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

Object

Representation ID: 16708

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Derek Grinter

QUESLETT ROAD EAST / ALDRIDGE ROAD - STREETLY, WALSALL AREA COUNCIL
We are very distressed to receive a copy of your Black Country Plan we were of the opinion that the green belt would remain in this area and any housing and employment sites would only be build on brownfield sites.
1) We object to the loss of the green belt. We have always considered ourselves lucky to live in this area on the edge of the countryside surrounded by fields which give us a feeling of well being. It will also have an impact on the wildlife by destroying their habitat.
2) as you are considering building 960 houses on this land, there will be at least another 2000 people and possibly 1500 more cars. This will impact greatly on the area increasing traffic flow and pollution, as we already have traffic jams on a daily basis. The increase in people in the area will also have an impact on the shops, doctors surgeries and dentists etc. as we struggle to get appointments as it is.
3) There will be an increase in the numbers of children which will overcrowd schools in the area and also more cars on the road for the school run.
4) Another farm will be concreted over so there will be less home grown food and more food being imported.

Object

Representation ID: 16724

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Denise Green

Reference: WAH234 (Columbia - Aldridge Road)
WAH246 (Chester Road)

We object to the building of homes on the greenfield site referenced above due to the following concerns
- once build on there is no going back to greenbelt !
- There are plenty of brownfield sites that could be prioritised to protect an area of natural beauty, habitats for wild birds and animals. Reuse old sites/ properties before new build.
- The designated area is a prime agricultural spot for growing food post Brexit.
- Removing growing land will reduce the absorption of CO2 for global warming and new build will increase CO2. How does this fit in with the "Black Country Green Policy"?
-There is not the infrastructure of roads, schools, clinics etc to support this number of houses.
- there will be increased traffic, noise & dust pollution during the prolonged building process

Object

Representation ID: 16731

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Denise and Raffaele Sanzari

NEW HOUSING SITE ON GREEN BELT LAND PROPOSED FOR ALLOCATIONS IN THE BLACK COUNTRY PLAN ON QUESLETT ROAD EAST, ALDRIDGE ROAD STREETLY

I moved house and relocation from [area] to Steetly in [year] and have lived on the "Poet's wood" estate off Aldridge Road for 8 years now.
Not knowing Birmingham at all we specifically chose to live in Streetly as it is less built up than most of Birmingham and had the lovely green area on Aldridge Road across from our estate which gave me a little reminder of the green areas [up arrow] was used to.
Our local Conservative Councillor (Suky Samra) whom assured us on our doorstep that they would right to ensure this GREENBELT land was not built on and instead other BROWTN BELT land used. We are absolutely horrified to how hear that 960 houses are proposed to be built on this land. Why not use brown belt land? Birmingham has very little green areas already? Aldridge Road East is already congested with traffic and this amount of housing would ruin this green outlook. I TOTALLY OPPOSE THIS PLAN and am saddened that Streetly will become yet another built up congested Birmingham suburb and force us to move house!
Please listen to the residents views.

Object

Representation ID: 16734

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Denise Swan

Site Reference WAH 234

The Aldridge Road alongside this area of land is already very congested with long queues at rush hours and school times.
A development of 960 homes would crease a big increase in Traffic here
960 homes is far too many in this spot
It was rumoured that a retirement/ care home would be built on this site, freeing up family homes elsewhere while this would increase the need for local doctors maybe, it would at least not cause such large amounts of traffic at peak times, nor demand for school places
Finally, what sort of negative impact would this development have on the Barr Beacon Nature Reserve nearby.

Object

Representation ID: 16811

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jennifer Nicholson

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 planning 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 [species redacted] and bats seen in the area. Observation of bird life has found: 11 RED LISTED BIRD SPECIES on the proposed footprint: [species redacted].
Including [species redacted] seen in local residents gardens, images are on Save our Barr Beacon Green
Space site. [species redacted] spotted in the area. Also noted in a half mile radius: [species redacted] 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 tranquillity. 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, 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
me 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: 16853

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: George Kelly

My objection relates to proposed housing Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road and Sutton Road / Longwood
This area is already highly populated with daily road congestion, limited school places, lack of amenities such as youth clubs, community centres and medical facilities - services are already oversubscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 16876

