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

Object

Representation ID: 13362

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Haroon Majid

I write to object to the proposal to build houses at Calderfields – Aldridge Road and Sutton Road/ Longwood lane

The development would result in the character of the are changing significantly and the green belt on the border between Aldridge and Walsall being lost and their being a significant loss to the wildlife on the proposed sites.

The character and landscape would change significantly with any proposed development which would have a detrimental affect to the Arboretum and result in a rise in pollution with the increase in people and traffic as a result of any development – this would affect wildlife and the plant habitation of the Arboretum

The drainage and sewerage of any proposed sites would be problematic as the current resident of the sites have constant issues with flooding and would also cause pollution to the Arboretum due to the height of the water level of the land

Any development would affect the amenity and cause significant disruption to those currently resident in the area and the increase in traffic would result in there being increases risk to the elderly and young who live and walk in the area surrounding the proposed site

The result of Covid has increased the need to have green areas and sites- these sites have served such a purpose for over 100 years

There are more suited Brownfield sites in the Walsall area which could be developed for Housing purposes

Object

Representation ID: 13391

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Woods

I would like to raise objections to the current proposal. I am unable to find the application on the planning
portal which could be interpreted as a deliberate act ? to stop people objecting .
I have shared several posts on Face Book to raise awareness ,and several people have informed me that they have also struggled to make representation .
Has the department responsible for looking at this site taken into consideration,
1. Brown field sites across the borough
2 The impact to wild life,where will our Fresh Air come from,rain water run off,What will happen to the deer
herd roaming around on these fields,where will people go to get reprieve from daily living and improve their
mental health ,how can we say we want to be "Green" when destroying some of the last open spaces we have
? destruction of trees,hedge rows a complete wild life infrastructure
3. Infra structure of ,the roads is already busy,we will end up with longer queues higher pollution,poor air
quality and impacts on our physical/mental health .Schools are already struggling to accommodate certain
year groups ,where will be the GP capacity,Hospital capacity,dental practices will these highly vital issues be
taken into account ?
4 Has the total environmental impact been calculated,digging out releasing carbon,CO2 impact of materials
being brought in ,impact of them being dug out of the ground transport cost to the environment ,displacing
unwanted materials ,.The total environmental impact is often ignored but has a major impact for years to
come .Water courses will be altered what about flood risks ?
5 Will the council insist on any new homes being built in this borough ,preferably on Brown sites be forced
to utilise the most stringent insulation,Heat source/solar panels no Gas heating/cooking 100% renewable
energy ? rain water capture for Grey water items .Any new homes should be built to the highest
environmental/insulation standards not the minimum .

Object

Representation ID: 13413

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Sarah Mohammed

[Site Ref: WAH242]
I would like to voice my objection to the current proposal of building homes on the greenbelt land on Calderfields West, Land at Aldridge Road, Walsall.
I have lived here now for [GDPR REDACTED] with my [GDPR REDACTED] daughters. This home was bought because of the environment, location, the fields at the rear of our home, the peace it was to bring us whilst being in our home. Our privacy is now being taken away from us, Our rights are being taken away from us, I am now at risk of not overlooking wildlife, but other houses?! I didn’t choose to live near a motorway, yet these newbuilds will bring in traffic, congestion which is detrimental to our health – I chose here for the open space, the landscape, for the character of our home and surroundings, the quality of life it would bring myself and my daughters, Why is this now at risk? I had chosen our home, due to it not being in a congested area, the peace it brought us, the surrounding fields we walk and view, the animals we are so fortunate to admire/watch. What will happen to the wildlife? Once taken away, this cannot be retrieved! Why should we now have to give that up due to proposals of newbuilds on land that should not have even been considered! Who will reimburse us our health? Who will reimburse us of the wildlife? Who will reimburse us of the nature? Who will reimburse us the character? Who will reimburse us of our privacy? Who will reimburse us of the quality of our life?

Object

Representation ID: 13496

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Georgiou

My objections relate to Walsall Local Authority, Sutton Road/Longwood Lane and Calderfields/Aldridge Road sites - reference WAH231 and WAH242.

