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

Object

Representation ID: 17770

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Marcia Daly

l am objecting to the plan to build 600 homes on green belt land in Walsall by the arboretum.
We don't have much greenery and scenery in Walsall, and now there is a plan to deprive us and future generations of the precious little we do have.
I also have concerns about the wildlife loosing their habitat.

There will inevitably be increased traffic congestion in the area. If this plan is approved it has the potential to add a further 600 vehicles to the area assuming that each household had only one vehicle.

I have been a resident of Walsall for [x] years now, and over the years I have appreciated the peacefulness of the arboretum and the beautiful surrounding area. Therefore I strongly object to this proposal, which will spoil that peace and beauty.

Object

Representation ID: 17797

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marian Price

I further object to the strategic plans outlined for the land adjoining Walsall Arboretum. This land is a valuable and vital asset for the local community with devastating consequences as a green space corridor for wildlife.

The Walsall borough is a congested urban area whereby greenbelt land is at a premium and should be valued and protected at all costs. I am proposing that brownfield land should be considered in the first instance in these strategic plans.

Object

Representation ID: 17863

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Peggy Hollgsworth

Black Country Plan - Draft Plan Reg 18 Consultation

Using green belt land at Calderfields, Aldridge Rd is environmentally disastrous as it will obliterate the nature corridor in this area, which goes upto and beyond Barr Beacon. there are numerous brown site areas, derelict buildings and empty areas which are available once the green belt is decimated it can never be returned.
The roads and infrastructure of this area will not cope with such a large housing development:- roads, schools, sewerage, doctors, etc. Already stretched to the limit.

Object

Representation ID: 17868

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Penelope Allen

With regards to the future plans to build 500 plus houses on a field plot next to Calderfields Golf Club,
backing onto the Arboretem. I wish you to know I strongly object to this proposal. Firstly, this is a
greenbelt part of the area and the existing properties are of an older nature construction with character
and occupied with many professional people who choose to live in this area because of its beauty and
quiet surroundings. With a building of this nature these existing houses will be greatly devalued in price
due to the disturbance of traffic grossly multiplied along with pollution and noise. I walk in The
Arboretum every day of the week and walk past this site which now has sheep and cows and it is like
being in the country, so peaceful and good for the sole, that is why people go to walk in this area to get
away from houses and noise! This will be absolutely ruined. If the plan is to build affordable properties
then this will mean families with children, 2 cars per family, youths and noise. Maybe people from the
estate trying to climb over the fence at night and doing damage in the Arboretum., the pride of Walsall.
The consequences of such a build is unthinkable!
Also, please think about the extra traffic flow at the already blocked Mellish island in rush hour and the
extra traffic disturbing the residents of Buchanan Rd, already busy with Arboretum visitors and parked
cars. Another factor is that there is only one primary school in the area in the Butts, which is already
overflowing so would there also be plans to build a new school somewhere if so, where? We have one
doctor's surgery in the area in Lichfield St which I have been a patient for 15 years and still cannot get an
appointment and their books are full already and cannot take any more patients so where would all
these new residents go? Are you planning a new surgery for them?

This plan has to be the most abominable, untenable, ridiculous one yet by Walsall Council, which would
bring a much loved area to being just another housing estate with all the problems that such an
unwanted plan would bring to a very sort after area of this declining town.

Object

Representation ID: 17872

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Penelope Cockbill

WAH242 policy WSA7- Calderfields West, Land at Aldridge Road, Walsall.
It is wrong to destroy the Green Belt areas when they are so important to everyones
which is now recognised even more since the recent pandemic which we are expected to
experience more of in the future. We are fortunate to have these open spaces once built on they
are gone for ever. At a time when we are trying to improve the environment for humans and wildlife
it is being threatened by building on Green Belt land.
In particular the Calderfields West proposed development borders an area of the Arboretum which
will change and spoil the open space character and landscape of that part of the park. As you walk
along the Beacon Way in the Arboretum (above the play area) there are some gardens boarding the
boundary but then it opens up to countryside where there are often horses and sheep with their
Iambs. Again so good for everyones 'wellbeing'.

Object

Representation ID: 17944

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Young

Number of people: 2

We are writing regarding policy WSA7 - Calderfields West, Land at Aldridge Road, Walsall, under the burough of Walsall Council (REF WAH242).

We strongly object to the proposed building development site on this green belt land. we are extremely concerned with this proposal.

Firstly, the area in question frequently floods with heavy rain, with a lot of standing water visible on the fields. If the area were to be developed, we are very concerned that this water run off will affect our property and others around us. We are also concerned that this large development will greatly affect our local amenities, as well as putting more pressure on the already congested local roads. The Melish Road, which this proposed development would feed onto, is consistently gridlocked down at the roundabout at peak times, and more housing will only add to this traffic. We are also concerned that more cars will begin to park along the roads, including along our road, which is already very busy with parked cars.

Additionally, we are extremely disappointment with the proposal and the lack of consideration that this is green belt land. The area in question is one of significant beauty, as well as the home to many different types of wildlife. Considering there are many brownfield sites around Walsall that could be developed without this impact on biodiversity and natural beauty, it is particularly disappointing that a number of greenbelt developments, including this one, are being proposed.