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Jane & David Walton

Number of people: 2

We understand that the area suggested for housing development is green belt land. According to definition, green belt is ‘an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted.’ This would seem to contradict the proposal for Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road. This is the largest housing development proposed. Not only is it the largest but considerably more houses are being proposed for its smaller hectare area compared to the other proposed sites.
Green areas have been available near urban areas to improve both mental and physical health, particularly important in these times of climate change caused by air pollution.
The proposal of 900+ houses will have a significant negative impact on the area with more pollution as 900 houses could possibly mean 1800 cars which would cause road traffic to increase. This could increase the incidence of road traffic accidents and would certainly compromise wildlife.
Residents [Redacted-GDPR] have paid a premium of approximately £30,000 for their homes because of the open aspect. We have recently purchased a house [Redacted-GDPR], especially because of its open outlook. Although we questioned about proposed developments we were told there were no plans. We feel particularly let down now as no estate agents seemed to be aware of the proposal when we were looking. We would question now whether homeowners [Redacted-GDPR] would receive compensation if the building plans go ahead? We would not have purchased the property had we known of these proposals.
Another important consideration is that there does not seem to be the infrastructure to support such a large development.
There is already planning permission for additional house building on the dairy farm and Fox Hills equestrian site so a development which is less than a kilometre from them should be withdrawn from any future strategy.
Once the green belt is used it’s gone forever. Only brown field sites should be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 16924

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Danielle Kazee

I am commenting on the document as a whole and my concern over the lack of consulting. As a young family moving to the neighbouring Pheasey estate [Redacted-GDPR]one of the main factors of us buying a house here, were the fact it felt like countryside but in the town. A place for our children to escape to every weekend the fact we have horses and lots of wild animals living so close and getting to see nature up close. I am concerned about the strain the new development will have on schools, roads, medical centres and hospitals. The new development looks bigger than the existing neighbouring estates. We have not received any correspondence regarding this development and only know about it from a local Facebook group trying to bring awareness as you the local council have failed to advise us of our rights and the potential new build. We as residents would be massively effected by road works, building noise, equipment and trucks during the development which will take many months. The document is long and complicated to understand and not easy to follow for local residents to understand and object to and I cant help but feel this is done on purpose to locals give up so you get the go ahead. As a young person I am finding the whole procedure very stressful and hard to comprehend so I do feel for others who may also be struggling to read and digest this. Why do we need so many new houses? Why destroy so much green belt space? It is damaging to our environment and the younger genera on who will have to live with the damage you cause. Where will our children run free in fresh air? How will we be able to enjoy local green belt spaces? What will happen to the wildlife?

Comment

Representation ID: 16935

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Francis

Specific comment relates to Aldridge Road in Streetly.

Already conjected urban areas suffer from issues of infrastructure and schools.

How approx 1000 dwellings are able to intigate needs to be provided

Aldridge Road is a small single track road served by Queslett road which is most day conjested and bucks up around the Asda/Old Horns island. Additional residents will simply add to a disagreeable situation. Other road are Doe Bank Rd which is a residential road. How does road especially deal with increase

Equally 1000 house will provide children of school age Reasonable guide say 250. How and where does existing non extendable schools both primary and secondary cope/deal

Barr Beacon/Streetly are normally oversubscribed and Lindens is a single class/year school.

My objection is based on infrastructure plans.

Object

Representation ID: 17049

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr James Brown

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

Our objections to this are numerous:
- We bought our house in large part due to the views accross the fields and the fact that these were protected from development by thier Green Belt status. Development of this area would cause:
- drop in house price/loss of re-sale potential
- years of noise, dust, vibrations and HGV traffic during construction
- loss of views/increased noise and traffic post-constuction.

- Doe Bank Lane is already used as a (high-speed) cut through during rush hour to avoid long tailbacks to join Queslett Road from either Aldridge Road or Beacon Road. Addition of another 1,000+ cars will likely cause gridlock throughout the area.

- Green Belt status is not something that it should be possible to remove when it no longer fits your needs. The designation was desinged to prevent 'urban sprawl'; therefore removing the protected status purely to allow continuation of urban development is counterintuative

- Vast areas of the Black Country are ocupied by derelict brownfield sites. These are being overlooked and abandoned due to the additional costs associated with bringing them to development.

- The site is a haven for wildlife. I've seen various birds of prey (buzzard, kestrel, red kit, sparrow hawk), bats, foxes, hedghogs......

Object

Representation ID: 17051

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Godfrey Barker

Policy WSA8 Site Reference WAH234
Policy WSA9 Site reference WAH246
I am fundamentally and totally opposed to the use of Greenbelt land to build on and wish to register my objection to any plans to do so.

There were reasons that Greenbelt Land was designated as such originally and those reasons have not dissapeared.