I strongly object to the housing development proposals of these two as both sites would affect me as a resident of Sutton Road. Where we pay a high community tax.
Reasons:-
Sutton Road currently is a very busy road to the point that at certain times of the day the traffic is at a standstill. This in itself is a difficulty particularly for emergency services any further housing of the sites referred to would prove ridiculously impossible to access or egress our homes.
Furthermore I chose to reside here due to the green conurbation and this would be destroyed the wildlife including [Redacted-sensitive information] would be driven away.
In respect of Longwood Lane - similar to Sutton Road there is great congestion of traffic which causes delays, lack of access to emergency services together with frequent road traffic accidents. This area - Sutton Road requires traffic calming measures.
In respect of WAH252 three crowns site
The plans were passed and it would be beneficial to see just the proposed x7 houses completed to improve the eyesore that has remained for too many years.

Object

Representation ID: 13555

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Steven Pettitt

I have been a resident of the current proposed Calderfields site [Redacted-GDPR] and cannot fathom the what kind of justification beyond simple greed could be used to destroy what is an ecological gem rarely seen so close to a town center urbanization. In my years residing here I can personally attest to having seen on a regular basis [Redacted-sensitive information] just to name a few.

Tearing down what is clearly a vital natural habitat for the sake of a housing development is unwarranted and inexcusable. Every day I drive past countless sections of wasteland as well as disused industrial & commercial premises. Surely if land is needed for development these sites should be prioritized over the destruction of a natural environment. Existing infrastructure is already nearby and in place ready to be utilized at such locations which would make re-purposing for housing easier and less disruptive and destructive.

Even within Walsall Town Centre itself, countless 3-4 story buildings sit empty and derelict or half utilized and neglected and an entire shopping center lies now barren save for two shops and a beauty stall. Redeveloping locations such of these in the heart of the town would undoubtedly bring the much needed life back to a town center that is not lacking office or retail space - brand new units sit unused years after completion at St. Matthews by the Asda and up at the Wharf development.

As a resident I do not feel the ecological implications for local wildlife has been fully assessed. [Redacted-GDPR] any visitors are immediately visible to all and stand out and no notice that any assessors for wildlife and environment has ever been sent. I strongly suggest such an assessment is made before any plans to develop the area are progressed any further and should anyone require access they are more than welcome to contact myself to make the arrangements.

Object

Representation ID: 13565

Received: 24/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julia Moyse

This area is an important wildlife corridor linking Park Lime Pits and the Arboretum. [text redacted] use this corridor. There is international concerns for the destruction of biodiversity across the planet. All greenbelt land must be preserved to protect biodiversity and to assist the battle against climate change. I strongly oppose any developemt of this greenbelt land. I ask that only brownfield land be considered for development.

Object

Representation ID: 13613

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Jo Halifax

Policy WSA7 Calderfields West
My family and I have lived in [Redacted-GDPR]. We originally bought the house on the ABSOLUTE assurance that the green belt and the land [Redacted-GDPR] would NOT be built on.
Our road is already a 'rat run' for Mellish Road, so an additional 1000+ vehicles would make it considerably harder even to exit the drive. Green belt land is being eaten up, when brown belt land is readily available. If passed, there would be no discernable space between Walsall & Aldridge. The same has happened to Pelsall and Rushall, both small villages now just clogged with traffic. I have yet to see any new development act on its promises to provide the infrastructure to accompany the housing. The nearest secondary school is already over subscribed (I am a former governor).
I am completely horrified at the thought of loosing the field [Redacted-GDPR]. Currently occupied by sheep and the occasional horse; not lego land housing and trampolines. I absolutely object to this development. The arboretum is walsall's greatest asset. The noise and traffic pollution from the proposed plan would impact on the children's playground area.
As previously states, my family came to [Redacted-GDPR] having been completely assured that any proposal for building [Redacted-GDPR] would never be granted.

Object

Representation ID: 13621

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Amardeep Mahal

REF WAH242 policy WSA7

I wish to forward my objections to the policy above and strongly oppose the proposals to build 592 houses on protected and irreplaceable greenbelt land.

As a resident of the area, I will be directly affected [Redacted-GDPR].

It will spoil the open space that I enjoy seeing on walks around the arbouretum park, and will generally ruin the landscape and the largest park in the town

The wildlife we are lucky to see such as the deers and sheep in this open space are now at risk and threatened.

There is plenty of old industrial sites and brownfield sites that shoulld be able to accomodate housing targets without the permanent destruction of greenbelt areas.

There wil be a tremendous pressure on roads, the dual carriageway will certainly not be able to withstand an additional minumum of 500 cars passing through every day to gain access to their property, and generate more traffic in an area which already struggles to maintain a steady throughfare of traffic.

It is disheartening that the golf range will be removed as part of the plans, as we should be encouraging our youth to use these faculites, and the site is always busy with children using the golf range to practice their skills, socialise and take a break from everyday life, reducing the burden of mental health inequalities.