Finally, and one of the main reasons for purchasing our house was the view over the back and the privacy it offers us, with nobody overlooking our garden. This would obviously not be the case with a building site and then large number of homes, significantly affecting the view, the peacefullness in the garden, and the value of our home.

As lifelong residents in Walsall, we hope that this proposal is abandoned for a more suitable one elsewhere. We realise more housing is required, but feel that other, less impactful sites should be utilised. If this proposal continues to the next phase however, we are prepared to join with our local community (who are already voicing strong objections) in fighting this all the way!

Object

Representation ID: 17954

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew West

I have been a Walsall resident for [X] years. Having lived in this area my comments are focused on the potential effect for us locally, however, I do not understand the need to build on Green Belt land when there are many Brown Field sites in this Borough. The Arboretum site is clearly a premium area, so can I ask are these potential properties going to be affordable homes? We are constantly told these are the homes the country needs!
This development would put a strain on local facilities and infastructure. Our son attends Aldridge school so we are fully aware of the traffic queues and polution that builds up on the Melish Road. We therefore think this is another reason to restrict new residential development in this area. This added pressure on the community is not what we need, especially at this time. Surely we need consolidation and support for our existing town and community.
As a family we have used the Arboretum's many facilities throughout this period, no more so than during the recent lockdowns when it has been a vital escape from the '4 walls'. This has brought into focus the importance of green spaces for both mental and physical health, together with the opportunity to socialise with others outside of our homes. We are particularly familiar with the stretch of land where the proposed housing development is planned, regularly walking or running along this tree lined area. At present this land is open fields where animals graze, sheep have there lambs and is one area you can feel you are surrounded by green space.
The Arboretum is truely Walsall's 'Jewel in the Crown' so why would the Council do anything to deminish this? Especially, given all the excellent improvements that have been made over the last few years. So much so, when we have visitors it is the first place we take them! In an urban area, in particular, the Green Belt must be preserved at all costs. We constantly hearing in the media about the need to preserve Bio-diversity and wildlife. This together with the dangers to our children of increased polution from vehicles, an issue I am particularly aware of as an asthematic and person who suffers from allergies. Indeed, what is was the point of the Green Belt in the first place?

Object

Representation ID: 17959

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Maurice Rooney

3. I would make the following observations to the proposed development of 442 houses at Calderfields. This would mean a large increase in population for the existing infrastructure to cope with.

Object

Representation ID: 18186

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Pratima Ghosh

Re- Ref WAH242 (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 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 of existing homes.
-Brownfield sites and former industrial sites should accommodate housing building projects without the need for the permanent destruction of Walsall's precious green belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 18204

Received: 15/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Kirby

Calderfields Aldridge Road 19ha 442 Homes
1.Development of this area has long been resisted as being in the valuable area of Green Belt between Walsall and Aldridge. As there is no physical barrier for further development to the East until the Rushall Canal, it will be difficult to set the limit of encroachment onto the Belt simply as the extent of this proposal.

2. It is not clear whether the existing 7 units on Calderfields Farm itself is included in the future development, either in terms of the site area or number of dwellings. In particular is it to be expected that the existing drive and access to the 7 units will remain as it is now, giving a serious restraint to the new development road layout, or will it be cut off by, and accessed onto, the new development road layout.

3. The "Initial Proposal" for 442 houses on a site area of 18.6 ha gives a low density of 24/ha (9.6/acre) However later it is stated that the estimated capacity of the site is 592 houses which on 18.6ha is a density of 31.8/ha (12.9/acre). Both these densities are comparable with those of the adjoining existing developments. However it is then stated that "MIxed Tenure housing is suitable with high densities of at least 35/ha (14.2/acre)with affordable housing provision". This gives a site capacity of 651 houses. Although 35/ha is not a particularly high density, however it is questionable whether the size and layout of such a number , particularly of affordable housing, could possibly produce a layout which is comparable in style or appearance to the adjoining developments.

4.There are a limited number of vehicular access points to the site, it fronting only Buchanan Road and Aldridge Road. Buchanan Road is already approx 490m long, well exceeding the normal limit of cul-de-sac length for Fire Service safety reasons and could not be extended unless it formed a through route to Aldridge Road. An access onto Aldridge Road will require extensive road works.

5.The site naturally falls south-eastward where there are no foul sewers available to serve it. Surface water can be drained into the Arboretum stream, but will exacerbate the existing drainage problems there.

Object

Representation ID: 18206

Received: 02/10/2021

Respondent: Phil Metcalf

REF WAH242 (policy WSA7) Calderfields, Aldridge Road

I am writing with reference to the above planning application to build over 500 new homes.
I live very close to this new development and am very concerned and give my reasons below.

1. Spoil the ‘open space ‘character and landscape which also contributes to the quality of the Arboretum, the towns Historic Flagship park.
2. Adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners.
3. Threaten wildlife, damage to natural environment.
4. Put pressure on infrastructure and generate increased traffic and increased pollution.
5. Cause loss of privacy and overlooking.
6. Loss of heritage.
7. Loss of natural land to absorb rainfall increasing risk of flooding.
8. Development is out of character with surrounding area.

Obviously I am very much opposed to this new development and ask you to take into consideration the views of the people it affects.