I and my family do not want to live in an ever increasing urban sprawl and so, whilst appreciating that there is a need for new housing, believe that the use of Brownfield sites should be an absolute priority, rather than the easier and likely cheaper option of building on greenfield sites, particularly as I understand that substantial Government funding has been obtained to facilities this.
Once greenbelt has been built on, it will disappear forever. The Black Country Plan should include protection for all the existing Greenbelt and promote the ongoing regeneration of existing urban sites.

Object

Representation ID: 17058

Received: 27/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Round

I strongly oppose the proposal contained within the Black Country Plan to take our precious greenbelt land in order to build thousands of new homes. I am disgusted by the proposal to build thousands of new homes between Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road, Sandhills and Sutton Road - all important green spaces near where I live. Most notably, the proposal for the building of almost 1000 homes between Queslett Road East and Aldridge Road. This will mean increased pressures on local amenities and schools, more pollution due to increased road useage, and will mean our area becomes subsumed into a greater Birmingham. It will result in irreversible habitat loss, for many important animals and insects (as well as, in regards to Doe Bank Lane, rare birds.) With climate change, greenbelt lands are more important than ever: they are carbon sinks and help prevent flooding in our local areas. They are bio-diverse, allowing important species to thrive. Once our greenbelt is gone, there is no hope of ever regaining it - a sickening realisation. Our local green spaces give us a sense of wellbeing, and contribute to positive mental and physical health. They allow us a tiny sense of being in nature, separating us from the urban developments (and the littering, anti-social behaviour and crime) of the city centre and Walsall town centre. I fear that without these green spaces, we will experience higher incidences of these issues. Andy Street has assured us that there are plenty of brownfield sites, which are prefect for re-development, which would be ideal for the developments you propose - not our last remaining piece of nature that protects us from the imposing developments sprawling from the town centre. Almost all of our council leaders have vehemently opposed building on our greenbelt land, which speaks volumes, and these voices of wisdom should be listened to.
There are online petitions that number over 6000 - people who strongly oppose the developments cited in the Black Country Plan, as I do. Will you just ignore these thousands of people, like me, who will fight to protect our greenbelt land?
I would urge you to reconsider, in light of strong opposition, and seek instead to build on brownfield sites. For the sake of the climate, the wildlife, the residents who these green spaces mean so much to, please do not take them away!

Object

Representation ID: 17162

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Land and horse owners

Building 1162 Houses in the area will put all of the local Road infrastructure under so much pressure and the local lanes are old and narrow and will not take the volume of traffic. The crime rate will increase by 90% there are already Drugs fly tipping, prostitution, there. There are not enough schools now in the area and no spaces at the doctors or dentists.
There are so many rare and endangered animals & birds that will lose there home too.

Object

Representation ID: 17195

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emma Sinclair

Queslett Road East/ Alridge Road, Streetly.
As a family we have concerns around the current infrastructure being unable to support the new builds. Local roads, schools, GP surgeries are already under strain.
The reason behind wanting to spoil such a beautiful landscape will be financial at it’s heart and will have a devasting impact to established local communities and wildlife in the area

Object

Representation ID: 17203

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Miriam Nazir

Great Barr (Area D- Sub Area D2 East/ surrounding countryside. Section 5&6)

We will not be happy if the fields around us are no longer part of the green belt because it is likely that houses will be built on the land, therefore taking away our countryside.
Many of our neighbours feel that they have chosen to live here due to the view of the fields and the countryside are being important for wildlife, birds, trees, insects and farming.
We are not happy about the boundaries being changed and any of the green belt land being taken for buildings purposes and buildings. We have not been clearly informed about the draft CAAMP however not happy about any of the fields being removed from greenbelt

It must stay because of the benefits which it is providing to hundreds of people in terms helping to maintain a healthy life.

The proposed amendments to the boundary I believe is undervaluing the beautiful area we also believe that the Great Barr conservation Area is an extra layer of protection for the Greenbelt, comments in the CAAMPS papers

Object

Representation ID: 17207

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Carol Bampfield

I fully disagree with the proposal for the D2 North/ D1 East.
The Greenbelt area is a place for people to enjoy. During Covid many people needed such green places and these were invaluble for people's mental health and well being.
There is also a cost to the vast amount of wildlife in these area's - especially D2 East.
I regularly see [REDACTED-SENSITIVE INFORMATION]. These will be driven into urban areas.
The area cannot afford to become congested. There are adequate bus routes, schools, surgeries all within distance. So many people have always opposed any plans for development in this area and those comments/reasons from years done by are still applicable.
There will be an environmental price to pay also The air is clean and the land is employment land from the farm work which goes on. It is the only area in Great Barr that is still green- Please do not take this away from us.