I sincerely hope that these plans will be aborted and a more sensible approach taken to meeting housing targets within the neighbourhood

Object

Representation ID: 13667

Received: 28/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lauren Sayer

I am writing to lodge my strong objection to the proposed plans within the Black Country plan in relation to site REF WAH242 (policy WSA7)

Firstly, I wish to complain at the approach that has been taken to sharing this plan which has not been widely publicised, nor is it easily accessible for local residents to access or provide comment on. Simply having this on the website without writing to local residents, many of whom may not have internet access, is unacceptable.

In relation to the plans for the above mentioned site in particular, I am appalled at the disregard for the critical importance of this green belt site, which provides home to a huge abundance of wildlife and ecological biodiversity in the Arboretum wildlife corridor. In an urbanised
environment such as Walsall, the surrounding green spaces provide such an important role for local
residents, and the development of this site will cause damage for generations to come.

The assessment criteria outlined have clearly not been followed, this site has already been identified as high risk and according to the methodology should be considered unsuitable. We request than an urgent review of the suitability of this site is conducted, and the site is immediately removed from the plans. An environmental survey has not yet even been conducted, despite the
plethora of biodiversity and protected and rare species which reside on this land.

The Walsall town centre area would benefit hugely from redevelopment with suitable housing to meet the needs of the area. Destroying precious green belt sites such as this with vast numbers of houses does nothing to improve the Walsall locality, nor solve any of the existing problems with infrastructure, a declining natural environment, pollution, anti social behaviour and lack of suitable amenities. It will only worsen the problem and cause damage to the environment which cannot be mitigated against.

We request that this site is immediately removed from the Black Country plan on the grounds of it being entirely unsuitable, and the unacceptable ecological damage that would result. There can be no justification for releasing this piece of green belt land when there are sufficient brownfield sites in the area, which would indeed enhance the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 13709

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jean Powell

If these areas have over a 1,000 new houses built there will not be enough school places, doctors surgeries or other facilities for the families.
I am also concerned that all the green spaces are being used so people have no places to go to. Also bad the environment and nature

Object

Representation ID: 13753

Received: 28/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Lesley Shepherd

Walsall Borough - Proposed New Housing on Calderfields, Aldridge

This development would be an absolute disaster for Aldridge for the following reasons:

1. It would join Aldridge to Walsall completely eradicating our identity - which is totally different to that of Walsall. Aldridge would cease to exist entirely as a community and it is a separate community with a long history. People have chosen to live here because it is a separate entity - we are not a town as one of the planners described us to me.

2. This is green belt land and a pledge was made not to build on green belt land but to use brownfield sites - of which there are plenty! Apparently this is due to the fact that developers don't want to use them so Why not incentivise the facilitation of these sites. They are derelict and unless used for housing, will remain an urban wasteland forever. Surely this does not make any kind of economic sense?

3. We do not have the infracstrucutre or facillities to accomodate a community of this size. The current residents are unable to see a GP now and there are no others avaiable. The dentists have already stopped taking on new Nhs patients
There is one high school - already vastly oversubscribed - with a huge proportion of pupils coming in from the other side of Walsall already, meaning pupils from Aldridge are unable to get in The primary schools have no spare capacity and already turn prospective pupils away
The traffic on the A454 is already very bad - gridlocked at school times with parents bringing children in from Walsall areas. It is impossible at these times to drive off my property - this development would just add to traffic and increase pollution. Parents already block pavements and side roads
We have one supermarket with one (partially shared) car park
There is no parking anywhere in Aldridge (other than short term and always full) because Walsall Council have painted double lines everywhere - making it impossible to use public transport to get to Birmingham or anywhere else because there is nowhere to leave a car.

