Policy WSA8 – Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey

Object

Representation ID: 12232

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Johnson

The development of this area provides no benefits to local residents and is disproportionately large compared to the size of Streetly as a whole. It will adversely affect the road infrastructure, particularly Aldridge Road and will have a detrimental impact on air quality, particularly for children attending Lindens Primary School and Streetly school who walk to school on Aldridge Road.

It will strip the local area of wildlife habitats, including green corridor to Sutton Park, and remove the connection of local people to the land and nature.

Object

Representation ID: 12243

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Julia Bannister

Loss of precious Green Belt which provides an essential habitat for diverse wildlife, countryside and woodland species and vegetation including established tress and hedgerows. Enables creatures to move between mix of habitats and flourish in mix of landscapes. Environmental impact - area experiences flash flooding. Pressure on local social infrastructure, transport and public services; traffic congestion, decreased air quality/reduction in clean air. High density development significant detrimental impact on character of area and quality of life; heritage and visual appeal. Strain on local road networks, increase in pollution and traffic; noise disturbance and nuisance;

Object

Representation ID: 12287

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Derek Warren

I don't want 960 homes built on the Aldridge Road / Queslett Road East site as it would cause too much congestion on our roads. Our road is already very busy at times due to the two schools nearby.

Object

Representation ID: 12328

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Maliha Zahoor

Site Reference WAH 234 (Columba Park- Aldridge Road) WAH 246 (Chester Road)

I object to building on our green belt and support switching the strategy to Brownfield first.

Object

Representation ID: 12393

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Ellie Lilly

To Whom it may concern
I am logging my objections to the above housing development plan for the proposed Walsall development situated on the site that sits between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road.
My objections to this include the following reasons;
1/ It contravenes the governments proposal to tackle climate change and the planting of trees. The area from my photographs show established trees, including oak and hawthorn, and established hedgerows, home to bird life, insects (vastly in decline). Both necessary for food and oxygen in the future
2/ Impact on landscape and ecological habitats-a barn owl and bats seen in the area. Observation of bird life has found: 11 RED LISTED BIRD SPECIES on the proposed footprint: [redacted]. Also noted in a half mile radius: Whinchat, spotted flycatcher, wood warbler, tree pipit (all red listed), whitethroat, wheatear, peregrine, kestrel, willow warbler, nuthatch, stock dove, sand martin, swallow, house martin, swift, raven, buzzard plus many more. Bats are also frequently spotted in the spot but roost origins are unknown. This brief list is not taking into account plants and insects. It would be very interesting to read your ecology report. This was missing pages from previous report on the site. As images October 2018 on Dairy Farm planned build.
3/ Reasons to prevent a build include; Noise and disturbance- During the build and subsequently more people in a peaceful park location. Add to residents moving in, visitors, their cars, noise..Noise and pollution from this extra housing, if limited to the proposed 900 houses, for example most houses will have at least one, two up to four cars each that equates to 900, 1800, 3600 cars? Plus visitors to those people. Picture those cars adding to the rush hour congestion into the city?
4/ This is a quite area of peaceful tranquility. Many people have used this area for walking, unwinding and relaxation for many years and more so during the recent pandemic. Working in mental health, I know how vital this is for well being, and forms part of the governments own five part plan for well being. It is imperative for well being and positive mental health that the greenbelt is preserved and maintained and for reasons of environmental factors that buildings are not erected on it.
5/ Reasons to prevent a build include; Air quality and odours-during the build and subsequently.
6/ 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.
7/ 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.
Proposals affecting the Green Belt
8/ Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
9/ ‘our’ green strip is an emergency landing/flight path & therefore can’t be built on. Correct me if I am wrong.
There is an underground overflow gravity water pipe running parallel with Doe Bank Lane. This comes off the reservoir on top of the Beacon and runs into Kingstanding for when (as it has done in the past) Kingstanding runs dry.
10/ Drain on local services and amenities; schools, shops, GP surgeries etc.
11/ This land forms a green corridor between Barr Beacon, Sutton Park for wild life to move between, a safe passage to move and rest safely.
12 The area as described on Wikipedia. "Described on Wikipedia
""The site is on green belt land and is of local importance for nature conservation, as defined by Walsall Borough Council, who have designated some 60 acres (25 ha) of it as a Local Nature Reserve."
How important Walsall Council? Important enough to build on every piece of land around it, destroying local nature reserve?"
13/ Reasons to prevent a build include; Effect on listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeology- this is a conservation area being greenbelt land and a place of natural beauty
14/ Once it is gone it is gone for good. Not only will these houses be built but the land allocated to each house for garden areas, potentially in the future will also be awarded planning permission for extensions. There will be 2/3 cars each to each house increasing air pollution, traffic congestion etc.
15/ It is likely will make future planning applications in the area and surrounding woodland more likely to be granted. Plus people will be removing their gardens for drive ways, an increased risk of flooding and lack of home to insects.
I think it is very sad, I have lived here most of my life, we need to preserve the countryside, particularly with global warming, planting more trees, as only this week in the media and the government saying they are committed to this. Once this site gets built on it opens the floodgate to continue building , every planning application be that little bit easier. We lost the woodlands at Netherhall, lost most of the land down Booths Farm, Foxhills and the Dairy Farm.. The scouts building on the Aldridge Road went up, I didn't even know that was happening.
Once these areas get built on, our greenbelt land will be gone forever. there never going to come a time when someone says, '" lets knock down all these houses and buildings and plant a forest, return to nature" is there?
When there are no insects there will be no food, when there are no trees there will be no oxygen to breathe.

