local wildlife. The development site itself is known to have the protected species of and bats and also red deer, Tawny and Barn owls, woodpecker, skylarks, Nuthatches, buzzards, and parakeets.

The 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 bats and other wildlife causing destruction of habitats.

It is also known that the Arboretum, the Aldridge Road and the proposed site have a history of flooding and concreting over the countryside will exasperate this.

Green Belt is there for a reason, to stop urban sprawl, prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to assist the countryside from encroachment and to preserve the setting and special character of our town.

There is also the question of access to and from this site. The local infrastructure (roads, schools, etc) will not cater to the extra population and vehicles.

Finally the pandemic has taught us the value of this open space to the health and mental well-being of Walsall residents. The footfall across the Arboretum and all our green space has increased dramatically. Don't take away our irreplaceable green space.

Object

Representation ID: 13151

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Hollingsworth

We object to this proposed housing development on the basis of these points:
Access and Egress
Longwood Lane is far too fast for any sort of turning into a new estate. Vehicles race along, not adhering to the forty mile an hour speed limit. That would be an accident waiting to happen. There are no pavements either - not very pedestrian friendly. It would also destroy habitats and may affect the ancient limestone mine workings in the Hayhead Wood area.
Sutton Road is far too fast for a turning off into a new housing estate. The proposed site for the entrance (where the green roofed bungalow now resides), or any spot between the Longwood Lane turn and the Long Horn Public House off Sutton Road, would be unacceptable due to safety concerns. This is based on:-
1 . No one takes any notice of the 30mph speed limit on Sutton Road and come racing down Three Crowns Hill, sometimes, at a very alarming rate of knots. 'Speed merchants' have caused a number of serious accidents. This can be verified by police records and Express and Star newspaper reports. A notable one was so bad, it needed a police incident hut being set up on the Long Horn car park, with staff offering tea and coffee to blue light personnel. My daughter who regularly gardens in our front garden, has witnessed a massive increase in volume of traffic recently, and increased speed of vehicles, at all times of the day. There are regularly 'boy racers' with revved engines careering down the road, irresponsibly massively over the speed limit. They would be out of control in no time if there were cars turning into a new estate entrance, as there is a blind bend (appendix 1) on Sutton Road, before the road straightens out. There would be inadequate stopping time after coming down the hill at speed, as these 'racers' would be 'upon' cars/buses turning, before they knew it. Another accident waiting to happen. By the same token, vehicles also drive far too quickly the other way up Sutton Road past the Long Horn. And again, this proposed estate turning at the site of the green bungalow, would be 'upon them' in no time. If they couldn't stop in time with cars accessing or egressing the estate at that point, there could be fatalities.
2. As a mobility scooter user, regularly travelling on the pavement up and down Sutton Road, I would be uncomfortable having to cross a new road, created as a new entrance to this new estate. I wouldn't feel safe, and without adequate dropped curbs would find myself compromised. I find the ride on the pavement bumpy and unpleasant enough on sections of raised and undulating slabs, and do not fancy my chances at [redacted], of tackling yet another obstacle. At present, I can travel to McColls Newsagent in one go, without crossing a road.l feel this would impair my disability.
3. To create an entrance (access/egress) for this new estate at the site of the green bungalow, some large trees would have to be felled (appendix 2). As I have lived in [redacted], I know how old they are. And there must be a TPO order on them as they are over 50 years old. We are not happy that they would need to be felled, or that other local habitats would need to be destroyed. More on that to follow.
Services
As a shared sewer owner, who regularly has to monitor my sewer, I can state that the 1930s drainage system along Sutton Road, is not very robust. Our sewer regularly gets blocked and our neighbours' sewer [redacted], on the verge area, has recently collapsed twice and had to be extensively repaired by Severn Trent. Also, there have been patch repairs on the road completed recently, prior to the National Cycle Event, after years of heavy vehicles pounding the road and breaking to go round into Longwood Lane. There will be a collapse at some point.
We are concerned about the consequences of 644 houses being plonked behind our home. We do not feel the infrastructure is there to sustain such development. You should also be made aware, that in 1983, there was a freak flooding occurrence, combined with a lightning strike which struck one of the properties in Longwood Lane. An immense volume of water cascaded down Three Crowns Hill, which by the time it reached the bottom of the hill, was forceful enough to overturn freezers in garages. All the sewers flooded, and we had to try and sweep water down the side of the house as fast as possible to not get sewage in the property. And with climate change only worsening, and more prolific rain 'forecast' this would be a great concern for all on Sutton Road and Longwood Lane and also the houses proposed behind them.
Mine and my wife's decline
We moved into our home, primarily for 'the view' behind the property (appendix 3). 'The view' is one of the things we pay a considerable council tax charge for. 'The view' is what's stopped us from moving into care homes. We paid a lot of money for a huge picture window to admire 'the view' of the Green Belt behind us, one of the jewels in Walsall's crown. As we decline [redacted], we will become more infirm and require downstairs beds in the lounge [redacted]. At present (appendix 4), all we can see are trees and fields and we are not overlooked. As soon as houses are plonked at the very perimeter of our bottom fence, we will be very inconveniently overlooked. We do not want to be exposed to people looking in at us when we have carers dealing with our personal needs! We would not find that acceptable at all. We would not want to have the curtains closed all day either, as we are staying here 'for the view'. We would probably lose our lovely, tall rose hedging at the bottom of the garden too, and that would be a great shame, as it forms a ha-ha for the rest of the view that we are lucky enough to share with our neighbours and gives us added security from the risk of burglars.
Habitats
The whole area behind our home has been tended and nurtured for decades. Some special work has been done by numerous bodies, to develop habitats; encouraging flora and fauna, dredging and re-enlivening the canal and introducing new species. Calderfields Golf Club have even installed EcoCabins on their well-managed site, as they see the area worthy of visitors staying, with some wonderful landscaping habitats created. Indeed, various canal trusts and volunteers have worked extremely hard to create a beautiful environment, which some people actually call their home at the Longwood Lock Basin.
There have been sightings of [species redacted] and all manner of wild flowers and wildfowl can be seen on the canal and surrounding fields. We regularly have [species redacted] fly over, and [species redacted] catching prey in the fields behind the house. All those trees being demolished would be a criminal waste, as those habitats have taken some considerable time to develop. What would David Attenborough say!
This housing development, by losing those habitats, would be detrimental to cyclists, dog walkers, ramblers, children learning about their environment and horse riders. As the government's agenda is to get as many people as possible out and about getting fit, this would be another loss of green space which is ideal for the above purposes.
There are lovely walks on the 'Beacon Way', linking the Arboretum Extension, Canal, Hayhead Wood Nature Reserve, Cuckoo's Nook Nature Reserve and Barr Beacon. Plus extended links with Park Lime Pits and Sutton Park. All of these would be interrupted, optically and practically by the erection of 644 houses over the two sites at Sutton road and Calderfields. That would be a heritage loss that we and a lot of other people would be unhappy about.
In conclusion
In conclusion, the erection of 644 houses (202 Sutton Road, 442 Calderfields) would not be appropriate on these proposed sites. There are plenty of better suited brownfield and other underdeveloped sites that would be far more usable and appropriate (as Andy Street's policy attests), and they would be a lot safer to easily access and egress.