Object

Representation ID: 13769

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Paul & Linda Cundliffe

Number of people: 2

Objection to proposed building to Calderfields, Aldridge Road, Walsall. St. Matthews.
This is already a high residential area. Building more houses will only add to the pollution problems, as each house could have the potential of having 2 cars or more. Traffic is already at a standstill for long periods of 'rush hour traffic'. The current road out of this area is not suitable for further traffic, therefore causing even more congestion.
Families, will expect to be able to have their children attend the local schools, these are already over-subscribed, with large / long waiting lists. Parents going to 'Appeal', to get their children into their desired school, impacts on the already large numbers of children currently in those classes. Is a new Primary school being built to accomodate the influx?
Losing green belt will mean a loss to a large habitat of wildlife, birds, bats and our natural plants, which all help with keeping the quality of the air we humans breathe! Walsall Arboretum and the Grange Extension is a beautiful area for local people, and has been highly appreciated through these awful times of the COVID-19 pandemic, as a place of tranquility and beauty. Many people have been taking up exercise, going for walks, enjoying our flora and fauna. Building on/next to this will have a devastating effect for all.
There are plenty of unused 'brown' sites which, could be transformed to housing, or even look towards parts of the empty town centre. Walsall shops are spread over too large an area - look at condensing this and re-purposing the exsiting site, ie Crown Wharf/Saddlers Centre, to residential.
Building on our Green Belt land will not encourage more people to shop in Walsall Town Centre.

Object

Representation ID: 13920

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Roberta Owen

Reference: Site Ref:SA-0078-WAL
Dear Sir or Madam
On taking legal advice, we the owners of [Redacted-GDPR] have been advised to write in the first instance to inform you that due to the decision of Black Country Planning within their Draft Black Country Plan, July 2021, Table 31(Page 509) - Walsall Sites Allocated for Housing by Black Country Plan (policy HOU1) in identifying the area of Calderfields West as potential suitable Green belt for redevelopment, without following the Council’s own
assessment and selection methodology correctly, has resulted in loss of value to our properties, inability to sell properties and stress and impact on the mental health and well-being of the residents.
We would ask that you remove the site from the list of potential areas for development with immediate effect to prevent further legal action. Our request is based on the following areas:
1. Walsall Council has not followed its own Assessment and Selection Methodology in the following area:
Page 18, Biodiversity and Geodiversity states:
“Existing Council records inform the status. Ecological appraisals which informed Local Sites 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 deliver 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:
o [Redacted-Sensitive information] (photographs available). The known sites exist on the very perimeter of
the Farm and the development site, so it is difficult to see how access [Redacted-Sensitive information] wouldn’t be obstructed and how the developers would avoid damaging or destroying the [Redacted-Sensitive information]. [Redacted-Sensitive information] territories are deemed to be between 30 and 150ha.
[Redacted-Sensitive information] are a protected species.
o [Redacted-Sensitive information]this development will cause the loss or fragmentation of their habitat, it will
expose them to dangerous light pollution which in turn has ecological impacts; [Redacted-Sensitive information]
being the principal predators of night time insects. [Redacted-Sensitive information]are protected species
o [Redacted-Sensitive information]
o [Redacted-Sensitive information]
o [Redacted-Sensitive information]
o [Redacted-Sensitive information]
o [Redacted-Sensitive information]
o [Redacted-Sensitive information]
Currently there are unrestricted wildlife corridors from Calderfields Farm to:
o the Arboretum
o the Arboretum extension. The extension is a Site of importance for Nature
Conservation (SINC) and
o 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 surround 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 Protection of Badgers Act 1992, 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 [Redacted-Sensitive information] before any decisions are made. This can also take account of any pond life, butterflies etc.

2. Black Country Planning have not followed its own Assessment and methodology policy in the following area:

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 issue 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’.

Due to the time of year, even if a survey should take place now, due to the time of year, not enough evidence of wildlife would be able to be gathered before October
11th deadline. BBC Wildlife have provided the following information regarding the site:
Please see information regarding Core Habitat and Zone 1 areas below:

Core Habitat Zone (Areas surrounding Calderfields Farm, Golf Club, Arboretum, Lime Pits)

The Core Habitat Zone is comprised of the land use parcels that contain the most ecologically valuable habitats. The zone includes all parcels with an ecological value score of 4 or above (see ecological evaluation methodology); all sites with a nature conservation designation not included in the above (e.g. some Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation); and any additional areas identified in Natural England’s Combined Habitat Network data set. The Core Habitat Zone is a priority for protection and restoration.

Core Expansion Zone 1 (Calderfields Farm)

Core Expansion Zone 1 comprises those land use parcels that are of lower ecological value than those in the Core Habitat Zone but, due to inherent value or location, have the most potential to contribute to a coherent ecologic network. These sites are frequently within Core Landscapes and Priority Network Restoration Zones and are a priority for investment in the restoration and creation of new habitats. Included in this zone are all areas of green space scoring 3 in the ecological evaluation; all green space scoring 1 or 2 lying within 150 metres of Core Habitat Zone; those areas identified as habitat bottlenecks; and vegetated railway cuttings and embankments.
https://www.bbcwildlife.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-
09/BCLNRS%20Opportunity%20Map%20%26%20Components%20Description%20-%20draft%20April%202021.docx.pdf
2. Black Country Planning has not followed its own Assessment & Selection Methodology when assessing the site for potential redevelopment in the following areas:
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, as set out in box 3 of Diagram 2”.