Object

Representation ID: 12433

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Phillips

We need to protect our greenbelt and this area is farmland and surely farmland is the future of our country,
I am also concerned about the road access to this development with the proposed 960 homes. This will mean at least 1000 vehicles added to an already congested area.

Object

Representation ID: 12544

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gurminder Sehint

As a resident that [Redacted-GDPR] to the green space and have already witnessed a number of accidents on this stretch the increase in traffic will add to this in so many ways. With the climate change we need to hold onto our green spaces is really important to me and my family.

I am extremely concerned on the impact on the services of GP surgeries and associated linked services for peoples wellbeing etc.

There is a natural habitat for many species in the open fields and this will disappear we are/have lost so many and are not able to have their voices heard.

We also have to look at the quality of air which the open spaces provide is this a price that we are willing to pay?

I strongly object to have the 960 proposed for homes which has a major impact on the area.

Object

Representation ID: 12744

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Carroll

This email is to object to the proposed planning on the fields i between Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge road.

The consultation process has been pathetic- this gives the impression that you don’t want a proper consultation and can proceed with plans by citing ‘no real local objections’.
The way the consultation process has been conducted is a form of discrimination against locals who are not tech savvy.

The proposal to build nearly 1,000 houses on green belt land has many flaws. There will be no plans for support for local services - these people just want to make money , ruining the green belt in the process and then move on.

If this is a genuine consultation process where local voices will be listened to then I suggest you extend the consultation period and properly engage with local people. We all get a council tax letter so you can communicate with us when you want.

Object

Representation ID: 12776

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Angela Davies

I am emailing about the proposed planning of building up to nearly 1000 new homes on the land between Queslett road East-Doe bank lane-Aldridge road and Bridle lane.

As a resident of streetly I strongly object to these plans as it would absolutely devastate the area! This piece of land is literally the lungs of the area, it is home to an abundance of wild life and is also green belt land as you know, we simply can not allow this to happen!
I really fear for the future of the children of our area if this absurd plan is allowed to go ahead. I have lived in streetly nearly all my life, I grew up looking out on to those beautiful fields everyday, there are some really beautiful old trees on the land, it would be criminal to destroy this area and turn it into a concrete jungle.
I have noticed the increase in traffic in the area over the last 20 years, it’s unbelievable how much traffic is flowing through the area at all times of day and night, but rush hour is really getting bad, especially along the Aldridge road where we have lots of traffic coming from the already FULL schools in the vicinity. I just could not imagine the amount of traffic in the area with another 1000 houses plonked in the middle of it, some households have 2 or 3 cars these days , it would be absolutely horrendous with that amount of extra vehicles in the area, it just would not work!!
And the pollution would obviously increase drastically! Leading to more childhood asthma and other pollution causing illnesses, this is not fair for our children and we as parents and residents of the area are not prepared to let this happen!
There are many brown field sites that are much more suitable for development, we already have houses/flats being built on queslett road East/doe bank lane, I think most people are ok with this as it was an unused piece of land which used to be a petrol station.
There are so many factors that go against this plan such as infrastructure- schools are full to the brim! Doctors are overwhelmed and can just about deal with the amount of residents we already have - traffic pollution- noise pollution- light pollution- decimation of wild life and land destruction of natural beauty and green belt land. I could go on and on. This plan would absolutely devastate this community, us residents are willing and determined to oppose this all the way, we are extremely passionate about this and we have a large amount of people which is growing by the day , willing to fight this all the way, as once this land is built on it is gone forever.

