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

Object

Representation ID: 18409

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Owen

[Site Ref: WAH234 / WSA8]

Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road, Walsall Council
Objection
- Impact on landscape and ecological habitats, including II red listed bird species
- Reasons to prevent build include noise + disturbance pollution from build and extra housing, increase in cars/traffic, air quality and odour.
- Loss of green belt inappropriate development is harmful to green belt
- Drain on local services and amenities - schools, shops, GP, dentists
- Loss of wildlife
- Increase in traffic that roads will not sustain

Object

Representation ID: 18445

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Hulme

Table 30 - Walsall Growth Targets for Housing and Employment Land Allocations
WAH 234 GB1 Land between Queslett Road East, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey
Neighbourhood. Strategic Allocation Policy WSA8.

At a time when mental health, ecosystems, biodiversity, environment and green / wildlife corridors are now buzzwords and totally at the forefront of everything, how can removing the Greenbelt status be acceptable?

Its value, in terms of the incalculable benefits it provides to hundreds of people whose lives are enriched
beyond measure from being in this environment.

This area is also protected by The Great Barr Conservation Area status. The GBCA is also under Appraisal
"but is not connected to"........ Really?

The only conclusion one can draw from this is it will remove a further layer of protection from the Greenbelt. This will allow easier access for development.

Please consider the following:•

'Birmingham and Black Country Local Sites Assessment Report
go.walsall.gov.uk/blackcountryplanevidence
185 - Land Queslett Road, and land opposite One Hundred Acre School, Aldridge'- Grid Reference SP074963

To begin, this information is incorrect - it is Queslett Road East and is not One Hundred Acre School it is
Lindens School.

Citation
The site does provide an ecological corridor between the statutory and non-statutory protected sites. Sutton Park SSSI, Barr Beacon LNR, Pinfold Lane Quarry LNR and Doe Bank Wood SLINC, which all lie in close proximity

"If the ecological/wildlife corridor is removed and used for development these areas will become sterile and devoid of wildlife, birds and ecosystems"

Local Site Selection Criteria
Ecological

Habitat Diversity - the site does support a range of habitats , hedgerows, broad-leaved woodland and semi-improved grassland which does provide some structural variation.
Habitat Rarity - the hedgerows on site are listed as Habitats of Principal Importance
Species Rarity - Fauna species recorded on site include multiple species listed within the Birds of
Conservation Concern Red and Amber lists.
Size or Extent - In the context of Walsall's local wildlife site, the survey area is of large extent in terms of the local site area present within the site boundary, the majority of its known ecological features being located in singular grassland fields or along field boundaries.
Naturalness - the hedgerows do provide a semi-natural feature.
Position and Connectivity - The site lies in close proximity to Sutton Park - Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI), Barr Beacon - Local Nature Reserve (LNR), Pinfold Lane Quarry - (LNR) and Doe Bank Lane Wood •
Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC)

Social
Historical & Cultural - The field system present has been established for over a century with some changes
to field structure and land use over time.
Aesthetic - The site is aesthetically pleasing, containing semi-natural features and reflecting the typical agricultural landscape.
Recorded History - The Black Country Historic Landscape Characterisation dataset describes the areas as field systems dating back to the post medieval period. Historical information is recorded within mapping records dating back to 1840.
Value for Learning - there is potential for informal education focused on agricultural farming and horse
grazing.

Habitats
A1.12
There is some structural diversity within the Broadleaved woodland, it does contain standing and fallen deadwood creating micro habitats for invertebrates, adding to diversity.
Habitats of Note
Hedgerows
Species of Note
Hedge Bedstraw, Bluebells, Crab Apple, Ragged Robin, Wild Pansy
Fauna
Skylark (Red) 2019 seen 2021......... ( My house is named LARKRISE after the abundance of Skylarks) and still to be found and heard over the fields in the Spring)
Black Headed Gull (Amber) 2019 (seen 2021)
Kestrel ((Amber) 2019 (seen 2021)
Swift (Amber) 1989 (seen 2021)
House Martin (Amber) 1989 (seen 2021)
Pied Flycatcher ((Red) 1989
Linnet (Red) 1989 (seen and heard 2021) Spotted Flycatcher 1989 (believe heard in 2021) Willow Warbler (Amber) 1989 (believe heard 2021)
Common Pipistrelle Bats 2013, (fly around, in the dusk, outside my house 2020)
Dunnock (Amber) 1986 (seen in my garden throughout my time living here 2021)
Starling (Red) 1986 (many in and around these fields and area 2021, watching a murmuration over the fields yesterday 01/10/21)
Song Thrush (Red) 1989 (seen 2021)
Tyria Jacobaeae Cinnabar (moth) 2018 (seen 2020/2021)

Also seen and not on the aforementioned list:•
Buzzards seen regularly
Lapwing (Red) seen 2020
Ring Ouzel (Red) seen 2020
Swallow (Green) seen 02/10/21 feeding on insects over the fields which will provide vital energy for these
special birds as they continue their hazardous Journey to Africa
Yellowhammer (Red) (seen2021)

Summary of Assessment
In summary, the site does provide a wide range of habitats usually associated with agricultural farmland, while providing a green corridor link to nearby protected sites.....····.....with the exception of the onsite hedgerows, in particular hedgerow H6, which comprises of some species and structural variation , while providing an ecological network across the site.