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 Plan methodology this site is not suitable for development and the area should not have been added to the list of potential sites.

BCP did a 'call for sites' and as such informed us that they had the approval of all the land owners to develop on the proposed sites. Therefore the proposals are not only proposing development of Green Belt Sites that will cause 'very high harm' when Brown field sites remain undeveloped they are also pushing 'very high harm' sites ahead of Green Belt sites that would cause less harm and potentially ahead of less harmful sites where they have previously refused planning consent, Furthermore it has since become apparent that BCP do NOT have approval from all the land owners throwing their whole approach into disrepute

Please can we ask you to respond to this letter within the next 7 days by emailing on behalf of all residents to [Redacted-GDPR] or by writing to Mrs Roberta Owen

Comment

Representation ID: 13959

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Frances Fox

1. I do not find it useful to be told that an area is equivalent to x number of football pitches.
2. The areas I am most familiar with are the Sandhills, Queslett Road East and Calderfields sites
3. I think they are all suitable for extra housing, albeit much is farmland, and a balance has to be maintained between growing food and housing people
4. The difficulty here is that information is limited to the number of houses it is intended to build - what about shops, schools, welfare? - what sort of houses? 2 bed starter homes? 3 bed family homes? bungalows? flats to rent?. How can we comment when we do not know what the structures will look like. The areas do not need anymore 5 bed monstrosities as have been erected in the Aldridge Area of late - nor if it comes to that, any more retirement flats.

Object

Representation ID: 14074

Received: 25/09/2021

Respondent: Chris Beebee

Number of people: 2

Proposed development at caulderfields walsall
I am opposed to any intended development on the above site or surrounding areas for many reasons but traffic is a major problem at the moment without the introduction of at least one additional car per household . The road network does not cope with traffic very well especially during rush hour . This would almost certainly increase pollution from near stationary traffic for long periods of time. I also feel there are more suitable sites around the brought to be developed which would improve the area rather than change the area for ever as once you develop green belt you can never get it back and if the times we have just endured as a nation have taught us nothing it has highlighted the need for open space for mental health plus the amount of time taken to build a development of this size would take many years. Thanks in anticipation of your consideration

Object

Representation ID: 14101

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Katie Wall

I strongly oppose to the Draft Black Country Plan, in particular the application to use the site at Calderfields West. As a resident of Buchanan Rd, I am extremely distressed and concerned for the following reasons;
-We decided to buy our home because of the peace and privacy that comes with living on a no-through road surrounded by beautiful greenbelt land, something that will be taken away from us if this plan goes ahead.
-I dont believe the surrounding roads and main roads will cope with the additional cars and traffic from the new houses. Buchanan Rd and other roads in the area will become a 'rat run'.
- The impact on wildlife in the area will be under threat we have [Redacted-sensitive information] to name a few. Their habitat will dwindle and their survival threatened.
-The Arboretum and open space surrounding it is essential to many residents mental and physical welllbeing. This plan will spoil the character and landscape of the park and cause distress to many visitors

Object

Representation ID: 14266

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Brown

The Government and West Midlands Mayor frequently comment on the tremendous importance of protecting the Green Belt and yet here is another proposal to destroy a valuable green area close to a vast built up area of the conurbation.
It states that 442 houses are to be built on Calderfields, Aldridge Road, WI*all. I object to this proposal on the following grounds :l . There are plenty of Brown Field sites in the area yet to be developed.
2. Such a development would destroy a valuable piece of grazing land used by cows and sheep.
3. It would seriously affect the privacy of my property.
4. It would seriously de-value my property and that of many neighbours who have invested heavily in housing which backs onto Green Belt.
5. It would cause hundreds more vehicles to exacerbate the horrendous traffic problems already existing at nearby junctions leading in and out of Walsall and surrounding areas.
6. Run off water already pours down towards the Aboretum from the sodden ground.
7. It would destroy a long established hedgerow which affords protection from the wind and is home to much wildlife.
8. It would further encroach onto the views from the Arboretum extension- the gem of Walsall's leisure facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 14268

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Winifred Richards

I strongly oppose to the proposed housing estate. The green belt being eroded yet again. I bought my house 55 years ago and have enjoyed a fabulous view of fields from the house. Also the traffic from so many extra houses in a relatively small area will make congestion even worse

Comment

Representation ID: 14303

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Alison Clarges

Id like to voice my concerns regarding plans to build hundreds of houses on green belt land which runs alongside Walsall arboretum park. I was astonished to discover this today and I am not alone in feeling that these proposals are not known about locally and it took a sign in the park itself to notify me of the plans.