Object

Representation ID: 18207

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr William Hetherington

I wish to object to that part of the Black Country Plan which involves The Arboretum in St Matthews Ward. I am very unhappy about the plan to build on designated Green Belt land next to The Arboretum. This land has always much enhanced the Arboretum, providing a fine green oasis space in the middle of the town, as intended by our Victorian forebears. We now need these spaces more than ever. [redacted personal information] I am rarely able to travel far now, but alwaysenjoy visits to The Arboretum with family.
This appears to be a cheap short cut when Brown Field sites are available, A short cut which will be irreversible once made.
I also understand that this may involve building on flood plain. There has been very bad publicity over the past few years about the results of building on flood plains. This seems a very ill-thought-out move.
Finally, I understand that there is opposition to this plan from local politicians from all parties. This in itself speaks volumes,

Object

Representation ID: 18221

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Colin Wilkes

I am writing to object to the proposal to reclassify sections of the Green Belt for housing and in particular the land described as the Calderfields site, in Walsall. My reasons for objecting are as follows:

1. Negative impact upon Walsall Arboretum: Two of the four fields of the Calderfields site abut the Arboretum and are pasture land rising up to a mostly open horizon. This is an important feature adding to the visual amenity of the Arboretum. It provides a skyline of green belt for walkers in the Arboretum as they move between the formal parkland and the more open and natural aspect of the Extension country park. Covid-19 has demonstrated the often-overlooked importance of parkland and large open spaces to the mental and physical health of urban dwellers.

Taken together, the Arboretum, which attracts users from across the region, and the adjacent green belt are probably the most beautiful parts of the Borough contrasting with the urbanised, industrial and post-industrial remainder.
It is hard to think of a more important portion of the green belt immediately adjacent to the urban area that deserves greater protection.

The Development of this site for housing would be an unforgivable loss.

2. Central Government Policy: The Government’s levelling up agenda and review of the planning process appears to be moving decidedly away from any relaxation of green belt development, eg:

“We will make it faster and easier to build beautiful new homes without destroying the green belt” (Prime Minister’s Conservative Party Conference speech 6 October 2021).

The proposal for allocating the Calderfields and the nearby Sutton Rd/Longwood Lane sites for housing risks establishing a dangerous precedent.

3. Central Government Guidance: Whilst Government guidance requires local authorities to determine a local housing need figure (2.1.4 BC Urban Capacity Review, May 2021), this methodology predates the significant socio-economic changes triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. One such change is an increased desire for people to relocate from high-density urban areas to smaller towns outside of the conurbation. This would seem to run counter to: “A key aim of the Black Country Plan is to plan to meet all of this housing need within the Black Country” (2.1.6). Accordingly, I suggest a greater reliance on the established principle of co-operation with the Staffordshire local authorities to meet more housing need particularly for families. This would be in line with the established reliance on this principle for the provision of some employment sites. This would reduce the need to consider development of (what would be predominantly) family housing on green belt land immediately adjacent to the existing urban portion of Walsall town.

4. The Walsall Town Centre AAP: A greatly unmet demand for housing is for singles and couples, often on lower incomes and in need of lower cost housing for rent and purchase. The current Walsall town centre area action plan does not adequately consider provision for town centre housing (3.1.29 BCUCR, May 2021). Consideration of the opportunities for additional town centre housing is essential given the pre-existing over-provision for retail and now a further significant decline in the need for retail sites resulting from the post Covid-19 retail environment. Furthermore, town centre provision with its greater density and easy access to public transport and services is much more likely to meet the housing needs of younger people than would developer-led green field construction on the fringe of town, skewed (as it would be) to larger houses and lower density.

5. Brownfield sites: Regional pressure upon central Government for financial resources to support reclamation of brownfield sites as part of their levelling-up agenda should provide increased opportunities to bring forward more cost-effective development opportunities for housing without recourse to use of the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 18337

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Nicholas Rollins

I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of green belt land at Site Ref. WAH242/Policy WSA7/Strategic Allocation WSA.7 (St Matthews: Calderfields West, Land at Aldridge Road, Walsall), as part of the Black Country Plan.

I feel that this land contributes to the quality of the adjacent Arboretum, which directly overlooks the open fields and grazing animals.

I do acknowledge that the document at https://blackcountry.oc2.uk/document/55/9403 (in the section: St Matthews > Design Principles) states that in this area, there will be "new tree planting to ensure there is no significant adverse impact on the visual amenity and character of the Arboretum". However, part of the appeal of that section of the Arboretum is the sight lines across those open fields; I feel developing those open spaces and blocking them from view would be harmful to the Arboretum.

I am also concerned about the impact that development on this site would have on the local wildlife. The development site would sit in the middle of the Arboretum, Arboretum extension, Park Lime Pits and Hay Head Wood (the latter two of which are listed as Sites of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINCs) on https://go.walsall.gov.uk/sites_of_important_nature_conservation ).

It is also known that the Arboretum, the Aldridge Road and the proposed site have a history of flooding, which could potentially be exacerbated by concreting this land.

There is also the question of access to and from this site, during construction and afterwards. The local infrastructure will not cater to the extra population and vehicles. I hope that development here would not go ahead unless it is absolutely certain that the Design Principle listed in the above document ("a transport strategy that ensure that the transport impacts of the development are appropriately managed and mitigated") can be adhered to.