Object

Representation ID: 12861

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Leavesley

Proposed housing developments on Pheasey/ Streetly
I was utterly shocked to hear of the development next to Doe Bank Lane. I didn't even know of the plans to develop our green belt until a neighbour informed me I think the way the council are behaving is very secretive and underhanded by not consulting residents. I was in support of Andy Street to develop our brownland sites first the purpose of green belt is to assist in safeguarding the countryside and prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another which is exactly what is going to happen with this development I am concerned about the amount of houses and the impact to infrastructure roads hospitals schools et cetera also why does Pheasey have to bear the brunt of new houses 22% of new houses are going to be built here it seems a very unfair proportion allocated to this area I am definitely against this new development

Object

Representation ID: 12888

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Margaret Mayock

MENTAL HEALTH
A walk along Doe Bank Lane is, and always has been, a tonic for improving mental health. Whether walking, dog walking, cycling, running, horse riding or just admiring the view, this provided a welcome break from the isolation for many many people during lockdown and has done for many years. There are hardly any places in Walsall with the views, the varieties of birds, trees and wild animals including [Redacted- sensitive information].
There are over 40 varieties of wold flowers growing alongside the hedgerows so there are probably many more in the fields. Mental health problems are increasing at an alarming rate and we must make sure that the countryside and places like this continue to provide peace.
ROADS
Aldridge Road, Brindle Lane and Doe Bank Lane are too narrow to cope with increasing amounts of traffic. The right turn from Doe Bank into Brindle Lane is an accident waiting to happen. The entrance from Aldridge Road into Brindle Lane is too narrow and difficult especially when one vehicle is turning in and one turning out. There is also a large number of vehicles using Brindle Lane. Many are large vehicles, vans and small trucks. At one point it is difficult to pass.
HEDGES, FIELDS AND TREES
In these times governments are having emergency talks about global warming, we should not be uprooting trees, hedges and fields when there are other places that can be used for housing such as town centres with shops abandoned and lying empty. These places should be considered first. World leaders realise we are running out of time, the planet must be protected and we are taking a backward step once more buildings, drives and roads are erected and concreted there will be unforeseen drainage problems.
EXTRA PEOPLE
School won’t cope. All schools are oversubscribed. The roads around the schools are cluttered with cars picking up and depositing children. Another accident waiting to happen. Extra people mean extra litter, more drug taking, fly tipping, dumping of garden refuse (from B’ham). Will there be more policing with the change: No! We don’t get policing now. Leave the countryside as it is. Once it’s gone it’s gone forever.
[PHEASEY SITE]
50 Years ago when I moved to Doe Bank Lane my next door neighbour said ‘you do know they are going to build over there’, pointing to the fields opposite. Well rumours have come and gone over the years. I hope this council will keep everything as it is in this area.
[Photo of children in Pheasey, 1947] Views of Pheasey from Stanhope Way before the building of houses and roads covered this area in the 1950s. The green fields were lost including a beautiful bluebell wood which stood in the area of Bonnington Way. On the plus side homes and schools were provided for people desperate for housing after the war. We do not need this devastation to happen again.

Object

Representation ID: 12905

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Derek Chapman

Number of people: 2

This email is being sent on behalf of myself and my husband, Mr and Mrs Chapman. We do not have access to the internet and therefore feel this process is discriminatory and underhanded.
We have lived in Great Barr for 48 years all of which have been on the [Redacted-GDPR] pheasey estate. We knew nothing about your plans to destroy our conservation area until l we received documents on from a fellow resident and not from Walsall council or any other source that had moral and civic duty to inform us.
We strongly object to your proposal as what you are doing will destroy this community. We bought our property in this area due to the rural setting, we want to see horses not houses and enjoy every aspect of the green landscape we have. We know that this proposal goes hand in hand with the proposals to build on Doe bank lane and to deny it, is an insult to the people of Great Barr.
We object to the building proposal as well and yet again you have excluded us from the process by making it impossible for us to object. Walsall council shame on you!!
We object strongly to the destruction on of our community and its surroundings. I am asking for you to reject this proposal as we do not want these changes

Object

Representation ID: 12954

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ben and Carole Nunn

i wish to object to the plan for sites WAH234 and WAH246. The sites are on Green Belt land and according to the National Policy Framework published 27-3-2012 and updated 20/7/21 specifically paragraphs 137 to 151 inclusive and paragraphs 140 and 147 in particular Green Belt land once built on can never be replaced.
The sites are existing productive arable farm land at the edge of the Walsall Council Area bordering a very busy A4041 dual carriageway.
The site is overlooked by Barr Beacon Nature Reserve with views across to Birmingham , building on this land would adversely affect the Nature Reserve.
All local schools, Linders, Manor, Blackwood and St Annes primary schools and the Streetly Academy are already over-subscribed.
There does not appear to be provision for additional schools or Doctors surgeries are similarly at full capacity.
The site to the north of pacific Nurseries is situated between a Railway line and a busy A452 road without adequate public transport links and one and a half miles from the closest school, doctors surgery and amenities. Building will inevitably add to further traffic congestion, pollution and further con of wildlife habitat

Object

Representation ID: 12969

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Catherine Bevan

I am a resident of Walsall. I would like to lodge my objections to the housing development plan for the proposed Walsall development situated on the site that sits between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road.