Firstly the plan would ruin the outlook of the park and destroy fields of natural beauty and wildlife habitat. The land has cows and sheep on and is home to lots of birds and animals and we should be doing everything in our powers to protect these green spaces especially in towns like Walsall where there is so little of it and few things that give you the well-being benefits and sense of community that the park does. Walsall has many flats and apartments and hence we need all the green space we have to help us spend time outside where we don’t have gardens.

Has the pandemic not taught planners anything ? The value of green spaces for mental health and fitness. Building a housing site would ruin the parks outlook, create noise, litter, traffic and increase crime and there is absolutely no justification for allowing this to happen other than developer being able to ask a premium for house prices as they will ‘ look out over the park’ . Shame on the decision makers who seek to destroy the peace and beautiful of this space, one that should be preserved and nurtured for future generations, not sold for a quick buck and to solve housing shortages when there are other sites that should and could be developed in Walsall. The changing face of town centres means there are lots of properties snd sites that need redesigning and regenerating, and there will be more of them over time . What is the point of building new houses on green belt land when the town centre is so poor and rundown. There are numerous sites on the outskirts of Walsall alongside the town centre that are crying out for redevelopment but instead the plan is to ruin park of an historical park instead !

I’m deeply unhappy that this plan has even been bought to the table. I sincerely hope that the word of this horrific plan gets out to the local community in time to stop this from happening.

Black country planners have some sense and think outside the box, don’t use green belt land as once it’s gone it ain’t never coming back.

I hope you consider the points I’ve raised

Object

Representation ID: 14372

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Angela Richardson

Calderfields/Walsall arboretum
To whom it may concern,
Leave our irreplaceable Greenbelt alone, why would Walsall want to loose its Greenbelt?
It will not only ruin Greenbelt it will impose on the open space of the arboretum where members of the public spend quality time with family and friends in the clean fresh air.
It will cause damage to the natural environment increasing pollution.
It will add to the pressure on infrastructure generating more traffic and pollution.
For residents surrounding the area it will for sure impose on their privacy.
Why not use the existing brown belt areas?
I sincerely hope these plans are not approved.

Object

Representation ID: 14530

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Biney Singh

The planned development in my area concerns me greatly.
The proposed plans will have a catastrophic impact on the local infrastructure, environment, health and wellbeing.
Sutton Rd can not cope with congestion at this moment in time with increased traffic it would have devastating effects on all surrounding roads.
Sutton Rd residents would have to deal with increased level of noise and traffic pollution and loose it’s appealing green space.
There will also be serious implications to the wildlife habitat in this local area. The green space, nature and wildlife should be protected.
I am strongly against these ideas, Sutton Rd needs speed cameras that actually work in order to prevent careless drivers who do speeds in-excess of 80mph at times.
I have many time witnessed drivers speeding and overtaking driving into on coming traffic. This is what needs to be addressed this is what should be on top of the agenda before such actions result in loss of life. Damage limitation prevent this before it’s too late.

Object

Representation ID: 14660

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Penn

Number of people: 2

WAH234 (Columba Park-Aldridge Road) WAH 246 (Chester Road)
I object to building on green belt land when there is many brownfield sites that could be used first my wife is also in agreement with me