Object

Representation ID: 13170

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Tina Rollins

I wish to register my objection to the above Black Country plan and the proposed development of green belt land
this proposed development would significantly harm the openness of the green belt which is an integral part of the character and landscape
the green belt 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 Arboretum which is Walsall’s flagship park and conservation area we need to protect this our towns exceptional asset
I'm also concerned about the impact it will have on local wildlife. The site of proposed development is known to have protected species of [Redacted-sensitive information] and also [Redacted-sensitive information]
The development site would sit in the middle of the Arboretum Arboretum extension Park Lime Pits and Hayhead which would destroy wildlife corridors and light overspill may negatively impact the [Redacted-sensitive information] and other wildlife causing destruction of habitats
The Arboretum has been essential and invaluable respite for Walsall people not only but also during the Pandemic especially for those who have no garden or access to other local green spaces
The Arboretum and extension are the lungs of Walsall and contribute to the well being of all who visit there
The pandemic has taught us the value of this open space to the health and mental well being of Walsall residents. The dependency on the Arboretum and all our green spaces has increased dramatically
it is known that the Arboretum, the Aldridge Road and the proposed site have a history of flooding and concreting over the countryside will exacerbate this. The green belt is there to stop urban sprawl prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another to assist the countryside from encroachment and to preserve the setting and special character of our town
there is also the question of access to and from this site. The local infrastructure roads schools etc will cater to the extra population and vehicles
we/ I feel there is enough Brownfield land and old industrial sites available to accommodate housing targets within Walsall without the destruction of precious Green Belt land
please don't take away our irreplaceable green space