My objections include the following reasons:

1. The impact on local wildlife would be disastrous. I have been made aware that the area is known to house 11 RED LISTED BIRD SPECIES on the proposed footprint: [Redacted-Sensitive information]. [Redacted-Sensitive information] also frequent the area. Also noted in a half mile radius are: [Redacted-Sensitive information]plus many more. [Redacted-Sensitive information]are also frequently spotted in the spot but [Redacted-Sensitive information]origins are unknown and this needs to be investigated. Chris Packham, writing for The Guardian on 19th September 2018, stated that "according to the definitive State of Nature report, between 1970 and 2013 56% of UK species declined, and 15% are now threatened with extinction. Of the 218 countries assessed for “biodiversity intactness”, the UK is ranked 189. We are among the most nature-depleted countries in the world". A CPRE report in 2014 found that there are enough Brownfield sites in the UK to accommodate at least one million new homes. It is not defensible to eradicate areas with so much biodiversity when it is completely unnecessary. Once the sites are gone we will not get them back. We are all aware of global warming, the proposed development area also contributes to capturing carbon and reducing pollution. We need to be protecting our planet not contributing to further global warming.

2. 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.
Building on the proposed land would contribute hugely to urban sprawl and merging of areas. There would be no defining difference between Great Barr and Streetly. This would lead to a reduction in community spirit. Streetly has a wonderful sense of community, for example, local people take responsibility for picking up litter and work together to reduce crime in the area. I am sure that people in other areas affected do the same. A sprawling, not clearly defined area will diminish this entirely and will may have financial implications for the local council.

3. The proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact on the mental health and emotional well being of existing locals. Having access to green spaces is incredibly important for our physical and mental wellbeing. Living in areas with green spaces is linked to lower risk of various health conditions and is associated with better mental health. At a time when access to health services is limited and services are stretched, we need to promote the wellbeing of people and encourage people to enjoy nature, not build on it. Local people have enjoyed the views of the proposed development for literally hundreds of years (I believe the fields have remained as they are for nearly two hundred years), to destroy this and replace it with houses would be disastrous for local people. Not to mention the short term negative impact on wellbeing that the noise and dust that the building work would have.

4. The dust and pollution caused by the building work and then the significantly increased numbers of cars and delivery vehicles in the area would have a huge detrimental impact on local people's physical health. The local school, Lindens Primary School is situated next to the proposed development. Traffic along the Aldridge Road is already high in the area. Increased traffic would have a hugely negative impact on the health of the children who attend the school and who play in the playground next to the road.

5. Local services are stretched. As a resident of Streetly I cannot get a doctors appointment for myself or my children. The catchment areas of local schools are very tight and schools are over subscribed. I know other areas around the proposed development have the same problems. By building such a large number of homes very close to the local primary schools, children whose parents have lived in the local area but slightly further out will not be able to get their children into our local schools. What schools will the children go to? What will be the environmental cost of them driving to schools further away? I can only foresee a negative impact of the proposed development for residents of roads around local schools in terms of parking, air pollution, and keeping our children safe from road traffic accidents. How will so many people in the proposed development register at a local GP surgery, and if they do how will anyone ever get an appointment? Local supermarkets are busy most of the time at the moment and parking can be difficult. Where will people from the new development do their shopping?

6. The land proposed for development is currently used for farming. As the UK is an island and has now left the European Union and as we notice the effects and threats of shortages of various products in the UK it does not make sense to build on land that we use for agriculture. When the land has been built on we won't be able to turn it back into farmland.

7. Traffic in the area is high at the moment. Traffic along the Aldridge Road towards the Queslett Road is at a standstill at peak times. Traffic around New Oscott and Great Barr is also very heavy. The area cannot accommodate an extra 1,800 cars (if each household has two cars), with potentially an additional 1,800 people travelling at peak times to school and work. Local roads would be gridlocked, especially at peak times.