Barr Beacon
The Wildlife Trusts - Birmingham & Black Country - Autumn 2021

'This Autumn, to celebrate the 1st anniversary of the designation of the Black Country UNESCO Global
Geopark we are inviting you to take a closer look at some of our most precious geological gems'.

'BARR BEACON, WALSALL

Barr Beacon is a geological site of exceptional importance due to its location next to one of the great geological faults that runs through the Black Country. The rocks which form the Hill (Beacon Hill) are a mixture of red sandstones, pebble beds and breccias which were formed in semi arid desert conditions within a vast river complex which flowed across the landscape during the early Triassic Period, between 241 and 248 million
years ago.'

Geoconservation
Pinfold Lane Quarry
This is a very important scientific and education site. The rock faces are designated as a Site of Importance for
Nature Conservation and are protected under planning and development control legislation and policy. The pebbles from the scree may contain transported fossils.

Green Recovery Report Launched
In June 2021, The Wildlife Trusts published a new report which demonstrates the importance of nature in recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic. Nature is our strongest ally in building a resilient recovery for
everyone, but for too long decisions have come at the expense of nature, and it is now declining at a speed never previously seen. Continuing with business as usual, investing in the polluting infrastructure of the past and stripping back environmental protections in the planning system, will erode the very foundation on which our economy sits.
'A Wilder Recovery - how to build back smarter, stronger, greener' calls on all Government departments to work together to unlock the benefits of nature through increased investment, additional protections and additional space for nature to recover. We distributed copies of the report to every MP across Birmingham and the Black Country in the hope that its recommendations can be realised. Far from being seen as a cost, these can be our wisest investments for the future.'
'The ecological and climate crisis we are living through alongside the threats to the natural world from sprawling urbanisation, means that our work for nature's recovery has never been more important.'

Go.walsall.gov.uk
Barr Beacon
'One of the highest points in the West Midlands, Barr Beacon offers spectacular views. Landmarks visible from the top include the Wrekin, Cannock Chase, Lichfield Cathedral, Birmingham City Centre and the Lickey Hills. This site is great for health walks, dog walking, picnics and geology. The site also has an orienteering trail.'

'Orienteering is a challenging outdoor adventure sport that exercises both the mind and the body...............It does not matter how young, old or fit you are, as you can run, walk or jog the course.'

Walsall Site Allocation Document (January 2019)
National Guidance
2.15 Conservation Area Management is described as.......·......It deems the appraisal process as the vehicle of understanding both the significance of an area and the effect of negative changes that may affect this significance. The identification of significance of an area is seen as a precursor to the appraisal process and the guidance proposes key elements in aid of defining the special interest of a conservation area. These include:
(iv) Elements of local distinctiveness that makes the area unique
(v) How a place is experienced by people
(vi) The design and use of green and open spaces

2.21
This document..........allocates sites for different uses, protects land to ensure the needs of Walsall are met, and protects important assets and the wider environment.

SAD Policy EN5: Development in Conservation Areas
2.23
a) The council will seek to ensure that development preserves or enhances the significance of the conservation areas, including their setting............
(i) The degree of harm, loss of or alteration to buildings, structures or features that make a positive contribution to the character and significance of the conservation area.
(ii) The impact of any new...,····,,,,,,,...landscape features within the conservation area.
(i) The scale, massing, siting, layout design ....·.··..... feature.
(iv) The nature of any proposed use and the likely provision of parking, infrastructure, utilities and other paraphernalia, and the anticipated levels of traffic and other activities that would result,
c) The Council will not permit development within conservation areas that incrementally erodes those special features which the Council wishes to protect.
****Public opinion has not changed, And it comes at a time when mental health, ecosystems, biodiversity,
environment and green/wildlife corridors are now buzzwords and should be at the forefront of 'our' thinking.
How can removing this status be acceptable?****

NPPF
13. Protecting Green Belt land
Paragraphs 137 to 151

137. The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

138. Green Belt serves 5 purposes:

(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
(d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Please continue to 151

4. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Paragraphs 152 to 173

152. The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon
energy and associated infrastructure.

Please continue to 173
15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Paragraphs 174 to 188

174. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
(a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan);
(b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services - including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;
(c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; (d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological
networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and
Please continue to 188

Summary
Bullet Points:•

The Draft Plan proposes building 960 properties.
The land is Greenbelt and also part of the Great Barr Conservation Area.
Some of the relevant Greenbelt and Conservation details are explained above.