Object

Representation ID: 17209

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Sandra Bradie

The Council should use brownfield sites for development (housing and industrial) Queslett Rd, Aldridge Rd, Sutton Road and Chapel Lane are all at a standstill due to increased traffic. The houses set to be built on this land will generate twice the number of cars as houses. We don't want to see more traffic on the Beacon.
People rely on green spaces for relaxation & physical & mental well being are important especially in the pandemic.
The council should look at these plans again & come up with a better solution.

Great Barr
The conservation area should be left as it is with its unique character not sold off to greedy land developers
I don't think it needs to be changed once this areas is covered in houses no one will be able to replace the lovely views it affords

Object

Representation ID: 17223

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Beacon Heights Resident Association

Number of people: 70

I represent Beacon Heights Residents Association and we strongly object to any changes
Local problems and other issues should be addressed first. Changing it and building over 900 houses in Doe Bank Lane will further add to traffic problems in Pinfold Lane and Old Hall Lane. The lanes are already being used as a 'rat run' to Junction 7 on the motorway a Great Barr. The lanes were built for farm traffic not motorway traffic. There are no pavements in the lanes except by Barr Beacon school. If you walk from your home to get out of the lanes you are at great risk of injury. The infrastructure of the lanes must be addressed before any more traffic is introduced to the lanes for our safety. They are lanes not motorways. The lanes are "rat runs" put us residents in danger every time we leave our homes.

Leave it as it is
We strongly object

Object

Representation ID: 17236

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Wendy Crees

The area you are proposed to change boundays etc, will cause pollution, risk to wildlife - animals Flooding Dangerous Traffic, which there is alreasy prombl, schools are already over subscribed, congestion, strain on services, spoiling natural beauty environment damaging. Keep going there will be no green Belt left, to enjoy.

These areas should be left as they are for people, wildlife to enjoy as they are now, without changing the boundary. Use the areas every weekend

Ridiculous to change the boundary the people who have put this forward have no idea of the area, or the amount of people that use these areas, all about the money, no thought peeplol, wildlife, animal pollution, keep going there will be no green Belt left for people to enjoy

Comment

Representation ID: 17240

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Carol Thomas

D2 East
Quite a substantial area of land would be released from the boundary which could potentially be bought up by developers, ie the proposed building of 960 homes on 42 hectares of land.
Green belt land was granted as no-build and provides a break in the populated areas surrounding it. Therefore, although I agree there is a need for more houses, surely the wellbeing and health of those already living nearby should be considered!
Also there is the wildlife populations to be considered as well as the history of the site, the ancient woodlands etc.

Leave well alone

Object

Representation ID: 17256

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Rycroft

We particularly object to the inclusion of Policy WSA8 - Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey being put forward for housing development and list here issues identified which suggest that its selection is based on flawed assessments.
This parcel of land is identified as SA- 0017-WAL in the Site Assessment within the evidence base.
It’s Green Belt Harm Rating is assessed as being Very High and its Landscape Sensitivity Harm Rating is assessed as being Moderate-High for residential development. On the basis of the methodology above, this site should have been filtered out and REJECTED for development.
This seriously undermines the filtering process meant to protect our most worthy and valuable Green Belt Land.

Issues with Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment relating to Site ref SA 0017- Wal (AKA WSA8)
The Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (Area ref BL29) which examined an area of 336ha, (including this specific site) states that the area scores Moderate-High in landscape harm terms for the whole parcel. However, the specific site assessment for SA 0017- WAL states that “the parcel in isolation would score less”. We disagree with the way this conclusion has been drawn and believe the original assessment should stand.
We believe that:-
• The lower harm rating is arrived at through INFERENCE on the basis that the site’s individual features are not specifically mentioned in the BL29 assessment. We feel this to be unsafe.
• We argue that Doe Bank Lane itself should be mentioned/considered as having HIGHER SENSITIVITY to DEVELOPMENT.
• The LSA fails to mention/consider a number of relevant features of this particular site in terms of Recreational Character and the Intervisibility with Adjacent Landscapes or Promoted View Points

In fact the Lane offers much safer and more inclusive access to the countryside (and the health and well being benefits of such) than many countryside pathways, Public rights of way or promoted viewpoints in the area and as such provides an invaluable asset especially to local families and disabled people.