7. The proposed land for development is reportedly an emergency landing/flight path & therefore should not be built on.

8. There is an underground overflow gravity water pipe running parallel with Doe Bank Lane. This comes off the reservoir on top of the Beacon and runs into Kingstanding for when (as it has done in the past) Kingstanding runs dry. It is reported that it can be used to drain Beacon Reservoir in an emergency. What impact would the development have on this?

9. The land in question must absorb and hold a significant amount of water from rainfall at present. If the land is built on will local existing houses be at risk of flooding, especially as the area is very undulating.

10. Walsall, Great Barr and Sutton Coldfield are areas of natural beauty. We are proud and grateful to live in areas with green space. Our green areas should be a source of pride, we should be protecting them at all costs, not building on them.

On a personal note, I cannot think of anything more thoroughly depressing than to know that the areas under consideration will be built on. We need green spaces. Our children need to see green. We need to protect the environment. We need to invest in nature and preserve it. As a society we cannot do any more environmental damage than we have already. For the sake of next the generations of humans and wildlife to come after us we cannot build on more green spaces. We have to use existing Brownfield sites, even if that means more expense and more work. We can't just take the easy option of building on our green spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 12992

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Franks

Ref WAH234 COLUMBA PARK
Ref WAH246 CHESTER ROAD
1. We need to use brownfield first
2. Traffic. Roads are too small for extra traffic and no foot path
3. Lack of doctors, schools, total lack of infrastructure
4. The system is over loaded now extra housing in this area will cause chaos
5. Brownfield sites are the way forward, green field is for food near to the town
6. Major ques already occur on Aldridge Park at busy times

Object

Representation ID: 13069

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Westaway

I am writing to object about the proposed plans for houses to be built at Queslett Road East/ Aldridge Road. The number of proposed houses is far too many and would cause numerous problems to the local infrastructure.
In addition to this I believe the planning and consultation procedure to be flawed. As local residents, we have received absolutely no information about it. If I were to extend my house, direct neighbours would receive information through the post and yet it seems ok to suddenly build 900+ homes without informing the direct neighbours of the site. That seems underhand to me. I sincerely hope we get to keep out Green belt site and believe there are many other Brownbelt areas that could be regenerated instead of taking away a lovely 'green' area

Object

Representation ID: 13093

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Donnelly

Of all sites to choose wouldn't it be better to use brown fill sites and not green sites. We have little enough of green fields. Please don't build on it.

Re Queslett Road/ Aldridge Road
Re Coronation Road / Mob Lane

Object

Representation ID: 13168

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Grey

queslett rd east aldridge rd streetly
I object to the proposals to remove 42 hectares of land from the green belt in Streetly adjoining Queslettt Rd/ east Aldridge Rd and the building of 960 homes in the important green corridor between Streetly and pheasey park farm
theareas mentioned above already have large numbers of homes and businesses built there and with local schools doctors and dental surgeries fully subscribed any more housing built in this location would simply overwhelm existing services
large numbers of new homes would bring with it large numbers of cars and and other forms of motor transport to further congest already very busy local roads in Streetly pheasey park farm and the wider general great barr area
wildlife in the area targeted for despoilation would also suffer greatly
this is an appallingly bad proposal for an area totally unsuited to such an insensitive development plan and it should be rejected completely
I also object to any future prospective proposals to build any further housing in great Barr Pheasey Park Farm for the same reasons outlined above

Object

Representation ID: 13241

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ms and Mr Lucy and Paul Harrington and Cicerella

Number of people: 2

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

Object

Representation ID: 13319

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Peggy Browning

Queslett Road East/ Aldridge Road Doe Bank Lane
I strongly object the proposed plan of houses being built in Doe Bank Lane/ Queslett Rd and Aldridge rd
This land is Greenbelt land and therefore should be protected. Trees should be planted to enhance the area not houses.

Schools in the area are all full and so are the doctors, dentists. Hospitals locally are extremely busy so I don't see how you have the infrastructure to be able to go ahead with these plans.

Also 2 areas of housing or towns should not be joined together by building on greenbelt land.

The roads on the estate and main roads are very busy and an increase in cars would not be great for the safety of our roads and the environment i.e. air pollution from the fumes.
I feel that these plans have not been though through as this area cannot accommodate over 900 homes being built we have to protect our green belt land as it is important to all of us and there is a lot of brownfield sites that could be used