Infrastructure
There is no possibility that the current infrastructure of this area, in terms of roads, sewage, flooding, schools
and doctors could cope.

Noise and Disturbance resulting from use.
A proposal to build 960 properties. The resulting noise from potentially another 4,000 people and cars is beyond comprehension. The disturbance to the environment, wildlife, fauna and flora, ecosystems and biodiversity will be devastating, This area can clearly hear the noise from the traffic on the M6, The motorway interchange cited here at Junction 10 is the busiest in the country.

Highway Safety and Traffic Generation
The 3 roads that border this proposed development are dangerous, busy, fast roads. These roads are rat runs between the Motorway - M6 and Walsall, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham and many other destinations. Again potentially, this could involve another 4,000 cars.
Just 1 incident, there have been many - A near fatal accident occured last year on Doe Bank Lane, a 20 mile
per hour road. The poor woman in question now has life long injuries and her beloved dog was killed. This is 1 of many near misses that have occurred on this road. As a result, myself and another local resident started a petition for road calming measures to be implemented along this stretch of road. We had nearly 1,000 signatures...... nothing has been done after we practically begged the Council to respond.
There is a park on Doe Bank Lane where many children play football. The parking is dreadful and it is just a
matter of time before there is another fatality, at the Bridle Lane end of Doe Bank Lane there is Beacon Park Farm, which is a horse livery yard. At the old dairy Farm on Doe Bank Lane, a well known riding school in the area called Foxhills, is moving there to continue as a riding school. What a fantastic 'jewel' to be treasured for this area. There will be many horses and riders using Doe Bank Lane and riding around the present estate and beyond. They already take their lives in their hands every time they go out for a ride. As a horse owner and rider myself I can attest to this and increasingly these roads are becoming more dangerous by the day.

Visual Amenity
I have worked within the mental health system and in deprived city areas. I know the importance of allotments and open spaces for people who live in deprived areas and flats. I know the importance of a small garden or open space for people who want to experience 'fresh air' and grow their own fruit and vegetables. I know the importance of wildlife, nature and animals to people who cannot communicate with the outside world. This precious area is for everyone to benefit from, not just the few.
Little Ashmill Residential Care Home B43 7UB is situated at the bottom (Queslett Road East end) of Doe Bank Lane. It is a home for people who have physical and or learning disabilities. The walk along Doe Bank Lane up to Doe Bank Park is used every day by the staff and clients of this home. They often stop and look at the open aspect and views that this area offers, it has a calming effect on the residents.

Nature Conservation
Please see supporting information on pages 4, 5,6,7 above.
Intrusion into the open countryside/Greenbelt
Please see supporting information on pages 4,5,6,7 above.

Brownfield Sites - Compulsory Purchase
'We' are told that in the process of SITE ALLOCATION all the Brownfield Sites that can be used have been taken into account. However there are still Brownfield Sites in the hands of private landlords who will not release them.
Please can this situation be explained? Why is this situation acceptable?
Why is it acceptable for 'us' to 'lose 'our ' Greenbelt? Please see the following document = 155 pages!

Guidance on Compulsory Purchase Process and The Crichel Down Rules
A Vision for the Future

At a time when mental health, ecosystems, biodiversity, environment and green / wildlife corridors are now buzzwords and totally at the forefront of today's thinking; how can removing the Greenbelt and treasured green spaces be acceptable?
Both Boris Johnson and Michael Gove advocate Brownfield Sites first. Boris Johnson
Quote from 'The Independent 18/06/21


"What we want is sensible plans to allow development on Brownfield Sites. We're not going to build on
Greenbelt sites, we're not going to build all over the countryside".


Party Conference speech 06/10/21
"Houses should not be built on "green fields".