Object

Representation ID: 14716

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Deborah Lamont

Black Country Plan - Walsall St Matthews Calderfields West Policy WSA7
I wish to register my objection to the above Black Country Plan and the proposed development of green belt land across Walsall, but I am focusing this response mainly on the above plan.
I believe that there is enough brownfield land and old industrial sites to accommodate housing targets within Walsall without the destruction of essential green belt land.
Also having witnessed the changes to Walsall town centre over the past few years brought on by the increase in online shopping which has been exacerbated by the pandemic, has the plan fully looked at the several empty spaces that are now part of the town centre profile and whether they could be turned into suitable housing? The companies that used the large retail spaces that have moved out of the town centre over the past few years will not be returning so creativity is required to think about how those spaces can now be used. Many communities around the world live beside and above shops, cafes and bars. Anyone travelling abroad for holidays will have witnessed this in several countries and it is common in central London. With the growing acknowledgment that how we live our lives directly impacts on the environment not only in this country but around the world I cannot emphasize enough how I believe this issue needs to be addressed in a more creative way.
I also believe that the green belt land identified contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which overlooks the open fields and forms an essential part of the setting of the Arboretum, which is Walsall’s much admired park and conservation area. The development will negatively the impact on the local wildlife. The development site would sit in the middle of the Arboretum, Arboretum extension, Park Lime Pits and Hayhead Wood which would destroy wildlife corridors and light overspill may negatively impact on the bats and other wildlife causing destruction of habitats. As mentioned previously this plan has been developed at a time when the importance of protecting our environment for future generations has come to the fore on a national and international stage. These plans appear to be a complete contradiction of this.
It is also well known that the Arboretum, the Aldridge Road, the Broadway North and the proposed site have a history of flooding which has increased over recent years and building over the area will only exacerbate this. This is linked to global warming and the points I made previously.
There is also the question of access to and from this site. The local infrastructure will not cope with the extra population and vehicles. The changes to the road layout between the Arboretum traffic lights at Lichfield Street leading to the Arboretum island which was only completed recently appears to have made very little difference to the management of traffic in the neighbourhood. The area will not cope with such a dramatic increase in the inevitable traffic, particularly as there is also a plan to build on other green belt land relatively close by at the junction of Longwood Lane and Sutton Road, despite what is stated in the plan. {Redacted] at certain times of the day it is difficult to join the Mellish Road to drive towards Aldridge due to the density of traffic. I cannot envisage the design of a new road development that would be able to successfully manage the additional traffic.
Finally, the pandemic has taught us the value of open space to the health and mental well- being of Walsall residents. The footfall across the Arboretum and all green spaces has increased dramatically since March 2020. The importance of green spaces cannot be underestimated and these plans to build on green belt land appears to be counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Object

Representation ID: 14800

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: John Smith

REF WAH242 (policy WSA7)
As a resident of [redacted], Walsall, for 50 years, I am totally opposed to the development of 442 homes on the green belt at Calderfields. In fact I am totally opposed to any building on any green belt in the United Kingdom. Whilst I understand the need for affordable houses to be built, I believe there are many brownfield and old industrial sites that should be used for this purpose. Building on precious green land should never be considered.
Why hasn’t the council done something about the eyesore on the Lichfield Road/Butts Road corner where the old Methodist Church used to stand? It was demolished some years ago and though the land isn’t large enough to accommodate 442 houses, several could be built there. There must be thousands of such sites throughout the country.
Should the council go ahead with this plan to build on green belt, it will never be able to take it back. I consider it to be a criminal act.

Object

Representation ID: 14863

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ann Burton

WAH242
Although I no longer live in Walsall it was my home for many years and I continue to visit to see friends. Over the years it has filled me with sadness to see the decline in the town centre.
I heard about the Black Country Plan through a friend. However, I found finding the plan rather confusing, initialy I could only find the plan on the 'dudley.gov.uk' website,,,,not where you would naturally go to fnd details for Walsall and the other Black Country areas included in the plan. This suggests to me a lack of transparancy and openess in the planning process and indeed the desire to recieve feedback, comment or objections.
There are infact areas of land included in the plan that don't even meet the methodology requirements set down by in the Black Country Plan. For example: The draft Black Country Plan Site Assessment Report: Assessment and Selection Methodology and Results . Aug 2021, Chapter 3, 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'. Then in Appendix C-4, Sites Assessed for Housing and Selected (Walsall), there are, for example, sites that are rated 'Green Belt Harm: North East Very High Harm, West High Harm = Red, Landscape Sensitivity: Moderate High = Red'
According to the Black Country Plan's own methodology these sites are not suitable for development. Why have they been selected as suitable?
This also applies to WAH242. where had a Wildlife Assessment been undertaken wildlife identified in the area would have precluded it's inclusion in the plan. This also appears to be the conclusion of the BBCWildlife.org.uk response to the plan for this site.

In summary I object to the proposed development WAH242 on the basis that
1. there is a lack of transparancy in the process - until very recently, and I suspect because of all the objections to the plans, many people where not aware of the existance Black Conutry Plan
2. it appears that the methodolody defined in the Black Country Plan has not been adhered to - where a RAG status is red or Harm levels are deemed to be moderate-high or high, sites have still been included in the plan
3. The wildlife impact on site WAH 242 to, [Redacted-sensitive information] populations etc. should have been assessed prior to inclusion in the plan. As this was not the case they should be undetrtaken as soon as it is appropriate and this site removed from the plan on the basis of the findings.