Object

Representation ID: 13332

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Ann Marie Gutteridge

Number of people: 2

grounds for objections:
1 loss of green belt - access to and use of green belt is important for the well being and mental health of the community; its value has been of particular importance during the pandemic and this need continues especially with the increase in ownership of dogs and more residents becoming aware of the benefits of walking
2 Impact on wildlife habitats and biodiversity
3 Potential for further erosion of the green belt: we are concerned that if development is permitted that it is inevitable that further development will follows
4 potential loss of agricultural land which may otherwise be used for the production of food/ animal feed for local consumption
5 increasing the volume of traffic leading to further congestion on already busy roads especially Queslett Road and the adjacent roads and consequential increase in pollution and poorer air quality
6 infrastructure significantly increased demand for schools doctors dentists and other local amenities – land would also be required for building of additional schools, surgeries, etc.
7 greater demand for public transport too
8 further consideration should be given to the use of brownfield sites and other options for example the development of former public houses the repurposing of vacant buildings – former commercial and retail premises in town centre locations which would assist with revitalising town centres

Object

Representation ID: 13347

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Dion Southam

I do not wish to see houses built on this green belt site as myself and neighbours like the views of the farms

Object

Representation ID: 13368

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Smith

Number of people: 2

Site reference WAH234 (Queslett Road East/Aldrige Road)
I am afraid i object to this plan due to the fact that it is building houses on what is designated Green Belt. This Green Belt is between two already existing housing estates and building on it would removed the Green Belt between the two estates forming one large housing estate with no Green Belt. I think where possible Brownfield sites should be used first before removing previous Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 13411

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anne Hawkins

1a) the traffic on Queslett Road East is already running at full capacity *( a waste of fuel and adding to CO2 emissions)
b) The traffic on Aldridge Road has been (during peak times) totally conjected from one end to the other
Add in Traffic from 960 properties and life would be unbearable for already existing property owners and workers going and coming to work.

2) Even at a quarter of that proportion it should not be considered (it is very evident that the planners of such a major build do not live in this area.

3) If we need anything in this area is a huge NHS Walk - in Centre (as we are deprived)

1. Completely unacceptable for this area to have such an enormous build (960 properties) imposed on existing residents (absolutely horrendous)
2. We already have a lack of sufficient school places, Doctors Surgeries and activities for the existing youth
3. It is also noted from your draft plan that you wish to propose the reutilisation of our Streetly Community library. In so doing you takeaway our only existing community hub which is out greatest social lifelline.
4. As I suggested on previous sheet a Walk in NHS centre for medical and minor surgical procedures would benefit are area in a far more positive way.

Object

Representation ID: 13455

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Hobley

[Part 1]
Site: Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road [WAH250, WSA8]
I object to the green belt being destroyed to meet a target when there are brownfield sites available. It appears target and profit are the main aim of this huge development.
- The aim to put on average 4000 people on that site will put further strain on our services. Our schools health services are over subscribed. Where will the people living at this site access services?
- Wildlife – there are birds of prey and trees that will be destroyed during this development. Green belt protects wildlife and that will not be considered during a major build.
- Overpopulated areas increase crime, stress. Thre pandemic has shown us what overpopulated areas go through with regards to impact on health
- Pollution – as you are aware Aldridge Road has significant traffic delays. This would increase further with more car owners being brought to the area. Air quality will suffer which will impact existing residents, new residents and children that use the schools. Drains in Streetly often overflow during heavy rain, current system would not cope with demand.
[Part 2]
Impact on health and quality of life for existing residents. We are aware developers will not focus on preserving the quality of life for the current community. The development will impact on the existing residents emotionally, physically and socially.
Emotionally – to watch your community change dramatically without being able to influence it causes distress and loss. To watch land being dug up and nature being destroyed never to return leaves people feelings powerless and low. During the pandemic our green spaces got us through, now they are being taken to meet a target. Living next to green space cannot be viewed as a luxury but a necessity for good health.
Physically – our schools are oversubscribed. Putting a few thousand more children into the area will cause children to have to travel out of area to go to school. This increases traffic further and impacts on local connections and relationships.
Our GPs and hospital cannot meet demand. It is difficult to get an appointment with a GP. Increasing demand by thousands of people will impact on our elderly residents’ health.
Social Impact – It is well document overpopulated areas increase crime, anti-social behaviour and impact on the quality of life due to need not being met by local services. Existing residents have worked hard to reach the quality of life they currently have. The fear of losing community connections is apparent, as this is common in busy built-up estates. We are aware developers will dismiss these needs as irrelevant but this development will change our community forever by people (the developers) that will leave once the damage is done.