Doe Bank Lane forms the South West border of the plot SA 0017 WAL. The lane, in its elevated position and open to one side, offers widespread countryside views which are enjoyed by many walkers, cyclists and horse riders for whom ”enjoyment of the landscape is important to the experience”.
The pathway is separated from the road by a wide grass verge which serves to
• foster a feeling of greater safety and reduced exposure to passing traffic for families with young children
• serves to dramatically lessen the impact of cross slopes associated with “dropped kerbs” (Traversing such slopes, which often slope severely downwards into the road, creates enormous problems for wheelchair users and those using mobility aids).
This is the only accessible pedestrian route to Doe Bank Park and Wood (SLINC) for those with mobility difficulties
The importance of the lane as a public recreational asset was overwhelmingly obvious during the “lock down” periods of the Covid Crisis.

In terms of Inter-visibility, the LSA only lists Barr Beacon memorial as having a high sensitivity score (being a marked viewpoint, with panoramic views), but, we would argue, that as this feature is not easily accessible to Wheelchair users, Doe Bank Lane actually serves to provide the accessible alternative to support this function, as it offers views to Sutton Park, into north Warwickshire and beyond. (Photo 1)

While altering of the views afforded to Public Rights of Way users is considered in the Sustainability Appraisal Impact Matrix for SA Objective 2 - Landscape (pH33) )which states that site SA - 0017- WAL has little or no effect on this objective; the effect on those unable to use PRoWs due to infirmity and disability is notably absent.
We believe that in concentrating on the views of this sub section of countryside users represents a failure to consider the views of walkers using Doe Bank Lane as a safer, more inclusive and accessible alternative to many Public Rights of Way in the area as discussed above.

We believe that the ecological evidence contained within the Birmingham and Black Country Local Sites Assessment which is used to inform the Sustainability Appraisal of this site is also flawed.
The site assessment correctly identifies that the site provides an ecological corridor between the statutory and non statutory protected sites of Sutton Park SSI, Barr Beacon LNR, Pinfold Quarry LNR and Doe Bank Wood SLINC. We would go further and assert that this site actually provides a vital wildlife corridor that serves to connect with Sandwell Valley and Cannock Chase.
The report only looks at just over half the land area (45ha) of the larger site bordered by Aldridge Road, Bridle Lane, Queslett Road East and Doe Bank Lane (82ha). If the whole of the parcel of land were to be assessed the results may well lead to a higher score against the ecological criteria used.
We also feel that the assessment should be carried out at various times of the year in order to gauge its true importance as a network for migratory bird and insect species stopping of to re-fuel and for those species of birds, invertebrates, insects, mammals that move into the area on a temporary basis depending on seasonal variations and agricultural practices.

We also would like to point out that this site was incorrectly identified as being opposite One Hundred Acre School, Aldridge. This will have caused much confusion and may have served to prevent information, vital to the accuracy of this report, from being gathered from local residents. For example, red list bird species being observed.

We also question the sufficiency of the site assessment for SA-0017-WAL relating to Flood Risk, Drainage and Ground Water, which assesses the harm rating as Very Low.
We believe that far more information as to the nature of drainage in the area is required.
Problems occur during rain storms at the junction of Hundred Acre Rd and Aldridge Rd where the man-hole cover frequently gets blown out because the drains cannot cope with the amount of water entering the system. Indeed, in the recent past, a sink hole developed in the road and a significant cavity was found under the road surface. The sand sub soil had just been washed away.

Object

Representation ID: 17261

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Little

We particularly object to the inclusion of Policy WSA8 - Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey being put forward for housing development and list here issues identified which suggest that its selection is based on flawed assessments.
This parcel of land is identified as SA- 0017-WAL in the Site Assessment within the evidence base.
It’s Green Belt Harm Rating is assessed as being Very High and its Landscape Sensitivity Harm Rating is assessed as being Moderate-High for residential development. On the basis of the methodology above, this site should have been filtered out and REJECTED for development.
This seriously undermines the filtering process meant to protect our most worthy and valuable Green Belt Land.

Issues with Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment relating to Site ref SA 0017- Wal (AKA WSA8)
The Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (Area ref BL29) which examined an area of 336ha, (including this specific site) states that the area scores Moderate-High in landscape harm terms for the whole parcel. However, the specific site assessment for SA 0017- WAL states that “the parcel in isolation would score less”. We disagree with the way this conclusion has been drawn and believe the original assessment should stand.
We believe that:-
• The lower harm rating is arrived at through INFERENCE on the basis that the site’s individual features are not specifically mentioned in the BL29 assessment. We feel this to be unsafe.
• We argue that Doe Bank Lane itself should be mentioned/considered as having HIGHER SENSITIVITY to DEVELOPMENT.
• The LSA fails to mention/consider a number of relevant features of this particular site in terms of Recreational Character and the Intervisibility with Adjacent Landscapes or Promoted View Points

In fact the Lane offers much safer and more inclusive access to the countryside (and the health and well being benefits of such) than many countryside pathways, Public rights of way or promoted viewpoints in the area and as such provides an invaluable asset especially to local families and disabled people.