Object

Representation ID: 18449

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roden

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

Additional housing:
2) WAH242 - the Calderfield's Farm land adds to the general well being of Walsall residents enjoying the neighbouring Arboretum. Eroding this surrounding greenbelt land* should not be allowed to happen at the expense of so many Arboretum users' mental health.
Question: why is Walsall building more net homes than the other 3 larger regions? This doesn't seem fair - please advise.
* there are sufficient brownfield and town centre sites available within Walsall that should be used instead of precious Greenfield areas.

Object

Representation ID: 18485

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Witchalls

WAH242 and WAH233 etc
As a local resident and regular user of Walsall Arboretum and surrounding countryside and Calderfields Golf Club, I strongly object to this proposal to destroy the Green Belt land.
We should be protecting our precious green spaces for ourselves as users and also for the wealth of wildlife that exists within it

Object

Representation ID: 18510

Received: 29/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Roberta Owen

Site WAH242 Site assessment SA-0078-WAL.
I object to proposals to develop the Calderfields, Aldridge Road Site WAH242, SA-0078-WAL on the
following grounds:
1. Information and RAGs in the Site Assessment SA-0078-WAL The Site Assessment rated Green Belt Harm as Very High and High. It rated Landscape Sensitivity as
Moderately High, when you align this with the following Rags that should be regraded, Site SA-0078-
WAL should not be selected for development.
a) Topography - has anyone visited the site because there is no mention of the annual flooding of the
field in the west of the site.
b) Agricultural land has been assessed as Amber but as the site is over 20ha and the land is
purportedly Grade 3 (possibly Grade 3a?) shouldn't Natural England have been consulted? Potentially
this should be ragged Red and I would expect the assessment to err on the side of caution where it
does not have the required information.
c) Biodiversity and Geodiversity - this should be Red. As mentioned above there has been no
Ecological Report. We have evidence of a number of protected species including [redacted-Ecology] etc. These are the species we are
aware of. Currently there are unrestricted wildlife corridors from Calderfields Farm to: the Arboretum, the
Arboretum extension, Park Lime Pits and Hayhead Wood. The Arboretum Extension is a Site of importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and Stencils Farm, a
(SLINC) Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation. Park Lime Pits (to the North West of Stencils Farm) and Hayhead Wood are Local Nature Reserves and Hayhead Wood is an SSSI.
These areas provide an even greater biodiversity and form part of the UNESCO Global Geopark.
These sites surround the proposed development site, 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. There should be an ecology report and the RAG should be Red i.e.
Capacity significantly limited unless harm is caused to habitat of SINC / SLINC value, which cannot be
wholly mitigated.
d) Heritage Assets on site or significantly affecting boundaries. Part of the proposed development is
the old site of Caldewelle Hall and the surrounding fields include ridge and furrow that may denote old
boundaries. The Rag rating should not be green.
e) The impact on visual amenity of adjacent Land Users, including existing residents. This
should be a Red RAG by the BCP Methodology definition i.e. Capacity significantly limited unless harm
is caused to visual amenity / local character which cannot be wholly mitigated. Existing Residents in
Calderfields, on the Aldridge Road, Cameron Road and Buchanan Road are obviously negatively
impacted but perhaps more importantly the Users of Walsall Arboretum experience a negative impact
on visual amenity. This is the only view of open grazing land from the arboretum. This helps to create a
great sense of well being most significantly because of the peaceful 'space'. Walkers along the Beacon
Way will have altered views of the countryside and open space. Development will reduce the
perception of space and tranquility. A row of trees does not mitigate this. It should also be considered
that as the land rises to the Aldridge Road, the houses will be above the tree line anyway. The Rag
should be Red.
f) Flood Risk, drainage and ground water; The West field of the site floods each winter and the
ducks move in. The Aldridge Road to the North East Floods and the Arboretum to the south and on
lower ground, is well known to flood. There are already drainage issues in the South West corner of the
site. Hard surfacing this site will create further flood issues to the cost of Walsall Residents. I am not
sure if anyone has been to the site at the right time of year to RAG this accurately? Appendix H of the
Sustainability Appraisal Page 319 Rags Site SA0078 as Red for the risk of surface water flooding.
g) Employment Land; the methodology says a Red Rag = retain for employment, The site
Assessment states "Not employment land near to residential uses and out of character" and RAG it
red. It feels as if the words in the SA are right but maybe the definition of the red RAG in the
Methodology make the RAG inappropriate? I am not sure what is intended here.
h) Highways access and transportation and Impact on the wider road network- the Site
Assessment states "No housing numbers are provided" yet the site assessment also states 592
Housing Units. Potentially an additional 2000 car journeys a day negatively impacting travel and travel
time not to mention traffic related pollution. Has your assessor travelled these roads in rush hour?
Cameron Road etc. are already used as cut-throughs as people try to avoid the congestion on the
Aldridge Road, Mellish Road / Lichfield Road and down to the Arboretum Junction and that is just the
traffic heading into Walsall. You could try the traffic queues on Longwood Lane or into Aldridge. There
isn't an uncongested route in or out of Walsall in the mornings or evenings. These RAGS should be
red. Please ask the commuters.
"In United Kingdom Planning Law, a Sustainability Appraisal is an appraisal of the economic,
environmental and social effects of a plan from the outset of the preparation process to allow decisions
to be made that accord with sustainable development." There are negative impacts to 11 of the SA
Objectives and only 2 have positive impacts. The decision to proceed with this development will not
accord with sustainable development.
2. Flawed / poor methodology
a) Green Belt Harm and Landscape Sensitivity both ragged 'Red' i.e. Very High Harm to the Green Belt
in the North East, High Harm to the Green Belt West and Moderate High Landscape Sensitivity. The
Black Country Plan site assessment report: Assessment and Selection Methodology and Results
August 2021 Chapter 3, Page 16, Paragraph 5 states that "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." So this site should NOT have been selected for development
according to BCPs own methodology.
b) The above mentioned methodology Diagram 2, Page 10 then states that the Site Assessment
process should " Collate planning evidence e.g. ecological surveys, historic value, flood risk, transport
and seek further evidence / advice if required". There has been no Ecological Report. The historical
value of the medieval site has not been acknowledged and the flood risk has been underplayed.
Transport issues will result from such a development. All routes are congested. If you overlay access to
the site, the issues get worse. These roads cannot take the additional traffic. I contest that the report
has not collated the required evidence or sought further advice.
c) Page 11, 2.18 of the above methodology states "The NPPG states that a site should also be
supported by the local community". This development is NOT supported by the local community. A
local petition with over 1700 signatures attests to this fact (submitted separately).
The BCP should address the issue of climate change -traffic related air pollution - change in air quality.
Building on Green Belt Land further exasperates climate change. Building where travel is necessitated
further exasperates climate change.
d) It doesn't matter how long a period a consultation occurs over. It is only a consultation when the
consultees are aware of the process. Making information available 'on line' (a plethora of information)
and putting up a few posters in libraries is not a consultation. Local residents without the access and
resources available to BCP have tried very hard to fill the gaps left by the planning team. But it is
thought that many users of Walsall Arboretum are still totally unaware of BCP proposals. To be honest
the consultation process doesn't do justice to the work that has gone into developing the plan. No, I
don't agree with the plan but I can see that a number of people have worked over a long period of time
to get to this point. So to undertake a cursory consultation that plays lip service to the word
'consultation' is an insult to the people who have worked on it. Regards,