Comment

Representation ID: 13173

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Hannah Jones

Given the recent findings on the decline in biodiversity in England I object to any building on green belt even the disappearance of front gardens to make car parks has made matters worse we definitely need to keep the green belt around a town like Walsall luckily we have the Arboretum at the centre the lungs of the town Walsall residents enjoy their green spaces and benefit from the fresh air visitors come from far and wide
The tract of fields alongside the extension create the impression of being in the countryside residents who don't have holidays can feel uplifted by the park
Walsall has suffered a loss of funding from central government plus industrial decline and has a very polluting motorway junction we have declining health outcomes
a corridor of rural land was established to enable nature to flourish and protect all forms of wildlife
finally the consultation form itself is difficult to interpret and the public profile has been too low key for residents to be aware of it

Object

Representation ID: 13174

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Joseph Ellison

[Site Ref: WAH242 Policy: WSA7]
My objection concerns the developments at Calderfields and Longwood Lane in Walsall and the increased road traffic they will create. The rush hour traffic backs up in Mellish road often as for as Aldridge Road. Together 644 houses are planned and commuters from them who work to the West or Northwest or further afield using motorways will use Mellish Road as their access. Furthermore if Buchanan Road/Avenue is extended into the ‘Calderfields New Estate’ then its exit will be on the Mellish Road/Lichfield Road island creating further chaos.
I was born and bred in Walsall and have lived here all my life of 79 years. Walsall town centre is semi derelict and is surely one of the most grim urban centres in England, I am ashamed to see my once thriving busy market town so desperately run down with its empty shops and neglected appearance. It is so reduced, diminished and profoundly depressing.
My sad town does however have a number of attributers which to myself and my family consist of the New Art Gallery, The Leather Museum, the Arboretum and the green belt. Just to know that the green belt is there gives us a sense of wellbeing, where rural landscapes hide buildings we can imagine a better town which has not been neglected and cast aside now that its once prosperous industries have moved elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 13178

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Karen Dainty

No doubt you are aware of the proposal to build on Green Belt Land by the arboretum and the concerns that us as local residents have. I believe that this will impact negatively on the local area should it be approved. It will:-
Destroy valuable green space and reduce the wildlife
Increase traffic, noise and air pollution
Put a strain on the infra-structure which is already struggling to cope with the volume of vehicles passing to and through Walsall
Increase difficulty in accessing health care and GP services which are already struggling to cope with the volume of patients on their roll.
Schools in the area are already at capacity.
At a time when peoples' mental health is at an all time low and we are being advised to enjoy the outdoor green spaces they are being taken away. Physical health will suffer with poor quality air from pollution generated from the increased traffic flow. There are very few areas in Walsall where you are free of traffic noise. This area already suffers greatly from this. Adding a new housing development will certainly make this problem much worse.
Walsall is an area of high deprivation and in equality and we should be celebrating our Green Belt Land and not taking it away.
I know that there is a need for housing but there are many brown field sites which can be utilised without taking this precious green belt land away.

Object

Representation ID: 13182

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Boneham

Particularly concerned about the Calderfields site and the impact upon wildlife/ disruption to the green corridor up to Barr Beacon

Object

Representation ID: 13183

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Nicky Tompson

I object to building on the Green Belt could all Brownfield sites be fully considered.
The cows/ sheep are enjoyed by the children (Calderfield site) and it is part of a wildlife corridor which should be left