Doe Bank Lane forms the South West border of the plot SA 0017 WAL. The lane, in its elevated position and open to one side, offers widespread countryside views which are enjoyed by many walkers, cyclists and horse riders for whom ”enjoyment of the landscape is important to the experience”.
The pathway is separated from the road by a wide grass verge which serves to
• foster a feeling of greater safety and reduced exposure to passing traffic for families with young children
• serves to dramatically lessen the impact of cross slopes associated with “dropped kerbs” (Traversing such slopes, which often slope severely downwards into the road, creates enormous problems for wheelchair users and those using mobility aids).
This is the only accessible pedestrian route to Doe Bank Park and Wood (SLINC) for those with mobility difficulties
The importance of the lane as a public recreational asset was overwhelmingly obvious during the “lock down” periods of the Covid Crisis.

In terms of Inter-visibility, the LSA only lists Barr Beacon memorial as having a high sensitivity score (being a marked viewpoint, with panoramic views), but, we would argue, that as this feature is not easily accessible to Wheelchair users, Doe Bank Lane actually serves to provide the accessible alternative to support this function, as it offers views to Sutton Park, into north Warwickshire and beyond. (Photo 1)

While altering of the views afforded to Public Rights of Way users is considered in the Sustainability Appraisal Impact Matrix for SA Objective 2 - Landscape (pH33) )which states that site SA - 0017- WAL has little or no effect on this objective; the effect on those unable to use PRoWs due to infirmity and disability is notably absent.
We believe that in concentrating on the views of this sub section of countryside users represents a failure to consider the views of walkers using Doe Bank Lane as a safer, more inclusive and accessible alternative to many Public Rights of Way in the area as discussed above.

We believe that the ecological evidence contained within the Birmingham and Black Country Local Sites Assessment which is used to inform the Sustainability Appraisal of this site is also flawed.
The site assessment correctly identifies that the site provides an ecological corridor between the statutory and non statutory protected sites of Sutton Park SSI, Barr Beacon LNR, Pinfold Quarry LNR and Doe Bank Wood SLINC. We would go further and assert that this site actually provides a vital wildlife corridor that serves to connect with Sandwell Valley and Cannock Chase.
The report only looks at just over half the land area (45ha) of the larger site bordered by Aldridge Road, Bridle Lane, Queslett Road East and Doe Bank Lane (82ha). If the whole of the parcel of land were to be assessed the results may well lead to a higher score against the ecological criteria used.
We also feel that the assessment should be carried out at various times of the year in order to gauge its true importance as a network for migratory bird and insect species stopping of to re-fuel and for those species of birds, invertebrates, insects, mammals that move into the area on a temporary basis depending on seasonal variations and agricultural practices.

We also would like to point out that this site was incorrectly identified as being opposite One Hundred Acre School, Aldridge. This will have caused much confusion and may have served to prevent information, vital to the accuracy of this report, from being gathered from local residents. For example, red list bird species being observed.

We also question the sufficiency of the site assessment for SA-0017-WAL relating to Flood Risk, Drainage and Ground Water, which assesses the harm rating as Very Low.
We believe that far more information as to the nature of drainage in the area is required.
Problems occur during rain storms at the junction of Hundred Acre Rd and Aldridge Rd where the man-hole cover frequently gets blown out because the drains cannot cope with the amount of water entering the system. Indeed, in the recent past, a sink hole developed in the road and a significant cavity was found under the road surface. The sand sub soil had just been washed away.

Object

Representation ID: 17276

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Jon Hulme

draft-bcp-jdi-version-v2-2907 / Table 30 - Walsall growth targets for housing and employment lan allocations : WAH234 GB1 Land between Queslett road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey - neighbourhood strategic allocation policy WSA8.

Objection on the following grounds -

Local services and ammenities are already stretched beyond the point of functioning. Schools are over-subscribed, doctor services are over-stretched, and green spaces are already extremely crowded. Adding additional home without any allowance for additional infrastructure would make this area unliveable. It is virtually impossible to get a GP appointment as it is, and children are unable to get into schools for which they are firmly in the catchment area. This problem would be increased in orders of magnitude if more houses are built.

Additional traffic - the queslett road is already gridlocked through rush hour. Additional commuting traffic would serve to make this road virtually impassible and have a tremendously detremental impact on the physical and mental health of residents.