Object

Representation ID: 13462

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Christine Hammond

In relation to the proposed development of Great Barr conservation area please find below the reasons why I object to the development


1. The impact on local wildlife would be disastrous. I have been made aware that the area is known to house 11 RED LISTED BIRD SPECIES on the proposed footprint: [Redacted-sensitive information]. [Redacted-sensitive information] also frequent the area. Also noted in a half mile radius are: [Redacted-sensitive information] plus many more. [Redacted-sensitive information]are also frequently spotted in the spot but [Redacted-sensitive information] origins are unknown and this needs to be investigated. Chris Packham, writing for The Guardian on 19th September 2018, stated that "according to the definitive State of Nature report, between 1970 and 2013 56% of UK species declined, and 15% are now threatened with extinction. Of the 218 countries assessed for “biodiversity intactness”, the UK is ranked 189. We are among the most nature-depleted countries in the world". A CPRE report in 2014 found that there are enough Brownfield sites in the UK to accommodate at least one million new homes. It is not defensible to eradicate areas with so much biodiversity when it is completely unnecessary. Once the sites are gone we will not get them back. We are all aware of global warming, the proposed development area also contributes to capturing carbon and reducing pollution. We need to be protecting our planet not contributing to further global warming. This alone should prevent the conservation area being changed without full investigation as that would breach national and local policies.

2. 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.
Building on the proposed land would contribute hugely to urban sprawl and merging of areas. There would be no defining difference between Great Barr and Streetly. This would lead to a reduction in community spirit. Streetly has a wonderful sense of community, for example, local people take responsibility for picking up litter and work together to reduce crime in the area. I am sure that people in other areas affected do the same. A sprawling, not clearly defined area will diminish this entirely and will may have financial implications for the local council.

3. The proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact on the mental health and emotional well being of existing locals. Having access to green spaces is incredibly important for our physical and mental wellbeing. Living in areas with green spaces is linked to lower risk of various health conditions and is associated with better mental health. At a time when access to health services is limited and services are stretched, we need to promote the wellbeing of people and encourage people to enjoy nature, not build on it. Local people have enjoyed the views of the proposed development for literally hundreds of years (I believe the fields have remained as they are for nearly two hundred years), to destroy this and replace it with houses would be disastrous for local people. Not to mention the short term negative impact on wellbeing that the noise and dust that the building work would have.

4. The dust and pollution caused by the building work and then the significantly increased numbers of cars and delivery vehicles in the area would have a huge detrimental impact on local people's physical health. The local school, Lindens Primary School is situated next to the proposed development. Traffic along the Aldridge Road is already high in the area. Increased traffic would have a hugely negative impact on the health of the children who attend the school and who play in the playground next to the road. The impact of traffic infrastructure and associated services has not been considered. this forms part of the national policy referred to in the consultation and should be investigated with a full report.

5. Local services are stretched. As a resident of Streetly people struggle to get a doctors appointment. The catchment areas of local schools are very tight and schools are over subscribed. I know other areas around the proposed development have the same problems. By building such a large number of homes very close to the local primary schools, children whose parents have lived in the local area but slightly further out will not be able to get their children into our local schools. What schools will the children go to? What will be the environmental cost of them driving to schools further away? I can only foresee a negative impact of the proposed development for residents of roads around local schools in terms of parking, air pollution, and keeping our children safe from road traffic accidents. How will so many people in the proposed development register at a local GP surgery, and if they do how will anyone ever get an appointment? Local supermarkets are busy most of the time at the moment and parking can be difficult. Where will people from the new development do their shopping?

6. The land proposed for development is currently used for farming. As the UK is an island and has now left the European Union and as we notice the effects and threats of shortages of various products in the UK it does not make sense to build on land that we use for agriculture. When the land has been built on we won't be able to turn it back into farmland. Has the consultation considered the national policy and guidance on farmland the need for such services.

7. Traffic in the area is high at the moment. Traffic along the Aldridge Road towards the Queslett Road is at a standstill at peak times. Traffic around New Oscott and Great Barr is also very heavy. The area cannot accommodate an extra 1,800 cars (if each household has two cars), with potentially an additional 1,800 people travelling at peak times to school and work. Local roads would be gridlocked, especially at peak times.

7. The proposed land for development is reportedly an emergency landing/flight path & therefore should not be built on.

8. There is an underground overflow gravity water pipe running parallel with Doe Bank Lane. This comes off the reservoir on top of the Beacon and runs into Kingstanding for when (as it has done in the past) Kingstanding runs dry. It is reported that it can be used to drain Beacon Reservoir in an emergency. What impact would the development have on this?

9. The land in question must absorb and hold a significant amount of water from rainfall at present. If the land is built on will local existing houses be at risk of flooding, especially as the area is very undulating.

10. Walsall, Great Barr and Sutton Coldfield are areas of natural beauty. We are proud and grateful to live in areas with green space. Our green areas should be a source of pride, we should be protecting them at all costs, not building on them.

