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

Object

Representation ID: 15468

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin Shaw

My objection is to the intended build of housing adjacent to Aldridge Road, Streetly is already very heavily used by traffic and very congested during rush hour and school-run periods.
To build approximately 1000 new homes adjacent to this road will cause traffic mayhem and put lives at risk, particularly school children who walk up and down this road to go to the large academy school.

Object

Representation ID: 15634

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: D J Stevenson

Section C-Walsall -- Table 31

Calderfields, Aldridge Road,

St Matthews proposed 442 properties expanding to 592 properties when permission is granted

We wish to object to the above development :

1 Ecology - the land will have an extensive diversity of plant and animal life. This will be eradicated by the proposed development.

2 The development turns a low density surrounding housing area into a high density housing area.

3 The development will increase the traffic flow and parked car impact considerably. It would be a conservative estimate that the increase in cars in the area would be in the region of 1000. I am aware that some dwellings in this locality have as many as six cars per property - were this the norm, the increased number of cars could be as high as 2642. These figures will be 25% higher when planning permission is given for 592 properties.

4 The development could have access to Argyle Road. Were this the case, the traffic flow through what is now a cul-de-sac, would be significant and disruptive, increasing considerably the vehicle flow into Argyle Road, Fernleigh Road and Cameron Road.

5 The development could have access through Buchanan Road.
Whilst this is a wide road, it would lead to a significant and disruptive increase in traffic flow to Argyle Road, Fernleigh Road and Cameron Road.

6 The traffic flow referred to in Points 4 and 5, would lead to a significant and disruptive increase in traffic flow to the junction of Fernleigh Road/ Aldridge Road and Cameron Road/ Mellish
Road, and the flow of traffic down Lichfield Street to the junction at the Arboretum, leading to the motorway at Junction 10. These junctions are already under severe pressure due to heavy traffic flow, and the development would increase this pressure further.
In particular the junction of Fernleigh Road and Aldridge Road is exceedingly dangerous -- this being a blind bend -- any increase in traffic flow at this point will lead eventually to serious accidents.

7 Where egress from the proposed estate were to be onto the Aldridge Road, the volume of traffic at this point would create a significant and disruptive increase.

8 Arboretum Park -- this is the premier, prestige flagship park of Walsall MSC. The remaining vestige of an open space adjoining the park by the Arboretum Extension would be lost, and would result in the park being extensively surrounded by a built environment.

Object

Representation ID: 15636

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: A E M Stevenson

Section C-Walsall -- Table 31

Calderfields, Aldridge Road,

St Matthews proposed 442 properties expanding to 592 properties when permission is granted

We wish to object to the above development :

1 Ecology - the land will have an extensive diversity of plant and animal life. This will be eradicated by the proposed development.

2 The development turns a low density surrounding housing area into a high density housing area.

3 The development will increase the traffic flow and parked car impact considerably. It would be a conservative estimate that the increase in cars in the area would be in the region of 1000. I am aware that some dwellings in this locality have as many as six cars per property - were this the norm, the increased number of cars could be as high as 2642. These figures will be 25% higher when planning permission is given for 592 properties.

4 The development could have access to Argyle Road. Were this the case, the traffic flow through what is now a cul-de-sac, would be significant and disruptive, increasing considerably the vehicle flow into Argyle Road, Fernleigh Road and Cameron Road.

5 The development could have access through Buchanan Road.
Whilst this is a wide road, it would lead to a significant and disruptive increase in traffic flow to Argyle Road, Fernleigh Road and Cameron Road.

6 The traffic flow referred to in Points 4 and 5, would lead to a significant and disruptive increase in traffic flow to the junction of Fernleigh Road/ Aldridge Road and Cameron Road/ Mellish
Road, and the flow of traffic down Lichfield Street to the junction at the Arboretum, leading to the motorway at Junction 10. These junctions are already under severe pressure due to heavy traffic flow, and the development would increase this pressure further.
In particular the junction of Fernleigh Road and Aldridge Road is exceedingly dangerous -- this being a blind bend -- any increase in traffic flow at this point will lead eventually to serious accidents.

7 Where egress from the proposed estate were to be onto the Aldridge Road, the volume of traffic at this point would create a significant and disruptive increase.

8 Arboretum Park -- this is the premier, prestige flagship park of Walsall MSC. The remaining vestige of an open space adjoining the park by the Arboretum Extension would be lost, and would result in the park being extensively surrounded by a built environment.

Object

Representation ID: 15785

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: David Baker

9) In conclusion the plan removes green belt protection mainly in the Walsall borough. Other boroughs have relatively small green belt losses so the plan discriminates against Walsall residents who are being let down by their planners. This Black country plan appears to put the majority of the new housing requirement in Walsall. It appears that the other Black Country borough planners want the urban sprawl to be concentrated away from them in Walsall. There is no mitigation for this loss of green amenity to Walsall residents. There are no climate change mitigations for this loss and there is insufficient brownfield regeneration and reclassification proposed within Walsall. Although the plan refers to certain studies and investigations/ mitigations in regard to the green belt, these are not accessible to view as part of the plan. This plan is flawed.