Nature conservation - There would be irreperable damage and loss of habitat for most of the local wildlife. Additionally, the impact on the mental health of all residents from local estates would be catastrophic if this much green space is replaced by densely packed housing. This includes the loss of several species of trees and hedges, not to mention the wildlife which resides within these. This would impact not only on the mental, but also the physical health of residents.

Noise and air pollution - touching on the above points, the additional traffic, and therefore pollution, caused by such a development would be massively detrimental to the local population. Additionally, the sight, sound and smell of a major development during the building process would be extremely disruptive to the local population (including affecting two primary and at least one major secondary school).

In short, the development as proposed would rip the heart out of the area. Where families are able to currently make use of green spaces (a major factor for why many move here to start families), you would propose to remove these in favour of cramming more housing into a space which is already bursting at the seems. The provision and infrastructure simply does not exist for such a capacity, being already only barely fit for purpose. With no additonal schools, GPs, shopping amenities or any other support (community services, etc...) you would quite literally be condeming the existing populous. This area simply cannot absorb this many houses.

Object

Representation ID: 17321

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Bansi Padhiar

We object to this proposal - the Black Country Plan. Our major concerns with regards to the development of approx 960 homes in the Streetly area, are that the provision of medical centres and schools will not be adequate. The current resources would not be able to support these numbers. Also building on green belt sites will have a detrimental impact on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 17371

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Hayden

My main objection to the build Streetly /Queslett and Sutton Road /Pheasey parkfarm is that the infrastructure does not accommodate existing residents needs and demands, schools have high class numbers and are full to capacity, doctors you have to wait for an appointment and hospitals often send patients out of the area for treatment

There is not enough schools doctors dentist and hospitals to accommodate any new residents from any new housing estate, furthermore the last housing estate to be built Netherhall, existing residents were promised that more amenities would be made available and these have not materialised. The recently built great Barr group practice was the amalgamation of local surgeries and certainly does not house any more doctors. I strongly object to any more pressure being put on the existing amenities .

Increased residents will impact on the environment, not only due to green belt land being used, but also on the increased pollution caused by increased traffic and I am sure safety in the area will become an issue with the uplift in traffic on busy junctions, Junction 7 M6 is already one on the busiest junctions and I can only see a detrimental impact on the area of more traffic flowing through it

Object

Representation ID: 17399

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Piyush Parmar

This is an attached document alongside my objection to the Black Country Plan.
The points below are specifically related to the proposal titled “Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road” Safety/Traffic

Currently the Aldridge Road is busy during the morning and evenings, and therefore coming out of any of the streets (like Field Maple Road) and wanting to drive towards Aldridge poses some real risks, due to limited visibility of oncoming vehicles. With so many vehicles, it is very difficult to see traffic approaching and cars have had to both pull out without being able to see oncoming traffic as well as cars having to break hard to avoid an accident. The proposed development would increase these risks with the additional traffic.

With Linden’s Primary school on Aldridge Road and parents pick-up and drop off already causing traffic, there is a serious risk to the safety of children from that school.

There are no plans to expand any roads, and therefore any further development would only increase traffic in the area. An example of this is that it can take 15 minutes to travel between Bridle Lane and Queslett Road East (0.7 miles) during commuter times.

Noise/health

There will be direct impact to the level of noise during and after the building of the proposed development. Alongside the increased traffic this would have a detrimental effect on my family’s health long-term. Dust from the fields has over the last 2 years reached our property and deposited when windows and doors are open, therefore there is a real likelihood that development dust would do the same.

Transport

Apart from 2 buses that service the area, there is very limited public transport.

Buses take over 45 minutes to get to Birmingham city centre which is 7.4 miles away (less than
10MPH). Currently the closest train station is 3.8 miles away and there are no tram stops nearby. There are also no cycle lanes to enable safe use of cycles.
Further plans for extension of transport links within the West Midlands do not cover Streetly.

Green belt

The government has provided the region with £33 million to develop new houses in Brownfields, therefore why are we developing on green belt?

What is Walsall City Council’s sustainability and green strategy around this?
There needs to be real consideration of the impact to environment by building nearly 1000 houses. Property Value

Having purchased our property in 2017, we would be impacted directly if so many houses are built near our house. There would be a direct impact to our future and that of the area and the property value.

The area that is being prosed already is one of the most affluent areas of Walsall and this would only reduce this and potentially move individuals like our family to other areas outside the town’s remit.