Object

Representation ID: 19049

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Diane Saunders

Objection to all building Development on the land at Calderfields West Site
WAH 242, Policy WA7, SA-0078-WAL

I am privileged to live on Calderfields Farm, however other than adversely affecting the amenities there are a number of other reasons why I am objecting to the development, that I believe should never have been considered at all for the plan:

• Permanent destruction of Green Belt land, how does this help the biodiversity when over 50% has already been destroyed in the Uk and there are plenty of brown fields site available.
• Methodology for site being considered - According to the Black Country Plan’s own methodology this site is not suitable for development.
Draft Black Country Plan Site Assessment Report: Assessment and Selection Methodology and Results. Aug 2021, Chapter 3, Page 16, Paragraph 5 states:
“Sites located in areas where development is likely to cause very high harm to remaining green belt and where landscape sensitivity to development is likely to be moderate-high or high have been considered not suitable for development”.
Appendix C-4, Page 137 Sites Assessed for Housing and Selected (Walsall), St. Matthews, Site Reference SA-0078-WAL has rated the site as follows:
Green Belt Harm: North East Very High Harm, West High Harm = Red
Landscape Sensitivity: Moderate High = Red
• Previous planning permission for building houses have all be denied examples of refusal-
 Application - 19/1598 – refused due to
The proposed detached garage & workshop would be an inappropriate addition to the Green Belt. The addition of the outbuilding, on an open area of un-developed land, incrementally erodes the openness of the Green Belt, which is inherently detrimental to its character. No ‘Very special circumstances’ have been demonstrated which would outweigh the harm arising from the development. Therefore the proposal is not in accordance with policy GB1 of Walsall’s Site Allocation Document 2019 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
 Application - 14/0927/FL refused see attached document
• Wildlife on site and being the wildlife corridor from between Arboretum , Lime Pits and Hayhead – If we have the light and noise pollution of over 400 houses we will lose the [REDACTED - SENSITIVE] etc not just from Calderfields but also the arboretum
• No ecological report – If a report had been completed there is no way this site would have been put forward, even the Wildlife Trust of Birmingham and Black Country also believe that there should be no development on this site. If a report had been completed you would clearly know that there are protected species (such as [REDACTED - SENSITIVE] ) on site as well as many other wildlife species that I have seen and some I haven’t but do hear regularly
• Spoiling the only “open space” character and landscape from the Walsall Arboretum, everyone I have spoken to all say this would spoil the arboretum, following the pandemic we all know the importance of being outside and taking advantage of the wide open spaces for our well being
• Pressure on infrastructure and the generation of traffic – how would Buchanan road, Aldridge Road cope with excess traffic – would there have to be another access through the golf course or even the arboretum?
• Drainage and flooding – the contour of the land already suffers from excess flooding – where would drainage go? Arboretum? Golf course ?
• What checks have been made regards any archaeological significance as Heritage Statement, Calderfields Farm or Cauldy Fields goes back to medieval times (1066- 1540) which suggests there is? https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MBL1782&resourceID=1025
• Calderfields Driving range have not given permission for the land to be developed!

I am not going into great detail regards all these points as I am aware that you will have a lot more detail from others that are objecting, although I also know that there are a lot of people of Walsall and users of the arboretum that are still unaware due to the lack of communication through this consultation period.