Our Council
• Needs to lobby Government for grants to clean up more Brownfield Sites
• Be aware of the positive and immeasurable impact on mental health of open spaces, greenbelt land, ecosystems, biodiversity, outstanding views, trees, fauna and flora and the tranquility that this area offers.
• Greenbelt land must be protected

Object

Representation ID: 18461

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Sport England

WAH234 - (WSA 8) - Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road - 1426 dwellings

The occupiers of new development, especially residential, will generate demand for sporting provision. The existing provision within an area may not be able to accommodate this increased demand without exacerbating existing and/or predicted future deficiencies. Therefore, Sport England considers that new developments should contribute towards meeting the demand that they generate through the provision of on-site facilities and/or providing additional capacity off-site. The level and nature of any provision should be informed by a robust evidence base such as an up to date Sports Facilities Strategy, Playing Pitch Strategy or other relevant needs assessment. The Council are currently preparing a new Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy (PPOSS) to consider how to meet existing and future needs for playing pitches and other outdoor sports facilities. The PPOSS will scenario test the proposed major housing growth sites within the proposed plan and make recommendations for how best to meet the future needs generated by this population growth. These needs might be best met by either on-site provision of new pitches and ancillary facilities, off-site contributions to improve existing provision of pitches/ancillary facilities in the local area or a combination of both. Sport England are aware that there are several existing sports facilities locally that would potentially benefit from developer contributions in order to improve the existing provision to cater for the additional demand generated by these proposed developments. Sport England considers that the following proposed allocations are of sufficient size to justify suitable developer contributions towards sport to meet the needs of the respective developments. At Reg 19 stage, following the completion of the PPOSS, Sport England will make more detailed comments with reference to Sport England's Playing Pitch Calculator. The following proposed policy allocations should make specific reference to securing suitable developer contributions towards the provision of facilities for sport in line with the findings and recommendations of the PPOSS: WAH234 - (WSA 8) - Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road - 1426 dwellings

Object

Representation ID: 18893

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert David

Number of people: 2

Objection against the proposed housing development on site that sits between Queslett Rd, Doe Bank Land and Aldridge Road.
Firstly the consultation process in flawed and many people are still not aware of this consultation. These forms were literally delivered along with P133A leaflets etc!
The infrastructure in the area simply cannot absorb the requirements of another 900+ homes apart from the Queslett Rd. The other access are barely more than country dr's which already suffer from congestion during, peak periods.
There is a lack of schools, surgeries and the like to consider. Also the land acts as a buffer to nearby Pheasey. The land lies on one of the last sites that would be suitable for an emergency landing, should an aircraft be in trouble. You would also be destroying an a valuable natural habitat for wildlife and insects, along with valuable nature trees.

Object

Representation ID: 19230

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Baybon

I am concerned about the proposed 960 properties at Queslett Rd N & Aldridge Road

Are these properties going to be for 1st time buyers or executive 305 bed properties as we don't need the latter but we need the former.
Once the estate is finished there is going to be about 1400+ cars entering & existing the estate twice a day & after onto a 40mph dual carriageway where about 50% of vehicles are exceeding the speed ot on to very busy 2 lane road.
The local schools are not going to cope with 1-2000 spare children, the doctors cannot cope now with over 3 week wait for a face to face consultation without adding 3-4000 extra people
Nursery's in the area are not going to cope with an influx of babies & small children
Local hospitals, Good Hope & Manor cannot cope at present
Driving to local railway stations will only add to local roads around stations pressure as there are not enough car parking places at present.
Are local services going to cope, i.e. refuse collection road sweepers etc. are existing sewers & water supplies going to cope and before this there is going to be 3-4 years of disruption due to the estate being built.

Comment

Representation ID: 19255

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruth Duncombe

This is a written objection to the removal of green belt particularly for Queslett Road East/ Aldridge Road to build 960 homes, as explained in the Black Country Plan.
The Black Country Plan (BCP) appears to contradict itself. I have written the contradictions and objections below:
1. You start by saying " Councils attach great importance to the green belt" but go on to say how you plan to destroy it!
2. You want to address Climate Change - by building on green land you are taking away the very thing that helps to reduce climate change.
-Flooding has been an issue around Buffet Island and Asda in the past so building on green land is surely making our community more susceptible to flooding.
- There is a huge amount of traffic in the area and when there is a problem on the motorway the surrounding roads can become gridlocked. How is this supposed to help climate change? There could potentially be over 1000 extra cars (from 960 houses) polluting the local atmosphere and causing further gridlock.
3. Create Healthy and Safe places- since the pandemic we are all aware of the need for green space as it has a massive positive impact on our mental health. Removing any green belt is not creating a healthy space.
4. You say you will protect and enhance the historic and natural environment - unfortunately Councils have a history as regards this and Pheasey residents have no trust in what they say. The example is Great Barr Hall. We were told this was going to be looked after and renovated as part of the Nether Hall Project. Its now lying in ruin! I have no trust that the BCP will enhance our environment.
5. The design standards that new development should meet- I've seen design standards change once planning permission is granted. Again, I have no trust in the BCP that standards will be adhered to.