Object

Representation ID: 15827

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Esther Littler

Number of people: 2

Black Country Plan - Ref WAH242 (policy WSA7)
- The proposed development would significantly harm the openness of the green belt which is an
integral part of the character and landscape of the area. Loss of the existing views and both privacy and overlooking would adversely affect us as neighbouring owners. The greenbelt land contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlooks the open fields with its grazing animals and forms an essential part of the setting of the Arboretum. We are also concerned on the impact it will have on the local wildlife. The development site itself is known to have bats as well as red deer, owls (Tawny and Barn), woodpeckers, skylarks, Nuthatches, buzzards and parakeets. The development site 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 make this worse - I have walked around the Arboretum on several occasions in the last few years where the footpaths have been flooded. The field behind our house at these times has also been flooded.
- There are many Brownfield sites around the borough to consider before building on precious green belt land. Andy Street recently posted about winning £33million of government cash to continue to regenerate brownfield sites. This is surely the better option to regenerate and create new communities, create jobs as well as protecting our greenbelt.
-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. 592 proposed homes is a lot of extra cars on local roads bearing in mind most households have 2 cars. Local secondary schools (such as Aldridge School are already oversubscribed) and traffic every weekday morning
queues back from the Peugoet garage island all the way back to the Dilke. A new housing estate of the size proposed will create further issues and increase air pollution due to increased vehicles on the road.
- I would also like to say that this has hardly been a consultation of local people. A lot of local people were only made aware of this by local residents knocking on doors and pushing through homemade flyers. We pay a lot of council tax to Walsall council and the very least that you could have done was to post out to residents directly affected. Not everyone is digital so the process has not been open to everyone.
Comments supported by Craig Littler, resident at same address

Object

Representation ID: 15844

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Chris Pring

Draft Black Country Plan 2039 Ref. WAH242 (Policy WSA7)

We are objecting to the plan to build on greenbelt sites and oppose the idea of actually removing the sites from the green belt.

We are concerned about all of the greenbelt sites being built on, but the one that concerns us the most is the plan to build on the Calderfields farm site alongside the Walsall arboretum. It is a massive area of land and the infrastructure cannot possibly support that size of development. There are so few places that people can visit to enjoy the countryside and the arboretum is a jewel to many people, especially in the 'covid' situation we have been dealing with.
This proposal will spoil the open space character and landscape which contributes to the quality of Walsall arboretum. It will threaten wildlife, bats and deer.

Think of the Women's cycle race, stage 2, that took place in Walsall on 5th October. So many people commented on how lovely walsall looked as the cyclists raced around the various roads towards Barr Beacon and the surrounding area. The hedge lined roads and the multitude of trees, the fields - all looked glorious. It was a wonderful advert for Walsall. Do we really need to destroy that.

Object

Representation ID: 15846

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Diane Pring

Draft Black Country Plan 2039 Ref. WAH242 (Policy WSA7)

We are objecting to the plan to build on greenbelt sites and oppose the idea of actually removing the sites from the green belt.

We are concerned about all of the greenbelt sites being built on, but the one that concerns us the most is the plan to build on the Calderfields farm site alongside the Walsall arboretum. It is a massive area of land and the infrastructure cannot possibly support that size of development. There are so few places that people can visit to enjoy the countryside and the arboretum is a jewel to many people, especially in the 'covid' situation we have been dealing with.
This proposal will spoil the open space character and landscape which contributes to the quality of Walsall arboretum. It will threaten wildlife bats and deer.

Think of the Women's cycle race, stage 2, that took place in Walsall on 5th October. So many people commented on how lovely walsall looked as the cyclists raced around the various roads towards Barr Beacon and the surrounding area. The hedge lined roads and the multitude of trees, the fields - all looked glorious. It was a wonderful advert for Walsall. Do we really need to destroy that.

Object

Representation ID: 15847

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Adam Pring

Draft Black Country Plan 2039 Ref. WAH242 (Policy WSA7)

We are objecting to the plan to build on greenbelt sites and oppose the idea of actually removing the sites from the green belt.

We are concerned about all of the greenbelt sites being built on, but the one that concerns us the most is the plan to build on the Calderfields farm site alongside the Walsall arboretum. It is a massive area of land and the infrastructure cannot possibly support that size of development. There are so few places that people can visit to enjoy the countryside and the arboretum is a jewel to many people, especially in the 'covid' situation we have been dealing with.
This proposal will spoil the open space character and landscape which contributes to the quality of Walsall arboretum. It will threaten wildlife bats and deer.

Think of the Women's cycle race, stage 2, that took place in Walsall on 5th October. So many people commented on how lovely walsall looked as the cyclists raced around the various roads towards Barr Beacon and the surrounding area. The hedge lined roads and the multitude of trees, the fields - all looked glorious. It was a wonderful advert for Walsall. Do we really need to destroy that.

Object

Representation ID: 15848

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Kate Pring

Draft Black Country Plan 2039 Ref. WAH242 (Policy WSA7)

We are objecting to the plan to build on greenbelt sites and oppose the idea of actually removing the sites from the green belt.

We are concerned about all of the greenbelt sites being built on, but the one that concerns us the most is the plan to build on the Calderfields farm site alongside the Walsall arboretum. It is a massive area of land and the infrastructure cannot possibly support that size of development. There are so few places that people can visit to enjoy the countryside and the arboretum is a jewel to many people, especially in the 'covid' situation we have been dealing with.
This proposal will spoil the open space character and landscape which contributes to the quality of Walsall arboretum. It will threaten wildlife bats and deer.

Think of the Women's cycle race, stage 2, that took place in Walsall on 5th October. So many people commented on how lovely walsall looked as the cyclists raced around the various roads towards Barr Beacon and the surrounding area. The hedge lined roads and the multitude of trees, the fields - all looked glorious. It was a wonderful advert for Walsall. Do we really need to destroy that.

Object

Representation ID: 15979

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Judith Wheeler

Number of people: 2

We lodge our objections to the following sites:

Calderfields, Aldridge Road

All of these green belt sites if built on will take away areas of significant natural beauty, have a detrimental impact on wildlife and our environment. There is no need to use these precious sites. There is an abundance of brownfield sites in Walsall as well as disused industrial sites and empty factories to cover all the requirements for future housing requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 16014

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: David Eardley

Policy WSA7 - Calderfields West, Aldridge Road, Walsall

1. Removal of Green Belt Land - vital for environment, wildlife etc. Removal will impact future generations, brownfield sites should be used instead.