Object

Representation ID: 13187

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Eileen Russell

Black Country plan Walsall
I object to all building being carried out on green belt sites but primarily to the area known in your Walsall spatial strategy as Calderfields Aldridge Rd which takes in (not clearly marked) the field at the back of the Arboretum
Given the recent findings on the serious lack of biodiversity (as an example see P23 The Observer 10/10/21 ‘early half of Britain’s biodiversity has gone since the industrial revolution’) we definitely need to keep the green belt around a town like Walsall
at the centre the Arboretum is the lungs of the town Walsall residents use the already limited green space thousands of residents and visitors from near and far enjoy and benefit from the fresh air they provide
the tract of green belt along the side of the Arboretum extension creates a feeling of being in the actual countryside
some residents of Warsaw never get out of town on holiday this green space makes available a source of clean air and open spaces otherwise out of their reach Walsall is suffering greatly from lack of money from central government plus industrial decline health outcomes are declining not helped by pollution caused by our proximity to one of the busiest motorway interchanges in Europe
I would like to stress the following points
• we cannot afford to lose 6% of greenbelt a corridor of rural land was established to enable nature and wildlife to flourish

Object

Representation ID: 13190

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Emberson

You have recently staged a most successful cycling tour covering Walsall and Aldridge, particularly Sutton Road and Longwood Lane. This route showed the most pleasant parts of the borough. Your proposal to build on Longwood Land and Calderfields will completely destroy whatever kudos you have gained

Object

Representation ID: 13193

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Michael Glasson

I am writing with specific reference to the impact the Black Country Plan will have on the Walsall Green Belt. The Walsall Green Belt is currently a continuous and coherent area of open countryside and woodland which hugely enhances the eastern side of the Borough. Following the course of the Holbrook Stream, the Green Belt links together Walsall Arboretum, Walsall
Country Park, vitally important areas of scrub land to the east of the Rushall Canal (site refWAH233), Hay Head Wood nature reserve, public open space at the former Aldridge Airfield, Cuckoo's Nook nature reserve and the Dingle nature reserve, ultimately leading to the Barr Beacon nature reserve. Following the Rushall Canal the belt links up with important wildlife areas around Park Lime Pits nature reserve. Much of this land is in Council ownership and has been actively managed for wildlife for many years.
Collectively the areas listed above form one of the most important collections of wildlife sites in the West Midlands, with a very rich range of flora and fauna. Over 60 species of birds have been recorded in Walsall Country Park between 2017-21, for example, including 12 endangered Red Book species (nearly one fifth of the British total). This is important not just as a vital resource of biodiversity but also as a valuable green lung for Walsall residents, offering areas for off-road walking, running, and cycling in a traffic- free and low pollution atmosphere. Modern research has revealed the huge benefits to peoples mental and physical health from exercising regularly in 'natural' areas. Given the very poor health record of Walsall (in common with most of the Black Country) we should be enhancing not reducing people opportunities for healthy exercise in countryside areas.
The Black Country Plan threatens to seriously fragment and damage the coherence and integrity of the Walsall Green Belt by building thousands of houses on what are currently green fields. Proposed development site WAH233 in particular would be especially damaging, lying as it does between Walsall Country Park/Rushall Canal to the west and open farmland leading to Hay Head wood to the north and east. This site is also the location of an important archaeological site, Walsall's best preserved medieval moat (Wood End Moat). lt also includes areas of scrub, of great importance to wildlife.
Inserting a large housing estate into this location would be disastrous.
Proposed development site WAH242 would have a huge visual impact on Walsall's much loved Arboretum and it is impossible to see how building over 400 houses in this location could be anything other than hugely damaging to the integrity of Walsall's most popular park.
The Plan does not address the issue of the impact some 5000 new homes (and 15- 20,000 new residents?) will have on local infrastructure. To taker just one aspect of infrastructure it is hard to see how Walsall's existing road network could cope with such a significant increase in traffic given the gridlock conditions which already exist at peak commuting times. Nor does the plan address the issue of the additional environmental pollution created by such an increase in traffic, specifically the likely increase in the number of Walsall residents who will suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases as a result.
There is a clear alternative- we should be building in the heart of the Black Country, rejuvenating existing town centres and revitalising former industrial brown field sites, close to where people actually work ( thereby reducing commuting) and where good infrastructure such as schools, shops, medical centres, leisure centres etc already exists. It would be tragic to needlessly sacrifice Walsalls Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 13199

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean George

Calderfields, Aldridge - 442 homes
The infrastructure will not support this increase in the number of homes to be built on this site.
There are no schools in the immediate vicinity.
The current road system is inadequate and there are already "rat runs" through the estates to reach Walsall. The increase in traffic can only add to this problem.
With the town centre no longer being viable or fit for purpose, more consideration should be given to converting shops/ offices into affordable housing.
Although green belt is out of fashion, it will be a sad day to see this area built over. It has added to the enjoyable greenspace we have all enjoyed during the period of pandemic