Object

Representation ID: 17475

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Bhupinder Mandair

[text redacted]
I write on behalf of my household and many other residents [address given] in Streetly along with wider residents of Streetly. We all wish to object the proposals by the Black Country Plans to build homes upon the Green Belt land on sites WAH234 and WAH246.
We believe that the Black Country Plans should look to identify Brown Field sites before looking to build upon our precious Green Belt.
The proposals which will include the construction of circa 960 homes across 42 hectares will cause the urban sprawl to dilute the boundaries between Streetly and neighboring areas. Alongside the issues brought about by this urban sprawl, the transportation challenges brought about by additional traffic in and out of Streetly will completely destroy our community.
We have many other concerns aside from this. The email is not an exhaustive list of the objections that we have, however it should be noted that the feeling amongst the community to objecting these plans is very strong. We will do everything in our legal power to object these proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 17492

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Hazel Cummings

Walsall, Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road - Streetly
Walsal, Sutton Road, Longwood Lan - Pheasey Park Farm

Developing on the green belt land will totally spoil the beauty of this local area. People have paid a lot of money to live in areas of large green spaces where they have the feel of openness.
Adding this amount of homes to the area will have a huge negative impact on tons of - traffic, pollution, access to essential services which in turn will have a negative impact on peoples physical and mental health and well being.
It is already be had to access services in the area so why add to it? This is not a good idea due to the all round negative impact it will have on the area in terms of economy and the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 17500

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Stanier

Regarding the Black Country Plan: Draft Plan Regulation 18 Consultation
I am logging my very strong objections to this plan.
Firstly I believe the communication regarding this plan has been over complicated and also discriminatory by lack of publication to local residents whom this impacts.
It has centred on website information but you have left out members of the public who either choose not to use or do not have access to the internet. While there has been information provided at libraries and public centres if people were not made readily aware in the first place they cannot access the information and have the right to respond.
With this proposed build there will be irreversible damage to the greenbelt which in itself contradicts the governments plan that the green belt is preserved and maintained, and also to help stop climate change and plant more trees.
There is already established hedgerows and trees in this area which provide oxygen and homes for endangered species ,11 REDLISTED BIRDS are found in this area along with bats and insects all vastly in decline. This will only speed up their journey to extinction.
The mental well being of communities will also suffer, again the government recognise the advantages of greenbelt land has on communities even more so after the past 18months . this will be taken away from existing communities and wont be an option for new communities made in this area after the build.
The present Infrastructure WILL NOT COPE with anymore people in the area.
Schools are already oversubscribed...will any more be built?
Doctors and Dentist already struggle....will there be more surgeries to cope with the influx of patients, all while the NHS is already at breaking point?
Supermarkets are already open 24 hours a lot the time the shelves need replenishing as cannot cope with the customers they have...where will people get their shopping?
Congestion in this area is already high, will the roads be able to cope let alone to mention an increase in pollution, bigger commute times, maintaining of highways.
Building these houses will have negative impact in the area especially with air and noise pollution not only while they are being built but forever afterwards.
Green belt land is in place to stop neighbouring towns merging, assist in the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment, this build will do the opposite of this nor will it assist in urban regeneration by encouraging recycling or urban or other derelict land. There is also historical facts and buildings within this area which will be lost forever, again very damaging.
There is also a natural water feed with an underground overflow pipe running from Barr Beacon Reservoir next to Doe Bank Lane which the surrounding fields are a flood plane to, if this was built on surely it would be unsafe and cause major problems if it was ever burst/flood.
I strongly believe that you re consider the development in this area and allow it to remain protected, not only for us but for future generations too.

Object

Representation ID: 17537

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Russell

Site Name: Queslett Road/ Aldridge Road

-960 homes proposed for the above site

- The Greenbelt area of this location is a very clear separation of the Pheasey Estate of Great Barr and the Streetly Estate of Sutton Coldfield.

- Building on this site will only merge the two together.

- Additionally, traffic will spill onto surrounding roads which are already busy.

- Any traffic that wishes to go west on the A4041 Queslett Road, will likely develop rat runs through the Pheasey Estate before rejoining the Queslett Road via the island via Romney Way or Collingwood Drive. This is due to the closure of the central reservation to turn right onto Queslett Road from Doe Bank Lane, some twenty years ago.

- In my mind, more importantly, 960 homes might attract family buyers, who of course have children. An additional 500 children, I believe, could be possible to the area. In which case, with all schools over-subscribed, where are these children going to go?

- It's already a struggle for local families to get their children into the local schools.

- I object to the building on this site for the above reasons, particularly, due to lack of facilities in the area, schools and hospitals.

N.B. I believe that every objection received by you will be speaking for many, especially those who either cannot or do not respond in time. The time given to object appears to have been very short in my view.