2. Impact on local infrastructure - main and local roads. Local - buchanan road / aconile, cmeron road, fernleigh road are already heavily used - these are narrow residential roads and any additional traffic will cause delays tailbacks, etc (especially buchanan avenue). Main roads - A454 Melish Road / A461 Lichfield Road are very heavily used with regular tailbacks into Walsall. The addition of 442 new houses (and associated cars) will result in longer tailbacks, and frustrated drivers and bitd for the environment.
3. Local residents impact on residents in terms of construction traffic, potential loss of privacy and being overlooked. Loss of 'open space' feel to the area.

Object

Representation ID: 16299

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Dawn Taylor

raft Black Country Plan July 2021. Table 31 - Walsall Sites Allocated for Housing by Black Country
Plan (policy HOU1)
Pages: 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 515, 516
Site Ref: WHA230 Land on the east side of Chester Road, Aldridge; 66 Units
Site Ref: WAH231 Land off Sutton Road, Longwood Lane, Walsall; 202 Units
Site Ref: WAH234 Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey;
1426 Units
Site Ref: WAH237 Land north of Stonnal Road, Aldridge; 363 Units
Site Ref: WAH 240 Land at Mob Lane, High Heath, Pelsall; 209 Units
Site Ref: WAH242 Calderfields West, Aldridge Road, Walsall; 592 Units
Site Ref: WAH246 Land to the East of Chester Road, north of Pacific Nurseries Hardwick; 228 Units
Site Ref: WAH254 Pacific Nurseries, Chester Road, Walsall; 121 Units
OBJECTIONS
1) The aforementioned proposed sites make up massive swathes of valuable green spaces which
is precious Green Belt which is invaluable for residents and visitors mental health, wellbeing and
recreactional purposes. The UK is suffering a loss of nature and is one of te most nature-depleted
countries in the world:
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-10-10/uk-is-one-of-the-most-nature-depleted-countries-in-the-world
We all must take active roles in safeguarding these green lungs’ spaces for residents and
humankind and nature to thrive. We must honour the sites natural significance and protect it from
being forever changed to the built environment. Existing residents use these green spaces for many
recreational activities including but not restricted to: walking, cycling, geocaching, some offer music
events, etc. With the cost of living increasing and many failing to see their incomes rising in line with
these costs, our green spaces provide free recreational areas for everyone to enjoy.
2) The existing infrastructure struggles to accommodate the current residents living closeby to these
sites and if these sites are developed, the roads will witness increased numbers of vehicles usage
which in turn will increase noise, air and light pollution; GP surgeries are already swamped with the
numbers of patients; existing schools will be unable to take new pupils; residents - both existing and
new - will be unable to benefit from and enjoy the health and wellbeing attributes offered by having
access to green spaces.
3) Wildlife and natural habitat will be destroyed and once gone, they are lost forever.
In closing, I object to the potential theft of our multi-beneficial Green Belt and green spaces being
changed forever from green to built environment for the reasons set down in thess Objections.

Comment

Representation ID: 16335

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Frazer Powell

WAH242 Calderfields West
WAH231 Land off Sutton Road, Longwood Lane

Moving onto the particular concerns in respect of the Calderfields West, Aldridge Road and Sutton Road/ Longwood Lane, Walsall sites, the green belt in both these areas provide materially significant areas of natural habitat for mammals, birds, insects and reptiles and highly valuable green space for recreation for local people. I walk regularly in these areas, particularly Walsall Arboretum and appreciate the benefits of having such a pleasant green area so close to home. I am sure that these areas of green belt taken together have had and I hope will continue to have significant benefit for both the natural environment and residents. It is difficult to over- estimate the benefits these areas provide in a Borough that has long suffered from having some of the most deprived wards in the UK. The benefits of these area are for all the people of Walsall and the surrounding area. These environmental and health and wellbeing benefits help to mitigate the already serious problems of traffic noise, pollution, over development and general noise and congestion in the area. Walsall in real terms needs more not less green belt.
The sites detailed above given their size and the intensity of development proposed would make an already significant problem materially worse, it would reduce the amenity of both existing and new residents and have long term adverse consequences for the Borough. I would hope action could be taken to enhance and improve the existing green belt provision, not destroy this crucial fragile asset, which has on-going long term benefits.
LUC consultants in their report of September 2019 ( copy attached ) ,please see comments at page 23, paragraph 49 in respect of L31 ( which covers both the Calderfields and Sutton Road, Longwood Lane sites ) recognise clearly the significant benefits of retaining the green belt and the material adverse impacts any development at the two sites would have. As stated previously, there are significant amenity considerations/ benefits to residents and the local and wider environment of Walsall in retaining and working to enhance the green belt. I think these benefits could also reasonably said to include health and wellbeing, these could be classed as a relevant planning consideration. I submit, that there is judicial precedent for this, please see the judgment of Pill LJ in West Midlands Probation Committee v (1) Secretary of State for the Environment (2) Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council.

Object

Representation ID: 16426

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Diane & Doreth Hughes / Daly

Our objections are as follows:

We have been residents of [location] for 20 years and wish to strongly object to the proposed development of green belt land next to Walsall Arboretum.

1. This will greatly impact on the wildlife and ecology of this area. Natural habitats and wildlife corridors will be destroyed. The great number of visitors who currently use the arboretum will be affected by the loss of beauty of the area.
We realise that people need housing but there are numerous brownfield sites that could be developed around Walsall which would be more suitable as they are lying useless at the moment. This would also help regeneration of the town and surrounding areas.
The greenbelt will be lost 'forever' while the brownfield sites will remain a problem.

2. We are also concerned that 600 homes in this location would greatly impact on the already horrific traffic problems around this area.Despite the fact that several adjustments have been made the traffic problem is still horrendous and would further deteriorate even assumimg each of the 600 houses had only one car.