I have attached the following as clear evidence of some of the wildlife right in the centre of the proposed development site, all of which I have taken in the last 6 month
• [REDACTED - SENSITIVE]

I urge you to reconsider using this land for development not only for myself but for the wildlife, the other residents this will effect, the users of the arboretum and the other people of Walsall

Comment

Representation ID: 19347

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mervyn Westley

I am a resident of [REDACTED- GDPR] Walsall and write to express my concern at the proposal in the Black Country Plan to build 202 houses on the land designated Pheasy Park Farm which borders Sutton Road and the canal. I realise that we have to build homes and applaud the West Midlands Mayor in the partnership with Mowden to build on brown field sites and elements of the plan which promote this option.

I am lucky to live in a green and pleasant area of the Black Country but apppreciate some building on geen field sites may be necessary to provide homes. My objection to building on this land is not a case of not in my back yard, I have no objection in principle to building on farm land where the ecological damage is relatively low but this is not the case with Pheasy Park Farm.

This is one of the most ecologically diverse and sensitive habitats in the Black Country, unfarmed for at least 45 years to my personal knowledge and containing streams and ponds, hedgerows and mature trees in which wildlife thrives. Along with the canal which it adjoins this is a major corridor for many sensitive threatened species linking as it does the Arboretum Extension (a Conservation Area) Rushall Canal (SLINC), Calderfields Golf Course through to Hayhead Wood (LNR) the former Walsall Airfield land and Sutton Road Wood (LNR)
These areas as you can see are designated areas of wildlife conservation and I repeat The Pheasey Park Farm land is a vital link for wild Iife between all these designated areas and should itself be given conservation status. The proposal to build on Aldridge Road, pWalsall along with the Pheasey Park Farm proposal if built would
make the Arboretum and Calderfields Golf Course into an unconnected island preventing the movement of wildlife species on to neighbouring land. Please see the attached map.
I also refer you to Walsall Council Site Allocation Document item7 Environmental Networks Quote: The key issue for provision of environmental networks across the Borough has been identified as follows:- The Borough contains many environmental sites in isolation but consideration could be given to linking these to form more cohesive networks. Building on this land would break an existing environmental network and is therefore running counter to the councils Site Allocation Document.
In my garden in Sutton Road I have [REDACTED- SENSITIVE] up to thirty species of birds in a single day including two species [REDACTED-SENSITIVE]
accessing the stream behind my garden from the
canal. There is far more however than that which spills over into my garden. I watch [REDACTED- SENSITIVE] displaying and mating on this land with [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] feeding on the tree seeds. This is a special place!
The range of wildflowers present on Pheasey Park Farm is extensive and vital in providing food for small mammals and insects, particularly insect pollinators allowing them to pollinate all the fruit and seed bearing plants and trees helping to maintain a healthy environment.
This is not just a blank green space on a plan it is a vital wildlife habitat which is probably the last place in Walsall which should be built upon.
To establish this argument as factual rather than just the self interest of a resident, I refer you to the independent ecological survey conducted on this land and in the hands of Walsall Council which lists more than 100 bird species and many reptiles and mammals including threatened species which depend on this land to survive.
The air quality in Walsall is poor enough given the density of the housing, the many major roads and the two major motorways which meet in the town. This land together with the adjoining areas already mentioned are the lungs of Walsall. Building on the few green spaces which help ameliorate the problems of air pollution and the health problems it produces is itself a bad idea, but I reiterate this is a special piece of land and should be treated as such.
I respectfully request that during consideration of the public consultation into the Black Country Development Plan the details above appertaining to Pheasey Park Farm are seriously considered.

Object

Representation ID: 19728

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Georgina Mitchinson

I am very concerned about the proposed Calderfields housing development:
Not only would the habitat of thousands of animals be destroyed, the surrounding roads / junctions would not be able to take the additional traffic. It would be chaos.
This morning I walked through the Arboretum. The jewel of Walsall. Please do not spoil its outlook by building hundreds of homes on the greenbelt! My walk took me on to Lichfield Street, past the Town Hall and into the Old Square and then along Lower Hall Lane. All along this route I saw dozens of disused retail units and buildings falling into disrepair. I was told last week at a drop in session at the Town Hall, that there isn't enough brownfield sites in Walsall... How can this possibly be when the Town Centre is crying out for rejuvenation.

Object

Representation ID: 19731

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Witchalls

WAH 242 & WAH 233 etc
As a local resident and regular user of Walsall's premier park the wonderfull Arboretum, and also a regular walker in the surrounding countryside and canalside. I strongly object to the proposal to destroy this Green Belt land that we are so lucky, as urban fold to enjoy on our doorstep. I t is so vital to protect these green spaces for our mental and physical wellbeing, and how would we have survived the last eighteen months without them!
The design of the proposals WAH242 & WAH233 would cause a fragmentation in the precious Green Belt and would destroy the wildlife corridors which support so much diverse wildlife - many birds which are listed on the RSPB red list, and destroy the hedgerow network.
What happened to the 'Brownfield first' policy
I think I can guess

Object

Representation ID: 20048

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Rt Hon Valerie Vaz

The need in Walsall South is for family homes which are affordable and for social housing.
Currently there is provision for single household dwellings at Tameway Tower a large development in the Town Centre. However, there is no mention of social housing or working with Housing Associations.

The Draft Plan mentions that of the 13,344 new homes required 5,418 will be on land that is currently Green Belt. This means that 40% of the additional homes for Walsall will be built on the Green Belt in Walsall.