Object

Representation ID: 13212

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Greaves

Green belt alongside Walsall Arboretum
evidence base > sites assessment > App C Walsall > SA-0078-WAL St Matthews Aldridge Rd Walsall
I object most strongly to the proposed plan to build 600 houses on this green belt land green spaces are important to us as we have seen in the last 18 months to benefit our physical health and mental well being
these fields are grazing land to sheep cows and horses. Within a mile there is a less affluent part of Walsall and children regularly come to see the animals When the land is built on where will these children see farm animals in their local vicinity
the local infrastructure will not cope said homes were mean 1000 plus extra cars on local roads despite improvements Mellish Road Island only just copes with traffic now and minor roads leading to it definitely won't cope. This large number of houses will have 2000 - 3000 extra people …where are the schools doctors shops et cetera to support them?
A previous application of 14 houses was refused because of drainage problems how will the proposed number of houses cope? the Arboretum regularly floods and houses directly by it have problems too. When these fields are concreted over I dread to think what will happen
Green belt land should not be used when there are still plenty of brownfield sites which could be used instead. Walsall has two shopping centres which are virtually empty - relocate any existing shops into other empty premises and use the land for housing. Crown Wharf in particular is a prime site for this

Object

Representation ID: 13216

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Greaves

Black Country Plan > Evidence base> L:Sites assessment >Appendx C. Walsall>SA-0078-WAL Ward: St Matthews. Address: Aldridge Road, Walsall - land at Aldridge Road
My objections are as follows:
1) Green belt land such as this should not be built on as it will be detrimental to the surrounding area and remove open spaces for residents to benefit from.
2) The building of 592 properties will have a negative impact as it will be out of keeping with the existing area. A housing density of 35 is more than 3 times that of the immediate area.
3) This number of properties will come with more than 600 vehicles which will place an inordinate strain on the existing highways infrastructure. The A454 (Mellish road/ Aldridge road) and A461 (Lichfield road) will not be able to cope with the extra traffic generated. At peak times, the use of Buchanan Road would create excessive congestion at it's junction with Mellish Road.

Object

Representation ID: 13221

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kay Farrington

1. Although there is a need for new housing to meet demand the 2 sites in this plan are currently in land previously designated Green Belt. Government policy said that Green Belt would be protected from development.

2. There is no indication in the plans of the infrastructure that will need to be developed alongside new housing e.g. schools, medical facilities, shops that will be within walking distance.

3. The main access roads are already straining with traffic at certain times of the day causing delays which will be exacerbated by such large developments.

4 The need for facilities such as recreation areas e.g. tennis courts, football pitches to address the mental health and fitness of all residents need to be considered

Object

Representation ID: 13226

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Porter

I totally object to the removal of this land from the green belt ad making it possible for development to occur for the following reasons:
In urban areas greenspaces are needed to combat air pollution created by industry, transport and housing.
Climate change is the biggest threat we face and greenspaces offset the damage caused by CO2. The loss of this area to housing will exacerbate the situation.
The Calderfields area creates a wildlife corridor for numerous species and once lost will lead to a reduction in biodiversity.
Some of the Calderfields area is still farmland which is a useful addition to food security.
In 2014 a planning application was denied as it would cause significant harm to the openness of the area as it was visible from the Arboretum

Object

Representation ID: 13244

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ms and Mr Lucy and Paul Harrington and Cicerella

Number of people: 2

I object to all of it, mostly the housing development sites to be built on green belt land. I object to the building on of the sites - Homes Farm (Sandhill), Yieldfields Farm (Bloxwich), Queslett Road East/ Aldridge Road (Streetly), Sutton Road/ Longwood Lane (Pheasey Park Farm), Yorks Bridge (Pelsall), Coronation Road/ Mob Lane (Aldridge North/ Walsall Wood), Calderfields/ Aldridge Road (St Matthews), Bentley Lane (Short Heath), Johnsons Farm, Meadow Farm/ Watling Street (Brownhills)
The reason I object - I think we should be preserving what little there is of green belt land, not destroying by building houses on it. There's no denying we are destroying the world and and acts like this are not helping. I strongly oppose it on ecological grounds, there's no counting how many animals (including bugs and insects) homes will get destroyed in the process and how bad the knock on effect will be for wildlife.
Also I am completely opposed to the cutting down of healthy trees for the same reasons above.
People who do these kind of things have no respect for the life they are destroying why is it never a consideration. I cannot explain enough how against this I am