3. The management of the consultation period leaves a lot to be desired.
It was not put forward in a straightforward manner. Everything to do with our property has to follow strict protocols because of it's proximity to the arboretum. We find it amazing that this planning which will destroy natural habitat, beauty, residents enjoyment of the area, has been covertly delivered via a black country plan which has only recently been pushed through the door.No mention of the arboretum was specifically made and the time span for response has been extremely tight.

In conclusion, we strongly object to this planning along with 1,800 signatures who are objecting to this proposal. I think all residents should be informed in an appropriate manner and allowed to vote
on this proposal as there is immense opposition to this plan (once residents know about it.)

Object

Representation ID: 16445

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs & Mr Elaine & Bryan Bird

Number of people: 2

[Site Ref: WAH242]

To whom it may concern
I wish to object to the Black Country Development Plan 2039 for the following reasons:
I. Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was specifically
created to protect the greenbelt.
a. Section 138 states that, "Green Belt serves five purposes: a) to check the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring
towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special
character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by
encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land."
b. Section 140 states that, "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should
only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and
justified..."
2. The need for building on the green belt is completely unjustified across the Black
Country. The Development Plan does not adequately explain why development
on this land is justified, especially considering the many brown field sites across
the region that are not only better suited to development, but should be fully
exhausted for new homes before building on our limited and precious green belt
is even considered. The underutilisation of premises by retail outlets in Walsall
town centre means there are numerous units that must be converted into
residential properties before development on green belt land is even considered.
It's needs to be realised that shopping attitudes and behaviours are changing and
becoming online dependant; the need for a high street with shops, banks, and
other facilities is decreasing, and this space must now be considered for
residential purposes. This will help to meet housing needs, whilst also preventing
the area from becoming derelict and unused.
3. The NPPF urges developers proposing to build on green belt sites to "set out ways
in which the impact of removing land from the green belt can be offset through
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of
remaining green belt land." There is no detail of how this be achieved in the
Development Plan.
4. The Development Plan states, "The proposed Neighbourhood Growth Areas are
located in highly sustainable locations and will provide 250 homes or more on the
edge of the urban area where there are existing pedestrian and public transport
routes and high levels of access to local services (such as schools or health
services). In some cases, new services may need to be provided as part of a new
development."
a. In relation to this, and specifically for the 442 new homes on the
Calderfields, Aldridge Road site, it is not explained anywhere in the
document how this site has been determined as having 'high levels of
access to local services (such as schools or health services)," or whether
new schools, health services and other services will need to be built in
addition to the 442 new homes being proposed.
5. The NPPF also states:
a. Proposals affecting the Green Belt
i. 147. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should
not be approved except in very special circumstances.
I. There is nothing in the Development Plan that articulates
what these 'very special circumstances are,' and therefore the
proposal to build on green belt land is unjustified.
ii. 148. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should
ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green
Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the
potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the
proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
I. What are these 'considerations?'
iii. 149. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as
inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:
a) buildings for agriculture and forestry;
b) the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection
with the existing use of land or a change of use) for
outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and
burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities
preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not
conflict with the purposes of including land within it;
c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that
it does not result in disproportionate additions over and
above the size of the original building;
d) the replacement of a building, provided the new
building is in the same use and not materially larger
than the one it replaces;
e) limited infilling in villages;
f) limited affordable housing for local community needs
under policies set out in the development plan
(including policies for rural exception sites); and 44
g) limited infilling or the partial or complete
redevelopment of previously developed land, whether
redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary
buildings), which would: — not have a greater impact on
the openness of the Green Belt than the existing
development; or — not cause substantial harm to the
openness of the Green Belt, where the development
would re-use previously developed land and contribute
to meeting an identified affordable housing need within
the area of the local planning authority.
I. The development of 442 new homes on the Calderfields,
Aldridge Road site does not meet any of this criteria.
6. The environmental impact has not been considered, and the Calderfields,
Aldridge Road site is home to many different forms of wildlife, which will be killed,
or impacted by the proposed development.
7. The impact on the local road network has not been considered. There are an
average of 1.2 cars per house household in the UK, so the development of 442
new homes will mean an additional 530 cars on the road. What assessment has
been done to ensure the surrounding road network has the capacity to
accommodate all of these additional daily trips?

Object

Representation ID: 16465

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: 16514

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Cormac Denihan

Re - Policy WSA7 - Calderfields West, Land at Aldridge Road, Walsall
I wish to object to the proposal to build housing at Calderfields West, Land at Aldridge Road, Walsall.
This development would be inappropriate and damaging. A development on this scale would be particularly unsuitable in such close proximity to the Conservation Area.
The development would spoil the open space character and landscape which contributes to the quality of the Arboretum, Walsall's historic flagship park.
It would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners.
It would threaten wildlife.
It would put pressure on local infrastructure and generate increased traffic. The Mellish Road area is already becomoes very congested, and there is a significant problem with commuters using Fernleigh Road - Cameron Road - Buchanan Avenue as a "rat run" on their journey towards Walsall town centre.
There is likely to be loss of privacy and overlooking.
Brownfield sites and former industrial sites should accommodate housing building projects without the nee for the permanent destruction of precious green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 16580

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Gary Huckfield

My objections to building on the Calderfields Farm Area Aldridge Road are that there are not that many green spaces around the centre of Walsall and adding another built area close to town adding to congestion and polution. There is very little of nature to be seen as it is and this would just add to that. I use the park and Lime pits at least twice a week and this would just take away the beauty of what we have left. If it has be used for anything lets farm on there we are told we are short of most things lets grow it ourselves lets not ruin it for future generations once its built on thats it no turning back so please don't let this happen