This is a huge incursion into the Walsall Green Belt and contravenes current planning law and guidelines.
The plan encourages the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas, encroachment of countryside abutting the main urban district of Walsall town centre – countryside
which has the biggest social and health benefit and is within walking and cycling distance, proposes inappropriate merging of Pheasey and Streetly, undermines the special setting and characteristics of Walsall Arboretum, and discourages recycling of derelict and other urban land in Walsall and the wider Black Country.

The proposals amount to a continuous erosion of the Green Belt if they become the adopted Policy. There would be no requirement by a developer to provide
evidence that there were very special circumstances for building on the Green Belt.


What the consultation document does not do is shed any light on the ownership of land that is being designated for housing allocation. Much of this is Green Belt land and currently designated agricultural. Designation of this land for housing development massively increases the value of this land at a stroke. The public and other stakeholders should be notified as part of this consultation process about who owns the land subject to such change of use and therefore land value, what connections the landowners may have with councillors, officers, and political parties (such as through donations or membership) in order that the public can draw their own conclusions about such connections if in existence.

It is well known for example that developers land bank Green Belt and agricultural land on the edge of existing built environments in the hope that and even expectation that local planning policy will be changed and their speculative land banking of Green Belt will reap huge dividends for them.

4 Policy

Unlike the other Boroughs’ table of sites which indicate which site is on Green Belt or brownfield, Walsall’s Table 31 Page 506 fails to identify which parcel of land is on Green Belt. This is misleading the public.

The current policy on the Green Belt from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states:
137 The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

138. Green Belt serves 5 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.

To include and redraw the Green Belt in the current draft plan contravenes the NPPF.

The narrative for Walsall does not set out why those tests should be overridden and once they are in the plan, there would therefore be no need to be any justification at the planning permission stage that there are very special circumstances to justify building on the Green Belt.

Moreover the sites that are suggested are either on or near Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation SLINC and/or agricultural land. The policy document is silent on more efficient use of this land for local agricultural and community purposes.

Conclusion

For all those reasons, and the fact that many constituents have contacted me with serious concerns and objections, I would submit that the land identified as follows should be removed from the draft plan:

• WAH242 Calderfields West (breaching s138 (a) (c) (d) as it adjoins Walsall Arboretum, and (e)

Object

Representation ID: 21301

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr ron ursell

I would like to put forward a very deep concern I have regarding the "Black Country Development Plan".
My concern regards the proposed new housing land which is carefully highlighted on the site plan which accompanies the "Draft Plan Consultaion" Walsall Borough Summary but is not mentioned in any way manner or form on the "Where will future growth be allocated! page in the brochure.
I refer to a small piece of land on the far right of the plan which looks like it is land that is adjacent to "Pacific Nurseries" and stretches to the bottom of Lindrosa Road.
The plan apparently would be to demolish two bungalows at the bottom of Lindrosa Road to pave way for an access road to the proposed development.
It is essential to take on on board the narrowness of Lindrosa Road which already serves an ever growing number of motor vehicles as families grow older and obtain vehicles of their own.
Making this an access road to even more traffic would be creating even bigger bottle necks as vans and construction vehicles block the road now.
The proposed land development would have an enormous detrimental effect on wild life and natural habitation in this part of the green belt, deer, and many more.
I am at a loss to know why this green belt should even be considered given the enormous amount of brown land availble in neighbouring Brownhills district.

I am unable to provide you with a map reference as there isn't one but I feel I have given you sufficient reference to know the piece of land I refer to.
I feel a great deal of consultation is needed before this piece of land is deceloped.

Object

Representation ID: 21448

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Flint

The Black Country as a whole is an industrial area and all the green belt land is precious to all communities. It was noticeable during the pandemic how people relied on these areas for their relaxation and exercise in the fresh air. Especially for people in high rise flats.

Before considering developing any green belt sites all available brown field sites should have been fully developed.

The extra amount of traffic caused by this proposed development will create major traffic problems in the area. The infastructure is currently seriously struggling to cope with the volume of traffic. Roads into Rushall, Walsall, and Aldridge are regularly blocked and at a standstill.

All of this extra housing will increase the pressure on the schools and health care services which are already at full capacity.
It will spoil the open space character and landscape which contributes to the quality of the Arboretum and draws people to the town to relax and enjoy the wild life and scenery which is beneficial to peoples mental health and feeling of wellbeing.

It is because of the above reasons that I object to the proposed development
Ref. WAH242 (policy WSA7)

Object

Representation ID: 21466

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Peter Kendrick

REF WAH242 Calderfields Farm

I would like to express my disgust and dismay that as a person resident [redacted sensitive information] where the above development is proposed with one of the potential accesses [redacted sensitive information] the first notification I had of this was from a third party. In my experience people adjacent to or within a close vicinity have always been made aware of potential developments. I have had people coming to me and asking if I have heard anything because [redacted sensitive information]
There have been no notices posted that I am aware of and it has been left to local residents to advise everyone in the area of the proposal.
I assume the lack of council action is down to the pandemic and everyone working from home!

In view of the lack of consultation I would explore you to ensure the deadline for making representations at present the 11th October 2021 is extended and would be grateful if you would confirm you will do this.