Object

Representation ID: 13267

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Cllr Aftab Nawaz

As a St Matthew’s Ward Councillor and representative of the residents of the St Matthew’s Ward I totally, unreservedly and wholeheartedly object to the inclusion of this land within the plan for development for housing.

I have no doubt that it is a huge mistake and will be detrimental to the lives, wellbeing and general health of the residents of the borough and in particular the residents of St Matthew’s Ward. In addition to this I feel the damage that will be done to the natural environment will be permanent and will impact on generations to come.

Specifically I object on the following grounds;

1. No support for this inclusion and the development of housing on this land
This proposal does not have the support of local residents or indeed the residents of the borough of Walsall. There have been many people locally who have objected and I am aware of a petition that has been signed by over 1500 people against this proposal. It is essential that proposals as significant as this have the backing of the general public. This proposal does not and will aggrieve the residents that I represent and the residents of the borough. The objections
to the inclusion of this land are from people from all backgrounds and ages and thus it is my submission that this proposal lacks totally public support.

2. The Detrimental aesthetic impact on this and surrounding land
The proposed land is of outstanding beauty and is visually appealing to visitors and the public that walk past it and have sight of it. This proposal will destroy the beauty and picturesque nature of this land. The open fields with animals grazing is a stunning to look at and benefits many residents in the borough. The development of this land will end this and I submit that the benefit of development is heavily outweighed by the benefit to the public from the visual impact from this land.

3. The detrimental impact on the openness of the Arboretum
The Arboretum Park that is adjacent to this site will be negatively impacted upon and its beauty, and openness will be lost if the land is developed. This part of the Arboretum is used by many people enjoying walking and de-stressing. The impact of development will mean that this area no longer is a continuous open green space and will in my view be detrimental to the enjoyment of the Arboretum Park by the residents of Walsall. It therefore my submission that the impact on the Arboretum, as Walsall’s premier park, will be disastrous and irreversible. The park should be protected and the principle of development on this land should be withdrawn.

4. Detrimental Impact on the mental wellbeing of residents

The Parkland and the Calderfileds land is a huge asset to the people of Walsall and particularly the residents of St Matthew’s. The area has been extensively used by people over many, many years but in recent times it has been an essential part of people’s wellbeing. Walking and enjoying the openness and tranquillity of the area has meant that many people have been helped in regard to their mental health. The Government, through public health recognises the importance of strategies to deal with mental health. The development of this land will be in very sharp contrast to what they wish to achieve and will impact negatively on the mental health of residents as the serenity of this area will disappear for good.

5. Destructive Impact on wildlife and biodiversity of the area
The area that is being proposed for inclusion for development land is rich in biodiversity and is full of natural habitats. I am informed that the area is home to [species redacted] and many more bird species. Beyond this there is a multitude of other wildlife that exists in this area. All of this will be lost if the land is designated for and then used for the development of houses. This rich biodiversity needs to be protected and needs to be passed on to future generations so that they can benefit from it and protect it. It is my submission that the destruction of habitats and of the animals and plant life in the area is unacceptable and totally against the principle of environmental sustainability and environmental responsibility.

6. The need for housing on Greenbelt / Green Spaces is unnecessary and not required
The reasons given for including this, and other, greenbelt or green spaces for development is that there is a lack of housing and all other options for land have been exhausted. I do not accept this and it is my view that there is more than a sufficient amount of land available outside of greenbelt land for housing development. Former industrial and, brownfield land and indeed town centre developments should be considered and I am not convinced that these have been given serious consideration. The value of the Greenbelt cannot be monetarised as its benefit is beyond financial considerations. Indeed it seems that the planners who have drawn up these unacceptable proposals and indeed the potential developers ‘know the price of everything and the value of nothing’. It is my submission that the process of finding alternative land for development has not been exhausted and therefore these proposals should be withdrawn.