Object

Representation ID: 16746

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Chorley

Black Country plan Walsall Longwood lane and
Aldridge road

Yesterday was the first me I became aware of the plans for 220 and 440 homes respectively, despite living just off [redacted - GDPR] and within easy walking distance of both areas. I think that this is a shocking failure of Walsall MBC and the consultation period should be extended
for the following reasons;
it is clear that there has been no attempt to consult with the immediate neighbourhoods
In order to provide access to these two areas, extensive development of Longwood lane would be needed to straighten and widen the road, which is heavily used by HGVs moving from Aldridge to the M6/M5interchange as well as local commuting traffic which makes the Sutton Road a continuous stream of traffic between 08.00 and 10.00, 16.00 and 18.00 with heavy use for the rest of the day, with a pinch point at the Sutton Road, Longwood lane junction.
It can be reasonably expected that building 440 + 220 houses in the area would increase traffic by at least 600 cars as most households in the area have two vehicles per household.
Building a community is not as simple as building houses, other facilities would be needed, such as nurseries, schools, shops, doctors. The current infrastructure in the area hardly supports the community as it is!
The destruction af an amenity that is often called the 'lungs of Walsall', where for many children it is the only opportunity to see cattle and sheep grazing. There would also be an impact on wildlife in the area.
The potential run off from housing estates that pollute the water courses and lakes, a classic example of that is Park Hall Lake , in between the Sutton Road and the Birmingham road, where the lake, I have on hood authority has been polluted by the connection of domestic washing machines to the storm drains that empty into the pool, something that should never
be allowed but is impossible to control.
It seems as though there has been little evidence of alternatives considered, in particular the replacement of redundant shopping areas with townhouses and brownfield sites that remain overgrown for years.
This is a brief complaint based on the poor communication process of Walsall MBC and I formally request an extension to this consultation period

Object

Representation ID: 17091

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Barrett

I strongly object to planned housing on the Calderfield area behind the Walsall Arboretum. This abuts Park Lime Pits; a well-used area of leisure interest and nature conservation. There are also footpaths across the fields leading to canal bridges. This is a lovely area, and there is already plenty of house building going on at the brownfield site of the old Goscote Brass Foundry.

Object

Representation ID: 17125

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Abbassi

Each morning I pick up my Grandsons. First I wait several minutes to pull out of my driveway, into the traffic and drive towards the duel carridgeway and Calderfields. I usually join a long cue of traffic from the Dilke pub and most days I sit there a good 10 minutes to get over Longwood bridge and turn into Longwood Lane. All good untill Hayhead Farm then guess what another cue of traffic, this one 5-10 minutes long. I turn into Sutton Road, pick up the boys and back along Longwood Lane to join the cue again at the Pegeot Garage island, then move at a snails pace all along to Aldridge.
By building 442 homes as Calderfields Aldridge Road and 202 homes at Sutton Road/ Longwood Lane how much more traffic will be introduced from all this new housing. Bare in mind that these days each household has at lease 2 cars on the drive. This increase in the number of cars on just these 3 roads will further damage our environment for our future generations.
Also by cutting into the green belt what happens to the birds and wildlife, soon there will be no countryside left for us all to enjoy. Look around Walsall there are plenty of other spaces suitable for more affordable housing, without bringing down the value of the housing in these desirable residential areas.

Object

Representation ID: 17167

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

Re: Black Country Plan WAH242 - Strategic Allocation Policy WSA.7

I wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections I have with regards to the above
Black Country Plan WAH242 and the proposed development of Green Belt land.

I am of the view the addition of 592 houses on our precious, irreplaceable, green land will cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenities and disrupt the quiet and peaceful character of the area.

My specific objections are as follows:

NON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE. NPPF states that Greenbelt is to be protected and requires ‘Very Special Circumstances’ to be built on. There is nothing special about plans to build on unspoilt land just to meet housing targets. I question the use of a computer based algorithm to assess the housing needs which seem totally overinflated. Local Councils rather than the government are surely better equipped to judge housing targets for their particular area.

The projections assume the population of the Black Country will rise at an alarming rate from

2023 - 2039 well above normal growth and does not take into account that this could also decrease as well as increase

If growth were normal, all future developments and improvements to our infrastructure can be fully accommodated within the urban area. Brownfield First. Surely there is more than
enough Brownfield, old Industrial and windfall sites and developments that already have planning permission available to accommodate housing targets without the permanent destruction of Greenbelt.

In 2014 Walsall Council in a refusal decision of planning for 14 houses on the same land said: There is a plentiful supply of available housing land in Walsall without requirement of Green Belt. Sites with planning permission provide sufficient capacity to meet the boroughs housing needs well beyond 15 years including the additional NPPF 5% buffer. The loss of open space as a result of the proposed built development would have a significant detrimental impact to the character of the area which is defined by open countryside which contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlooks the application side.

I would also ask ‘has the pandemic changed the housing supply equation’. Working from home and shopping online have hollowed out many urban centres. Walsall in particular is full of offices and shops empty and unused. Could Walsall’s struggling high street and business zones with its good transport links be repurposed as residential neighbourhoods rather than our beautiful countryside.

An example of this would be Crown Wharf Retail Park. Many of the retail units are sitting empty why not relocate the remaining shops to the now deserted town centre, and use this site for housing with it’s excellent access to shopping, leisure and public transport.

HISTORIC CONSERVATION AREA. The development, due to its location and layout, would result in significant harm to the ‘openness of the green belt’ being visually prominent from the Arboretum which is Walsall’s flagship historic park and conservation area where visitors enjoy beautiful views in and out of the park.

The loss of ‘open space’ which contributes to the quality of the Arboretum would have significant detrimental impact to the historic assets of the park which is of a high local importance. Walsall Council should exercise their planning power to pay special attention and recognise the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character of this conservation area.