I would also ask that in view of all your comments in the past on the necessity of protecting our precious green belt you will confirm that as leader of the council you will oppose the development of the above site for all the reasons that I feel certain and am partly aware have been stressed in comment forms that have already been lodged and that you have no doubt read with interest.

I have asked two questions here Mr Bird neither of which I consider complicated and would request a straightforward answer to each preferably, yes and to when, and secondly, yes I will support opposition particularly to the above proposed development as well as other Greenbelt areas in the borough.

Object

Representation ID: 21470

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Joanne James

REF WAH242 CALDERFIELDS FARM

Dear Councillor Bird

The Black Country Plan plans to build 5500 homes on Walsall Green Belt.

In an Interview for Birmingham Mail you said 'I'm not convinced these houses are required. I have not seen the methodology the government has used'. I too would question the computer based algorithm to assess the housing needs which seems totally overinflated. Local councils rather than the government are surely better equipped to judge their housing targets.

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. With work from home becoming the normal, people have been re-evaluating their lives and as a consequence people have been moving away from towns in search of a better quality of life.

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.

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.

I have submitted my objections to BCP but the consultation process is flawed and discriminatory. Communication of this plan has been extremely poor and over complicated meaning people are either unaware of it, or don't know how to respond.

Councillor Nawaz said "If the council can send a council tax bill to every house in the borough, then they can let every house in the borough know about the proposals'

Councillor Nawaz says he will be voting against the proposal and will be asking all the Walsall Labour Councillors to vote against the development.

My question is 'how will you vote?'

Will you vote to save our Green Belt? Once it's gone it's gone forever!

I look forward to hearing from you.

Object

Representation ID: 21638

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Roberta Owen

Number of people: 1893

Save our Green Belt- Alongside Walsall Arboretum

Roberta Owen started this petition to https://Black Country Plan.dudley.gov.uk and 4 others

The Black Country Plan will build over 5000 homes on Walsall Green Belt. 592 of these homes will be alongside the Walsall Arboretum, the only area of the park with open field and animal grazing views. The development will destroy greenbelt, wildlife corridors and increase flooding. Protected species of [REDACTED- SENSITIVE] habitats will be destroyed. The [REDACTED- SENSITIVE] will be lost to the area as they try to navigate around the noise and light pollution.
We call on the planners to be creative and bold, to do the difficult and challenging and to build on brownfield sites. We know this is hard and expensive but please do not take the easy option and deprive Walsall residents of the Green Belt. If this isn't stopped we will look back in 10 years and the Green Belt will be gone, whilst the brownfield 'difficult' sites will still be on a register with the council.
For the physical and mental health of Walsall residents and for the wildlife STOP building on our Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 21844

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Frances Sayer

Site Ref: WAH 242/ SA-0078-WAL

I am writing to object to the proposal to build 592 houses on the site of Calderfields Farm in the Ward Of St Mathews Site Ref: SA-0078-WAL on the following grounds Black Country Planning have not followed its own Assessment & Selection Methodology in identifying the area of Calderfields Farm as potential suitable Green
belt for redevelopment.

1. Black Country Planning 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 Bats this development will cause the loss or fragmentation of their habitat.

o Red deer (Deer Act 1991)
o Tawny Owls and Barn Owls
o Woodpeckers
o Sky larks
o Nuthatches
o Buzzards
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.

A local wildlife site assessment is required to provide evidence to inform the BCP site assessment process. This has not been undertaken and therefore I object to the allocation of WAH 242 and therefore should be removed from the list of potential sites for development.

2. Black Country Planning has 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’.

Further objections =

 The impact on visual amenity from the Arboretum will be substantially impaired.
 There has not been an assessment of the site for flooding.
 Any houses built behind these barns would be looking directly into bedrooms and bathrooms of the houses impairing any privacy for residents of the barns
 The increased traffic resulting from 592 houses, potentially with 2 cars per household.
 The Brownfield register has not been updated since 2017. BCP have a duty to look for Brownfield sites to build on before looking to Greenbelt.
 I object that the BCP consultation has not been carried out in a fair and transparent way.

Object

Representation ID: 22024

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Horward Crabtree

Comments on the draft Black Country Plan

In response to the invitation to comment on the draft Plan as part of consultation I submit the following comments. For the reasons stated I oppose the proposal to develop land at Calderfields Farm to meet future Black Country housing needs.

My concerns relate to the Plan’s adverse impact on:
A. “Brownfield” land development in the Walsall area
B. Maintenance/improvement of local ecological/environmental quality
C. Road infrastructure in the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 22060

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Lisa and Philip Read

Number of people: 2

Calderfields Aldridge Road Ref WAH242(POLICY WSA7)
I am writing to you to object to the plans under the Black Country Plan as per subject. The above plans will have a devastating effect on the environment, services and transport structure in the immediate area.
There have been sightings of protected species of [redacted] in the proposed area adjacent to the Arboretum, this area of green belt is the only area of the park with open fields and animal grazing views.
It is also a wildlife corridor for all types of wild animals and birds including [redacted].
This number of homes proposed will add at leased 600 extra vehicles 1200 journeys a day plus service vehicles journeys, this will add to the congestion already experienced in the area. Traffic stretches through the estate as they try to bypass the congestion going on to the island at Mellish Road and Lichfield Road.
The roads adjacent to the proposed site particularly Buchanan road with storm water drainage and blockages to the foul sewers.