Object

Representation ID: 19269

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vickie Donlon

Number of people: 2

Regarding Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road. I live on Queslett Road East, my children go to the local school, where we walk along Aldridge Road, always admiring the field view. It is one of the reasons we moved to where we are, for the greenery around us. The area is built up enough with cars and people everywhere. I try to explain to my children how lucky we are to have the green views and how important the trees and crops are. If this goes ahead it will be so overcrowded, busy, oversubscribed in schools etc and the little bit of nice greenery we have will be overpopulated and the amount of pollution will go up and the air we breathe to walk to school and the views we enjoy will be worse and ruin the area. Everyone loves Streetly and the surrounding areas for greenery and views. Its breathtaking in winter with frost over the fields and the fresh air blowing in our walk to school. Don't ruin it for the people of Streetly, the road Queslett Rd / Queslett Rd East and Aldridge Road are already so busy. Don't make it worse and the air will be polluted. Please realise the mistake you would make for the residents of Streetly. We residents have spent a lot of money on our houses for the views and surrounding. We have walked to school every morning past the beautiful views, the traffic is passing us and building up down Aldridge Rd. The schools are oversubscribed and there are cars parked everywhere near the two schools. Please keep pollution at a low don't make it busy, build up the area and make it worse all around for us residents. Please think and don't do this!! Think of the children and their future, don't take away all the greenery and beautiful views. Don't make it a built up area and city like London let there be some joy for the people of Streetly. Please leave the greenery!!

Object

Representation ID: 19277

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Yvonne Baker

3) It seems that Walsall town planners are hell bent on increasing urban sprawl by reducing / removing green belt. By proposing the Queslett road East / Aldridge Road site, the green space between Birmingham and Walsall disappears in that area allowing a merger of housing with one side of the road in Birmingham and the other in Walsall.
4) There seems little thought to infrastructure needed to accommodate these additional houses. In Walsall it is extremely difficult to get on a doctors list as most are at full capacity. There are no NHS dentists willing to take new patients on. The hospitals are over capacity. There are insufficient ambulances for the number of patients requiring them. Schools are at capacity. There are vague references to new health centres and junior schools being required but no details as to when and where they are to be situated (are they to be built on more green belt land?). Roads around Walsall are very congested already and new housing will only add to it. There are no proposals to mitigate these concerns.

Object

Representation ID: 19291

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roy Mason

Site reference WAH234 (Columba Park - Aldridge Rd) WAH 246 (Chester Road)

Traffic congestion, lack of facilities (shops & schools)

Comment

Representation ID: 19335

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Susmita Mistry

I am wring this email to express my opposition to the Black Country Plan Housing development. I am
extremely opposed to these plans due to the following reasons;
1. All three sites are within and form part of Great Barr Green Belt and should remain protected.

2. remaining acreage are Green Belt fields and mostly high quality agricultural land.

5. The loss of our natural open countryside views would be lost forever to the detriment of us and our future generations

6. The infrastructure cannot take more traffic, more sewage, more light pollution, more flooding and six years of construction traffic on our narrow congested lanes. Footpaths along Street, are not continuous and serve local schools. They are heavily used by students, teachers and parents walking to and from their respective schools. This potential mix of pedestrians, narrow unlit lanes with poor sight lines, no continuous footpaths (on blind bends) and large construction vehicles presents a very real dangerous risk to life and property.

Object

Representation ID: 19704

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Caine

The following comments apply to Walsall Local Authority, Streetly Ward.

Every planner should well know the reasons why land was designated as “greenbelt”. Those reasons have not changed, in fact they are even more apposite now than ever before. This land is sacrosanct and must never be developed.

On the land marked on the plan as WAH 234 and bounded by Doe Bank Lane, Queslett Road East, and
Aldridge Road, Streetly, it is proposed to build 960 homes.This cannot be allowed as Streetly is full. Full of houses, full of people, full of cars. If there is any doubt about this, try enrolling a child at a local school, try registering a family at a local GP practise, try parking a car at a local railway station after about 7.00a.m. They are all full.

960 new homes would mean at least 960 extra cars on the roads leading to more pollution and the
emission of more carbon dioxide. If only half the houses had one child, that would need the provision of 480 extra places in our existing schools, which are already full. To build this number of dwellings on this land without the necessary extra infrastructure in terms of of new schools, surgeries, hospitals and improved transport links etc. etc. Is totally unacceptable.

With reference to the land bounded by Chester Road, the railway line to the east, and Pacific Nurseries on their northern side, the same objections apply as for WAH 234. Chester Road is overloaded with traffic especially during rush hour. There are no schools nearby, and no GP surgeries, in a word; no infrastructure, and therefore unsuitable for development.