Para 6.16 specifically confirms further investigation is required to determine the local interest and historically significance. The plans make no further reference to any such investigation and therefore by their very nature are contradictory in form. How is it possible to recommend further investigation yet ignore that recommendation in the conclusion section.

The council may be acting ultra vires. They have not ensured that all local residents, both in their boundary and in neighbouring council boundaries have been consulted in regards to the consultation. Therefore the consultation plan is specifically flawed and is not legal. This is subject to a current FOI request which is outstanding.
The council may also be acting ultra vires in ignoring it's own policy, referred to at paragraph 2.23 which

The council is also seeking to consult on the amendment of a conservation area at the same time as a consultation on the black country development plan to build on the same land. The council is therefore potentially ignoring their own policies and national guidance in favour of amending the conservation area with the sole intention to then press ahead with development. I consider this to be an influential factor and any such need for development of land should not be taken into consideration when considering the consultation to amend a conservation area. This is also subject to an FOI which is outstanding and the council should consider if they have not chosen to amend the conservation area for many years why now? To make profit from building houses to meet an objective that can be met elsewhere without affecting a conservation area.

Object

Representation ID: 13490

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Caroline Harris

WAH 234 WAH246 Queslett Road East/ Aldridge Road. Streetly.
There is not enough green belt land as it is in the inner city areas.
Traffic infrastructure wouldn't be able to cope as the Aldridge Road is already extremely busy.
Not enough School places in the area at present for children already living in Streetly.
There are a lot of brownfield sites in Walsall and Surrounding Areas and Just because developers don't want to spend money clearing the area is not a good enough reason to destroy green belt.
Increase in traffic pollution would have a detremental effect on air quality in the Area.

Object

Representation ID: 13502

Received: 27/08/2021

Respondent: Marie Bent

Dear sir / madam
I am writing to lodge my objections to the development proposals for Doe Bank lane / Aldridge Road .

There is a network of established hedgerow containing mature trees including oak across this designated build site. Just this week I have heard reports of sightings of six red listed bird species on this land: [Redacted-sensitive information]. I also believe [Redacted-sensitive information] is a protected species.
This is not to mention the insects and animal population that thrives here.
If this damning proposal goes through the you should hang your heads in shame. Great Barr is choked with traffic from Asda to the Scott Arms . Adding to this will make it unsafe for our children to breathe in even more polluted air.
A sizeable petition is circulating now and growing quickly.
To remove the lungs of Great Barr would be , in my opinion, the worst move this planning group have ever made. There are plenty of Brownfield sites available in the area ripe for development. Please don’t suffocate the residents.

Object

Representation ID: 13554

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Ball

WAH234 GB1 Land between Queslett
Road, Doe Bank Lane and
Aldridge Road, Pheasey
Neighbourhood
Strategic Allocation Policy WSA8

The selected land is currently "Green Belt" and has been for many years. Allowing development of housing on such scale or any at all will cause major infrastructure issues along with impacts of biodiversity to an area that has been left as natural land and utilised for farming use ever since the suburban areas that surround the land was originally constructed in the 50's.

To remove the green belt status would have impacts to the local environment and its purpose to separate differing wards preventing urban sprawl infact it will have the opposite effect of causing urban sprawl.

Currently the area cannot cope with the traffic on Queslett Road East which has speeding and accident problems the introduction of a large housing estate and the extra volume of vehicles would only compound this not to mention the environmental impact to the area of all the extra vehicles and associated emissions.

Local residents on Aldridge Road, Doe Bank Lane and Queslett Road have invested in properties which part of their buying decisions were based on the "green belt" area and locality as countryside space that sits on the edge of a large city and other urban areas.

Allowing such a large development to be under construction to be delivered by 2039 will cause massive intrusion to resident's daily lives with all the disruptive issues such a construction site would bring in terms of noise and heavy goods traffic

Object

Representation ID: 13592

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Sandra Ball

SA-0017-WAL
Queslett Road East , Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey Neighbourhood
Strategic Allocation Policy WSA8

The selected land is currently Green Belt and should remain protected for the benefit if the exisitng community.
Allowing development of housing on such scale would have an impact on exisitng schools and doctors within the community as Columbia Park porposals details no such provision.
I am concred that the Sustainabuilty report does not realistcly reflect the visual impact this will have on residents as this impacts on all three sides of the development allowing potential urban sprawl.

There is a flood issue on the land which would be increased from development and I am concered that the increase in housing on the land will increas pollution from increased use of vehicles as there is no provison in the plan for EV charging or renewable energy maybe the plan should only allow electric vehicles to be used by the new householders. But this would also then increase the property selling value and the development would not generate affordable housing for the wider community.