7. The proposals are for the benefit of developers and not residents
It is my view, leading on from my previous point that the proposals put forward with the plan are beneficial to developers and not residents of St Matthew’s or Walsall. It is known that building on such land is cheaper and that the houses sell at a greater price. The proposals therefore seem to want to maximise the profit of developers rather than make less profitable (although still profitable) land available. It is accepted that brownfield land and former industrial land needs to be remediated and then developed and that this is a cost for the developer. However once this is done and houses are built, they are still sold at a profit – albeit not as much as they would be on greenbelt land. This proposal to designate Calderfileds as development land is therefore unacceptable as it is on basis of maximising the profits of developers. The Council needs to work for the benefit of the people of Walsall and not the benefit of developers.

8. Lasting and irreversible harm to the greenbelt
This proposal will create a lasting and irreversible harm to the greenbelt, open green space. Once development is given the go ahead we will lose this unique and invaluable greenspace for ever. Once housing is built it will not be unbuilt and the land, the ecology, the scenic views and the mental health benefit from this immeasurably valuable land will be lost for ever. The nature of this part of St Matthew’s will change and will not benefit the people of Walsall. It is my submission that the lasting, irreversible harm to the Greenbelt and Greenspace is a reason in itself to remove this land from the plan.

9. Lasting legacy for our children
It is the wish of many, including me, to leave the world in a better state than what we found it so that future generations will benefit from it. This proposal, if it goes ahead, will leave a legacy of environmental destruction and environmental irresponsibility for the valuable Green Spaces for our children. This proposal will not benefit our children and future generations and therefore should be withdrawn as it has no benefit for the future of St Matthew’s or our Borough.

10. Lack of awareness of the Black Country Plan Proposals
The proposals set out in the plan have not been sufficiently communicated to the residents of St Matthew’s and the wider borough. Many residents in St Matthew’s have openly commented on the lack of awareness, communication and advertisement about the plan and its implications. An unsatisfactory and unengaging consultation will and does lack public confidence. The plan came out during a period where residents were still concerned with the pandemic and although it was extended by two weeks, this in my view has been insufficient and wholly disrespectful process. It seems that the powers that be do not wish to have an extensive and engaging consultation and wish to get the proposals through without opposition. This being the case I feel the Calderfields and all the other proposals should be withdrawn and the process re-started in order to maintain a confidence and to ensure the people of Walsall are not disenfranchised from their democratic right.

I would be grateful if you would accept this as my submission on the Black Country Plan and ask that you seriously consider your proposals and withdraw them for Calderfields and the rest of the borough due to the damage they will cause and the lack of support from the people of St Matthew’s and the wider Walsall Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 13274

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Audrey Bown

We wish to register our objections to the above Black Country Plan and the proposed development of Greenbelt land.
We feel there is enough Brownfield Land and old Industrial Sites to accommodate housing targets within Walsall without the destruction of precious Greenbelt land.... r> The proposed development would significantly harm the openness of the green belt which is an integral part of the character and landscape. Loss of the existing views and both privacy and overlooking would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners.
We also feel that the Greenbelt land contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlooks the open fields with it's grazing animals and forrns an essential part of the setting of the Arboretum, which is Walsall's flagship park and conservation area. We need to protect the towns few exceptional assets.
We are also concerned on the impact it will have on the local wildlife. The development site itself is known to have the protected species of [Redacted-sensitive information].
The 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.
We also have concerns for the preservation of the 'protected' trees which form part of the development and the potential damage from heavy excavation equipment on the root systems.
It is also known that both the Arboretum and the Aldridge Road have a history of flooding and concreting over the countryside will exasperate this.
There is also the question of access to and from this site. The local infrastructure (roads, schools etc) will not cater to the extra population and vehicles, plus the proposed development would surely offer poor levels of security and would raise a fear of crime in the area.
Finally the pandemic has taught us the value of this open space to the health and mental wellbeing of Walsall residents. The footfall across the arboretum and all our green space has increased dramatically. Don't take away our irreplaceable green space.
[Redacted-GDPR]. I feel very privileged to live here. We must preserve green spaces for our well being, wildlife and future generations

Object

Representation ID: 13278

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Philip Meachem

Proposed draft destroy the Green Belt, cause loss of privacy (which I moved to my address to have), also put greater pressure on roads and increase pollution.
There are brownfield areas e.g James Bridge, Bentley Mill Lane; also in town places e.g. former pub 'Dirty Duck', Freer Street, Stafford Street, Former Post Office in Darwall Street, the former Imperial Picture House.