With reference to the two smaller pieces of land in Streetly, one to the north of the junction of
Wood Lane and Foley Road West and the other bounded by Chester Road, Windermere Drive and the
railway line, adjacent to Pacific Nurseries on their southern side, this is nothing more than blatant backland development. There has been an enormous amount of this in Streetly in recent years.For example the former Cutler’s Garage site, the former Satterthwaites site, the former Buccaneer public house site and the construction of Centurion Drive, all off Chester Road, to name but a few. As noted above, Streetly is full. We do not need more housing in this area.

The latter of the two sites mentioned above includes Hingley’s Covert, an area of mature woodland. To destroy this would be an act of folly, especially as it is well known that trees absorb carbon dioxide - a much needed property in the campaign to reduce global warming. To cut down trees and replace them with cars would deliver a double negative blow to this campaign, and must not be allowed.

Finally, the answer to the housing shortage is surely not to fill in every crook and cranny, willy nilly, be it green or brown, but to build new towns with a finite size. This could be defined in terms of land area or population numbers. This would allow for the provision of all the necessary infrastructure at the planning stage. When such a town became full, that would mean the end of all
development and another new town built somewhere else. If this scheme were adopted, it would mean
that any brownfield sites, such as the former petrol station on Queslett Road East, could be returned to the greenbelt. Now that would be something!

Object

Representation ID: 19730

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Jones

Queslett Rd East / Aldridge Rd, Streetly

Queslett & Aldridge Roads are already gridlocked at times of day and the extra vehicles from 960 new homes would put extreme pressure on the road system. it would make it a very busy area with lots of traffic, noise pollution and poor air quality.
I believe Aldi supermarket had a planning application rejected in this area as it would course too much traffic congestion. it was also rejected as it would be built partly on land containing mature trees and hedgerows. The same 2 objections should be considered for this application. The natural habitat of many birds (some rare species) and insects would be lost.
There would be a great impact on the drainage system and I believe there have already been problems due to elderly pipes.
Local doctors, dentists and other health services are already over subscribed and difficult to get appointments with, so many new residents would only exacerbate this situation.
Local schools would not have capacity to accommodate all the children moving into this area.
During the pandemic it has been proved very important to have accessable green areas for walking and relaxtion to help mental health, locals would lose this green area if this proposal goes ahead.
The Government states how important it is to maintain the Green Belt so this number of new buildings is inappropriate.
The Government gives 5 purposes to maintain the Green Belt, but these will be ignored if this development goes ahead. It is inappropriate development and by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved.
Protect our precious Green Belt and find other Brownfield sites more suitable for development which would not put strain on already over stretched services or destroy the beauty and nature of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 20049

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Rt Hon Valerie Vaz

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

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

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

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


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

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

4 Policy

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

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

138. Green Belt serves 5 purposes:
(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
(d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

• WAH 234 Land by Doe Bank Lane/Queslett Road (breaching s138 (a) (b) as Streetly and Pheasey would be merged (c) and (e)

Object

Representation ID: 20998

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Evans

I am objecting to the proposed housing development on site reference WAH234 (Aldridge Road, Streetly) WAH246 (Chester Road).
I am a resident of Pheasey estate and I am deeply concerned by the impact this would have on locals and the environment.
The greenbelt land along Doe Bank Lane is precious to us and to future generations and I feel that to lose it will have a devastating effect on us.
I do not know how a potential 4000 more people moving here can be feasible. Schools are already at capacity and roads are busy.
This will have a detrimental affect on people already living here [underlined].

Object

Representation ID: 21211

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Martin Hudson

Dear Sir or Madam,
Whilst I accept we have an ever growing population, there appears to be a nationwide epidemic of building on
- and destroying - our precious green belt leaving much reduced open space for our leisure and enjoyment.
I am totally opposed to building of any sort on any green belt anywhere and more especially in Walsall where I live; there are plenty of brown field sites which could and should be used instead.

I wish to make specific objection to the proposed building at the three [text in bold] following sites, firstly for the principle of reducing the local green belt amenity and secondly because of local infrastructure issues which are already at breaking point, before any new build is considered:

1) Queslett Road – the creation of 960 homes will basically remove the enjoyment of the ‘green belt break’ that only just separates Birmingham from merging in to Walsall as it is today and should not be considered for this reason alone, along with infrastructure issues below

As well as it being totally wrong to build on green belt when there is more than sufficient brown belt, there is insufficient infrastructure to support existing residents today, before 5418 new properties are considered.
Here I refer to insufficient Medical Facilities (i.e. doctors, medical service provision), schools at all key stages and the further overcrowding of our busy, blocked highways.

I totally object to the above three local green belt building proposals. I would strongly urge you to re-consider these sites and ask you to concentrate your searches on far more suitable brown field sites before our green spaces are lost forever and are totally concreted over.