Object

Representation ID: 14975

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Anthony Pleaden

I Object to the development of any Green Field site for housing development. The Areas of:
Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road, Calderfields/Aldridge Road, Sutton Road/Longwood Lane

All of which surround Urban Housing Areas - Brown Sites should 1st be investigated, we all witness
dilapidated & empty Factories.

I refuse to accept the idea of development in OUR GreenBelt, this land provides leisure areas for young and old residents, generates much of the fresh air and assists in the reduction of CO2.

Local Facilities Are already overloaded:

Commuter Traffic already overloads our local roads, and create pollution.
Existing Facilities such as Schools & Doctors are overcrowded - Extra Housing will not ease the burden on roads,schools, and health care, But will destroy the existing environment.

The Hundred Acre Site was not well developed, small gardens

Object

Representation ID: 15066

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynda James

As a Walsall resident, who has lived close to the Arboretum for many years, I am appalled that the council is planning to build 592 houses on the site in Calderfields West. This is precious land for wildlife, for visitors to the Arboretum, and the residents who live on the bordering land.

Building houses on this land will limit the available grazing land for the herd of deer, limiting their breeding numbers and most probably driving them away from this area. countless birds rely on the many trees which would have to be felled for this to happen.

It would also encroach upon the natural beauty and openness of the Arboretum and it's role within the Black
Country Urban Forest, which extends on the north side up to the Rushall Canal


This Green Belt land is irreplaceable and MUST be preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 15067

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew James

As a Walsall resident, who has lived close to the Arboretum for many years, I am appalled that the council is planning to build 592 houses on the site in Calderfields West. This is precious land for wildlife, for visitors to the Arboretum, and the residents who live on the bordering land.

Building houses on this land will limit the available grazing land for the herd of deer, limiting their breeding numbers and most probably driving them away from this area. countless birds rely on the many trees which would have to be felled for this to happen.

It would also encroach upon the natural beauty and openness of the Arboretum and it's role within the Black
Country Urban Forest, which extends on the north side up to the Rushall Canal


This Green Belt land is irreplaceable and MUST be preserved.

Object

Representation ID: 15078

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Wood

I am writing to oppose this proposal as it will impact greatly on Arboretum users. The area pinpointed for building is a beautiful piece of green belt adjoining the Arboretum which is a welcome change for the rest of
Walsall with its run down empty properties. Children love to stop and see the sheep and cows in the field •
many of these children don't even have a garden so this broadens their education of the countryside - albeit in a small way.

There are so many brownfield sites around why can't these be used ? The amount of empty factories and shops would be far better suited but I fear the Developers are taking the easy way out in using Green belt.

Another obstacle is, if (and I'm sure when) they open up Buchanan Rd to access the site it will be mayhem. That road is not built to accommodate the amount of traffic over 400 houses will generate. The pollution will be detrimental to the health of residents and devastating to the wild life in and around the park. I've seen
Red Deer come down from Cannock Chase to wander by the canal - that will stop. In the park itself and the "country walk" attached to it,there are so many species of wildlife which the noise from the building work, which will obviously take years to complete, will scare away. The Parakeets in the park, they will go and children will never have that opportunity to see them again round here.

As you are aware we are one the most deprived areas of the Country and now they want to deprive us of this
! Incidentally they say they will put trees along the field by the park which will obviously take many years to grow and certainly won't stop the noise and pollution.
I thought we wanted to attract visitors to Walsall - thus boosting footfall and increasing business for locals •
and the Arboretum which is the jewel in an otherwise very small crown does just that. They come for the beauty, the wildlife and the open spaces with fresh air which the Arboretum offers. How long before the noise and pollution puts people off.

I don't live in any of the roads surrounding the park - but I do use it almost daily, and certainly
4 or 5 times a week the whole year round for the benefit of both my mental and physical health, which after the horrendous 18 months has suffered like many of us

Object

Representation ID: 15135

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Chontell Uppal

We would like to raise our concerns about the proposed housing developments at Calderfields, Aldridge Road. The main trunk roads serving these areas are already heavily congested during the busier periods of the day and additional strain will certainly negatively impact local residents. Additionally, building on green belt land which provides natural drainage, habitat for wildlife and local enjoyment of the open spaces should be a last resort. Once built upon this will never be able to be restored or reclaimed.