Walsall Council commented in the refusal planning for 14 houses on the same land said The loss of open space as a result of the proposed built development and incidental landscaping would have a significant detrimental impact to the character of the area which is defined by open countryside which contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum which directly overlook the application side.

Many of the adjacent and surrounding properties postdate the formation of the park in 1840 and they form the framework of the park and as such are important contributors of the landscape.

Calderfields Farm which dates back to mid 1800’s and the surrounding green fields with its

Red Deer, Sheep and Cows forms an essential part of the setting of the arboretum. The development of 592 houses will not sit comfortably within the landscape.

PROTECTING OUR WILDLIFE. The BCP was developed before the pandemic hit, therefore it is out of date and needs to be revisited and reassessed. We have to take into account the dangers posed by climate change that has emerged. Now more than ever we need to protect our local wildlife.

The site itself is known to have the protected species of bats and Great crested newts also red deer, Tawny and Barn owls, woodpecker, skylarks, Nuthatches, kingfishers, buzzards, parakeets and many red listed bird species.

The proposed development site would sit in the middle of the Arboretum, Arboretum extension, Park Lime Pits and Hayhead (SNICs) which would destroy essential wildlife corridors and light overspill may negatively impact the bats and other wildlife causing destruction of habitats. The wildlife will perish as a result.

I would also point out that although the site is of highest ecological value there has been NO
ecological assessment of the site. As mentioned the site has protected species as defined by the
UK legislation and the development would cause potential harm to any populations of these species present on site and therefore are not in compliance with ENV1, ENV2, ENV3 & ENV4 of the BCP.

I also have concerns for the preservation of the ‘protected’ trees which surround the proposed development and the potential damage from heavy excavation equipment on the root systems.

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

The SFRA acknowledges that global climate change is having a huge effect. The proposed development may pose an unacceptable risk of causing detrimental impact to groundwater quality and potentially result in contamination to the brook and watercourses that lead to the Walsall Arboretum. SFRA notes a blockage scenario would flood parts of walsall including major infrastructure. I would NOT consider that the site meets the sequential test for flooding and the development is contrary to CC5 & CC6 of the BCP.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY. The proposed greenbelt is an integral part of the landscape. Loss of the existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners. If developed on, this connection local people have with their natural environment, will be lost forever.


LOSS OF PRIVACY AND OVERLOOKING The proposed development will have an adverse effect on both loss of privacy and overlooking ‘Cramming’ 592 houses on the plot will mean being uncomfortably close to neighbours and this will allow very little space for planting and landscaping and the gross overdevelopment of the site would significantly alter the fabric of the area resulting in a serious invasion of privacy.

TRAFFIC GENERATION/SECURITY
Traffic generated from the proposed development
would have an adverse effect on the area in particular the island from Buchanan Road and the Mellish Road. This already has severe congestion during busy hours. Air quality and noise pollution will also be an issue.

Access from the Arboretum to the proposed development would surely offer poor levels of security and would raise a fear of crime in the area.

Finally, the coronavirus pandemic exposed how important good quality outdoor green space is for our physical and mental wellbeing. With work-from-home becoming the normal, people have been re-evaluating their lives and as a consequence popularity of rural and coastal properties have seen people moving away from towns in search of a better quality of life.

If Walsall Council agree to the proposed building on our valuable green belt land and permanently concretes over the countryside, the urban sprawl will encourage residents to migrate from the town to the countryside.

Good quality green space should be accessible to all, now more than ever. Nature needs green space to thrive and our access to nature needs to thrive too.

The Priority 6 of a ‘Vision for Walsall’ says 'encourage everyone to feel proud of Walsall.’

Leader of Walsall Council Mike Bird says Walsall is a place to be proud of. We should be
Proud of our Past our Present and our Future. How can we feel proud of our present and for our future generations when the BCP allows the permanent destruction of our beautiful countryside.

Once our green space is gone it’s gone forever.

Object

Representation ID: 17181

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Walsall Arboretum User Group

Please see attached sheets on behalf of the Walsall Arboretum Action Group. Information about Walsall Arboretum can be found on [REDACTED].

Our objection relates primarily to the proposed development of housing on the greenfield site
adjacent to the Walsall Arboretum. This area is denoted as Walsall BL31, with a proposal to develop
442 houses by 2039. (Page 495 of the black country plan.)
While this particular geographical area is of interest, it is part of the valley which links the Arboretum
through Rushall Canal to Hayhead, the Dingle, Cuckoos Nook and on to Barr Beacon. This area (8L31)
is thus part of a wildlife corridor of vital importance, and should not be considered in isolation. The
Black Country Core Strategy (2011) stated "fragmentation and weakening of wildlife sites and
wildlife corridors by development will be opposed" within the environmental policy ENVl (page 131)
Our objections are in two parts, firstly the need to protect the Green Belt per se, and secondly the
ability to mitigate biodiversity and habitat loss.

PART ONE General protection of the Green Belt
This long document lays some emphasis upon protecting the Green Belt, and upon exceptional
circumstances;
• Policy CSP 1 Development strategy
Para 2 e: Protecting the openness, integrity and function of the Black Country's designated and
retained Green Belt by resisting inappropriate development.
Para 3:13 and 3:16: The Black Country Authorities (The four local authorities of Dudley Council,
Sandwell Council, Walsall Council and City of Wolverhampton Council) attach great importance to
the ongoing protection of the Black Country Green Belt; however, the green belt boundary is drawn
tightly around the urban edges. In order to help meet objectively assessed needs for housing and
employment land development, exceptional circumstances to alter green belt boundaries need to be
demonstrated.