Object

Representation ID: 21304

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Ronald Leslie Butler

WAH 234 GB1 Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasey Neighbourhood Strategic allocation policy WSA8

I object due to the effect this development will have on the landscape + ecological effect of the area. We have a lot of established trees and hedges which will be lost and will cause the loss of wildlife - birds, bats, insects etc. This in turn will have a negative affect on the climate.
Additional housing will drain services - schools and doctor's surgeries are already overstretched.
Additional houses will create more vehicles and increase pollution and add a strain to our already congested roads.
Building on fields increases the flood risk in the area as no where for water to go when fields are built on and replaced with concrete driveways etc.
I believe the development to be inappropriate for the area and goes against the Government's policy to tackle climate change. The added negative effect to health with pollution will put more pressure on our NHS

Object

Representation ID: 21453

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Hammond

This is in objection to the porposed land on Queslett Road East/Aldridge Road.

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: skylark, starling, song thrush, house sparrow, linnet, yellowhammer, redwing, fieldfare, grey wagtail, lapwing, herring gull. Sparrow hawks also frequent the area. Also noted in a half mile radius are: 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 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 of the consultation to remove conservation status 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 of the conservation plan consultation.

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.

Paragragh 3.75 & 76 of this consuktation provides justification as to why the green belt land should be developed. However, the land in question is not green belt but conservation and therefore this consultation is factually flawed and has not relevance or refererence to this land. What steps have been taken to justift developing conservation area land?

Object

Representation ID: 21462

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sonum Mann

Walsall
WAH234
GB1
Land between Queslett Road, Doe Bank Lane and Aldridge Road, Pheasy
Neighbourhood Growth Area
Strategic Allocation Policy WSA8.

My objections to the above proposed development are set out below:
1. Noise and build disturbance. The proposed site of 900 houses will contribute significant noise pollution whilst building. This will affect our quality of life and also impact our jobs as both my husband and I work from home.
2. Air pollution. My husband and son both suffer from asthma / breathing difficulty. We recently moved to Doe Bank Lane purely due to the location, being near green belt / green spaces. A build of 900 homes will have a detrmental affect on both my husband's and son's health, particularly if once you consider the additional traffic pollution with the introduction of 900-2000 additional cars in the area.
3. Strain on local resources. Local resources in the area are already under significant strain, in particular all local schools are oversubscribed as well as GPs and NHS dentists. The proposed developments do not include any increase in local services and therefore the introduction of 900 new families into the area would cause drastically affect current residents' quality of life, including children's education.
4. Traffic - local roads are already heavily congested without the addition of 900-2000 cars from new houses.
5. Environment and climate change. Removal of trees, green spaces, wildlife and ecological habitats directly contravenes government proposal of tackling climate change and the planting of trees, and adversely affects local wildlife.
6. Green belt status - the proposed site is currently a green belt area, with parts being a local nature reserve, and conservation area. The purposes of green belt land includes a check of unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, encourage recycling of derelict and other urban land. I understand Walsall has sufficient urban land which could be regenerated to serve the housing requirements therefore the removal of the green belt status on this proposed site, an act which should be made by exception, is not justified and therefore the build should not be permitted.

Object

Representation ID: 21687

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Stevelilart

Number of people: 4754

Against the proposed build of 1500 houses on Barr Beacon greenbelt land

Steve Lilly started this petition to nature conservation groups Plan to build 1,500-home estate on fields between Great Barr and Sutton Coldfield on greenbelt land

Help fight against the destruction of an important local haven for wildlife.

I started this petition because…There is a network of established hedgerow containing mature trees including oak across this designated build site. Just this week I have seen six red listed bird species on this land: [REDACTED-SENSITIVE]. I also believe [REDACTED-SENSITIVE] is a protected species

Object

Representation ID: 21982

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Patricia Cartledge

Number of people: 2

We would like to express our concern and anxiety on learning about the proposed developments on green belt land particularly those on Queslett Road and Chester Road Streetly. They will have huge impacts on the environment as well as creating problems with traffic and medical and educational.provision.
At a time when we are all trying to safeguard the planet for future generations surely this is not the time to be building on our precious green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 22057

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr and Mrs - Owen

Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road, Streetly My objection is to the destruction of all the green belt within the Black Country Plan area( once it’s gone it’s gone ) with its effect on the local wildlife and bird life.
Also the loss of the green lungs of the area, with speed restrictions on local motorways,( for air improvement purposes) the last thing Great Barr / Streetly needs is another 960 homes with a average of 2 cars per household.
Queslett Road / Scott Arms is gridlocked at time’s now!
Will there be provisions for schools, doctors surgeries, medical centres, all of which are oversubscribed already