Bringing people to live in towns would help the economy, bring the town to life by using redundant buildings

Object

Representation ID: 13282

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Christoper and Pauline Teed

Number of people: 2

Oppose development at Calderfields.

Object

Representation ID: 13287

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Brown

I protest strongly against the proposed development at Calderfields the site is valuable agricultural land which is currently grazed by cows and sheep (photos available) the booklet of the draft plan states our population and the number of households is growing so the increased population will need food and more agricultural land to produce it.

COVID-19 has proved that green spaces are vital to mental health if building on green belt continues there will be urban sprawl from Birmingham to Wolverhampton

Drainage has always been a problem on the Calderfields site before the development of the Golf Club there was a stream now disappeared in the field bordering Aldridge Rd covering fields with a housing sex will exacerbate the problem which was quoted by Walsall council as long ago as 1972. With climate change the problem has intensified. Run off water after heavy rainfall flows down towards the Arboretum where there are drainage channels in the Arboretum extension. Run-off will increase with the development and could pollute the Arboretum stream spoiling an extremely popular facility

There is a mature hedge in the field at right angles to 52 Argyle Road which is not on the plan it is a valuable roost and nesting site for birds at least 20 different species are using the field and hedge. Since the conversion of the farm barns, [Redacted-sensitive information] have been lost, despite a [Redacted-sensitive information] protection order. Further development would mean the loss of more wildlife

There is no need for a primary school or health centre on the site as there are adequate facilities nearby which have been used by local residents for many years. The development will have a detrimental effect on traffic congestion which is already severe in the town particularly at the junction of Mellish Road/ Lichfield Street/ Lichfield Road. Buchanan Avenue is already daily congested with parked cars.

West Midlands Mayor and civic leaders promised to protect the Green Belt I feel betrayed. Please see attached sheet for suggestions for alternative different sites.


ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SITES
1. Ground around 'Holiday Inn' by M6, Junction 10. Already has primary and secondary schools nearby. Close to Manor Hospital and a medical centre on Wolverhampton Road.
2. Derelict ex-antique shop in Freer Street.
3. Old Square shopping centre, including vacated Debenhams building.
4. Quasar shopping centre.
5. Ex-post office in Darwall Street.
6. Building next to 130A, Lichfield Street which has been unoccupied for years.
7. Empty pub at corner of Freer Street and Lichfield Street.
8. Problem burnt-out factory near Marsh Street.
9. Derelict factory next to Tesco petrol station on Littleton Street. (Walkways)
10. Site of demolished chapel at junction of Lichfield Road & Butts Road.
11. Close job centre in Lichfield Street and convert to flats.
12. Site of demolished police station on Green Lane.
13. Site of Lex garage near junction of Wolverhampton Street and Pleck Road.
14. King's Arms on Bloxwich High Street.
15. Old Bush pub on Walsall Road, Pelsall.
If properties are listed, reasonable help should be given for sympathetic conversion before the properties become the victims of arsonists.

Object

Representation ID: 13289

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Para Brach

Objection to the allocation of this site.

Object

Representation ID: 13299

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bob Barnard

Objection to developing this site.

Object

Representation ID: 13304

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Mitchell

WAH242 Calderfields, Aldridge Rd
This is green belt and should remain green belt. The development will cause more congestion. It will impact on the Arboretum. Local roads are already very busy.

Object

Representation ID: 13338

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Liz Farmer

I object to the Black Country Plan to build house son green belt land in Walsall (Calderfields) and Pelsall

This would also appear to be against government policy, the Prime Minister in his Conservative party conference speech 2021 made a commitment to building homes on brownfield sites, not on green fields

Object

Representation ID: 13360

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Judy Myatt

Due to pandemic restrictions,it's only from this year that I have met friends outdoors and in the arboretum for a walk. I was so pleasantly surprised to see livestock at arms length in the centre of Walsall. I must be among a large number of residents who have had this experience and I must register my objection to building on this green belt land. If I need to do this more formally to be effective, please advise what I now need to do.