The Black Country Authorities have undertaken an extensive Green Belt and landscape sensitivity
assessment to identify land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of the
Green Belt and to landscape character, is suitable and available for development and that could
create long-term and defensible Green Belt boundaries.
The Site Assessment Report sets out the
details, and the results of that assessment process.
We cannot find a definition or description of exceptional circumstances, and the document
references the "black country green belt study" to give results of the assessment.

Black Country Green Belt Study (2019), Landscape Sensitivity Council/ Borough Walsall
Metropolitan Borough

Area Bu31 defined as between high and moderate. High sensitivity means the landscape has strong
character and qualities with notable features which are highly sensitive to change as a result of
introducing built development. Moderate means the landscape has some distinctive characteristics
and valued qualities, with some sensitivity to change as a result of introducing built development.
Page 20)

This document further states: The larger areas of open land to the south east of Walsall are generally
considered to have moderate-high sensitivity. Despite their location within the urban conurbation,
these areas have some sense of rural character with a frequent occurrence of valued natural
habitats and significant recreational value. It must be reasonable to conclude that the area denoted
as Walsall BL31, is not included in the description of land that, if developed, would cause the least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt and to landscape character, Is suitable and available for
development.
Previous consultations on the Black Country Plan
(Page 13)
1.18 The consultation demonstrated that there was support for housing to be built in sustainable
locations and a desire to protect the environment of the Black Country. 1.19 A summary of the
issues and options responses and how they have been addressed in the Draft Plan are detailed
within this document, under the relevant policy themes.
These concerns have been noted before and indeed addressed in an entirely separate document.
Black Country Core Strategy Preferred Options (March 2008) Summary of Comments and How They
Have Been Addressed Core Spatial Policies CSP3 - CSP 5. The 'Brownfield First' sustainability principle
within the Core Strategy has a commitment to prioritising development on brownfield land over
greenfield land. Policy HOU1 states that 95% of all new housing developments will be on brownfield
land. Furthermore, previous consultation on the overall strategy showed broad support for this
approach. The release of green belt land to accommodate additional development in the Black
Country would be contrary to RSS policy and the overall strategy of achieving urban renaissance
via a sustainable settlement pattern.

In 2014 a planning application for 14 houses on this site was refused, the planning department
giving the following rationale:
"The development due to its location and layout would result in significant harm to the openness of
the Green Belt being visually prominent from the arboretum extension, a popular visitor attraction
in Walsall to which very special circumstances have not been justified to outweigh any harm to the
openness of the Green Belt"
The document quotes ten policies that would be contravened by this application; and that it would
contravene the black country core policy CSP2. The refusal did however mention that access to
building land might require reassessment in 2021.
It is a little astounding that 14 houses in 2014 was unconscionable, while 442 houses are currently
proposed.

We say that the concerns raised" result In significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt being
visually prominent from the arboretum extension, a popular visitor attraction in Walsall to which
very special circumstances have not been justified to outweigh any harm to the openness of the
Green Belt" remain completely valid, and ask for cogent reasons for any change.


PART TWO Biodiversity and habitat
The document makes reference to net gain to compensate for losses describing Policy ENV3 ­
Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain. (Page 213) while seeking that "All development
shall deliver a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity value when measured against baseline site
information". There is recognition of the challenges in para 10.49; it can be challenging to establish
new habitats. It is essential that the most important and irreplaceable habitats in the Black Country
are protected, and so mitigation rather than retention will not be appropriate in some circumstances.

We would suggest that mitigation will not be appropriate in this particular circumstance. The
following account of bird life prepared by Walsall Arboretum User Group members, which includes
birds of concern suggests that retention is by far the best strategy. [REDACTED-SENSITIVE INFORMATION] feed in these field nearly on a daily basis. In the autumn and winter months and leading up to spring large flocks [REDACTED- SENSITIVE INFORMATION] aIso use these fields on a daily basis. Flocks [REDACTED- SENSITIVE INFORMATION] inhabit the treeline and hedge between the Arboretum and the fields and the fruiting hedge between the two fields. This hedge acts as a useful food source in the autumn and a roosting sight
for winter [REDACTED-SENSITIVE INFORMATION] birds are RSPB Red Listed species (Birds of Conservation
Concern 4 (BoCC 4)) and are categorised as sharply declining and of major concern. Indeed, we have
noticed falling numbers of these species over the last 20 years as it is. Fields [REDACTED-SENSITIVE INFORMATION] represent some of
the avian biodiversity in this wider landscape, all linked in with the new housing developments
areas. All these species above are unlikely to survive the further encroachment of built-up areas.
We could offer similar accounts of wildflowers, butterflies and insects, but suggest the bird life
account may be proxy for all.
Policy ENVI -- Nature Conservation states
Development within the Black Country will safeguard nature conservation, inside and outside its
boundaries, by ensuring that: a) development will not be permitted where it would, alone or in
combination with other plans or projects, have an adverse impact on the integrity of an
internationally designated site, including Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), which are covered in
more detail in Policy ENV2; b) development is not permitted where it would harm nationally (Sites of
Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves) or regionally (Local Nature Reserves and
Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) designated nature conservation sites; c) locally
designated nature conservation sites (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation), important
habitats and geological features are protected from development proposals that could negatively
impact them; d) the movement of wildlife within the Black Country and its adjoining areas, through
both linear habitats (e.g. wildlife corridors) and the wider urban matrix (e.g. stepping-stone sites) is
not impeded by development; e) species that are legally protected, in decline, are rare within the
Black Country or that are covered by national, regional, or local Biodiversity Action Plans will be protected as far as possible when development occurs.

We contend that the planned development contravenes this policy.
We thus strongly object to this proposal, and seek that Walsall Council and the Planning Department stick to their previously laudable aims of brown field first, protect the Green Belt, seek only
"exceptional" changes to their announced and adopted policy of supporting wildlife corridors, and
heed our plea.
Walsall Arboretum User Group



References
Black Country Core Strategy Adopted February 2011, Draft Black Country Plan 2018-2039,
Black Country Green Belt Study (2019), Previous consultations on the Black Country Plan,
2014 a planning application for 14 houses

Object

Representation ID: 17382

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Johnson

Walsall Borough Summary - Draft Plan Consultation
I strongly object to the use of the proposed green belt sites for housing shown in the above summary. There is no justification for using these sites when there are so many brownfield sites within Walsall Borough that could be used and brought back into use. The only reason for doing this is that the sites are easier and cheaper for developers to develop for housing and whilst local authorities allow this to continue, they will always opt for greenfield over brownfield.
In particular, I strongly object to the following sites that are being proposed for housing development on greenfield sites -
Yorks Bridge, Pelsall WAH236
Coronation Road/Mob Lane WAH238 and WAH240
In developing these two sites, it will completely destroy the character of the area and the road infrastructure cannot cope with the current volume of traffic that travels through the village of Pelsall, so to build over 1300 more homes on these two sites will cause even more congestion and no regard has been made for the current residents of Pelsall who have had to endure ever increasing volumes of traffic over the last 5-10 years. With the current climate change emergency, we must preserve our green spaces as they are the green lungs of our local community - so to propose housing development in these areas is utterly ludicrous and wrong.
I also strongly object to the Calderfields, Aldridge Road proposal - WAH242 - as this will spoil the beauty of this area next to Walsall Arboretum, the only jewel in Walsall's crown!

Object

Representation ID: 17402

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Williams

Area Queslett Rd East / Aldridge Rd
Sutton Rd / Longwood Lane
Calderfields / Aldridge Rd

Building in these areas is unthinkable. We can't get to see a doctor and the schools could not cope. I live on Beacon Hill. The roads are always grid locked with many accidents in this area. Barr Beacon has always been a conservation area. We cannot cope with more traffic and more people. At times it can take half an hour to get into Walsall and half an hour to get in Aldridge. Sutton Road and Longwood Lane junction is very dangerous, extra houses mean more traffic. Aldridge road is always very busy with traffic travelling to Aldridge and Walsall.

Object

Representation ID: 17494

Received: 12/10/2021

Respondent: Occupier x

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 bats 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: 17561

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Charles Clifford

I've lived in my house [REDACTED-GDPR] the Green Belt land called Calderfields Farm. On this farm we have grazing sheep, lambs, cows and horses. It would be criminal to lose this Green Belt land to a housing develment. As this land is supporting wild life such as the protected wild life off [REDACTED-SENSITIVE INFORMATION]
The land is contaminated as once being a pig farm in the past.
If a housing estate were to be built we would have disruption to the roads around Walsall ie the Mellish Road, Aldridge Road, Longwood Lane, Sutton Road and the Broad Way. With road works to connect electricity, water and sewage and over load off cars to meet extra growing population

We have enough brown site land and unused office block in the town with all the facilities at hand with little to no expense to convert to flats for the population.

Object

Representation ID: 17631

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Paulette West

As a resident of Walsall, I was shocked and extremely disappointed to hear about the plans to build on green belt land around Walsall and in particular the plot adjacent to the Arboretum and surrounding areas.

The conditions of living under covid has thrown a spot light on the essential need, of the physical, mental and social wellbeing for everyone, for green spaces surrounding such an already built up area to be valued and maintained for the enjoyment of all. We are very regular visitors throughout the week to the Arboretum, along with many other people, and know that visitors drive distances to enjoy this space and its surrounding areas. Having spaces to view, share and enjoy together as a community, whether publicly or privately owned, is an incredibly precious and important right - otherwise why have green belt land in the first place?

Building the proposed new housing will have a detrimental effect on an already built up and overloaded system - such as roads (including air pollution), schools and health care. This additional pressure on our community is not needed, especially at this time. We need consolidation and support for our existing town and community.

What is also of deeep concern, is that in an age of multi-media, why is it that we only heard about the details of this Plan on the national news, two days before the deadline? More should have been done to ensure the details were more publicly known, therefore being more thorough and fair, even with an apparent extension of the deadline.

Now more than ever, more must be done and seen to be done, to develop brown field sites for affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 17633

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Joanne Egan

Section C Walsall - Table 31. Calderfields, Aldridge Road

I strongly object to this proposal building on our beautiful green belt. The beauty of where we live is the green belt land, residents are able to walk and exercise here in a safe manner.
Wildlife will be destroyed and more pollution will hit the area. There will be an increase in traffic which will be an absolute nightmare for all remaining residents, particularly on the way into town.
If you want to build houses do it in the town centre where this type of housing is urgently needed, it would also tidy up the town which is urgently needed. There are plenty of derelict spaces for you to do this build. Current residents do not want this, we live in a lovely, peaceful, nature observing area, we value our greenbelt and will fight this all of the way!

Object

Representation ID: 17665

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Sport England

WAH242 - Calderfields West, Aldridge Road, Walsall.

Part of the proposed allocation includes the driving range at the existing golf course. There is no reference in the proposed policy allocation table to mitigating the loss of this existing sports facility in line with para 99 of the NPPF. England Golf advise that the loss of a 20 bay driving range would cut the available range bays in the area by 50% and remove a valuable facility which sits at the start of the golf participation pathway. In the absence of robust evidence being agreed that the driving range is surplus to requirements for sport, Sport England are likely to object to the loss of this sports facility. The Council are currently preparing a Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facility Strategy that will include a section on golf facilities. Subject to the findings and recommendations of that assessment, it is likely that equitable mitigation in the form of a replacement driving range facility providing an equivalent number of bays in a suitable location will be required to meet para 99 of the NPPF. Alternatively, the allocation could be revised to remove the driving range from the proposed allocation.