Object

Representation ID: 22066

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Neale Aston

My objection is regarding the proposed builds on Queslett Road East and Sutton Road / Longwood Lane.
1. How is the increased traffic provisioned for.
1162 houses = Approx 2000 cars. The road network is not big enough to support the present traffic and any road network extension would mean building on Green Belt land i.e. Barr Beacon. Any increase on current levels of road usage is not sustainable and unworkable.
2. Affect on wildlife - obvious concequences to wildlife bats etc.
3. Increased traffic during proposed build - not workable.
There are already traffic and safety concerns in the area following the increased usage of the Disposal tip on Chester Road. There have been a number of "close calls" regarding heavy duty trucks on Little Hardwick, Chester Road and Beacon Hill. These have been reported

Object

Representation ID: 22555

Received: 28/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Paine

WAH 234 Columba Park Aldridge Road
WAH 246
960 houses = 3,840 people added to Streetly population (average no of people per household). Added to 16,000 already in Streetly.
Pressure on infrastructure, roads, traffic, schools, local surgeries. Therefore I object to proposal.
There is a large brownfield site being developed in Aldridge that should fulfill most of [illegible].
Also we cannot afford to lose hedgerows and trees on this site - perhaps make it into a park instead with cycle path and pedestrian access to Doe Bank and Barr Beacon.

Object

Representation ID: 22585

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs and Mr Michelle and Andrew Greaves

Number of people: 2

As a longstanding resident I am concerned about the plans to revise the "Green Belt" parameters in my area. I feel it will have a negative visual impact on the landscape. This area has proved invaluable to the mental wellbeing of people especially during the pandemic where people have used it for walking and relaxation.
It will effect the character of the local area by adding more noise and disturbance from the new residents and their visitors, adding more cars on our roads. This will also affect our air quality and there is also highway safety to consider. My road - Doe Bank Lane already suffers from constantly speeding cars which resulted in a major incident in July 2020 when a neighbour was mown down and her dog killed. A new estate will also increase the outdoor lighting in the area which will have an effect on the local bat colony as well as the large variety of birds that will lose their insect supplies from the hedgerows.
This is an area of natural beauty and once it is agreed to allow it to be built on even though it is green belt land it will open the floodgates for more fields to be lost to the planners and soon our beautiful countryside will be lost forever.

Object

Representation ID: 23179

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Colin Bennett

I have lived on Queslett Road and seen changes with the road. It was a little lane then, now it is a main trunk road if you allow for 960 houses the roads cannot cope Doe Bank, Aldridge Road and Queslett Road. AS for the fields it used to be a forest and the trees are 100 years old. Also we have bats in the field and they are different species which are protected and owls and other wild animals. Mines under ground 4ft pipe which takes water from Bar Beacon to Rough Road Kingstanding it runs under the fields in Doe Bank. If you allow this to happen we would get flooded on Queslett Road East when we have heavy rain the island at the bottom of Queslett Road gets flooded.
It would need another school and doctors I think what is being found out about the fields it would be right to take all up the green belt and hope you leave well alone. Look elsewhere for land and leave the green belt there.
We are also in a flight path so if plane was to come down they have the fields put houses on the fields where do they crash land on top of houses and then people die. The tree is in the fields help absorb the carbon from cars and you want to put another 960 plus cars.

Object

Representation ID: 23180

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Fay & Joe McMallon

Number of people: 2

My husband and I would like to comment on the proposed building plan for Queslett/Aldridge site.
We feel it would be a disaster for the area, the residents would have their properties devalued, and we would be open to pollution and traffic chaos which is already a problem at peak times. The area hasn't got the amenities to cope with extra population ie schools and doctors we cant get appointments at the doctors at the moment so dread t think what it would be like with all the extra population. At the moment we have open countryside to enjoy it would be such a shame for it to all disappear and be replaces with houses,

Your's faithfully,
Fay & Joe McMallon

Object

Representation ID: 23338

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr David Barrow

Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road
I strongly object to the proposed plans for the following reasons.
Queslett Road east is the main outer circular road for north Birmingham, and is extremely busy dual carriageway. Although it carries a 40mph speed limit, speeding is rife, as evidenced by the fact that a mobile police traffic camera is frequently deployed on the road. The road can be very dangerous, and several fatalities have, unfortunately occurred. Entering and especially exiting the proposed development would be most hazardous and would be the cause of further accidents with potentially fatal consequences. In addition traffic from the development wishing to go west towards Great Barr would have to turn east to the Queslett island to turn around, or else make an illegal and dangerous u-turn at the Lindens Road or Donegal Road junctions. Traffic exiting into Doe Bank Lane on the western side of the proposed development, which has a 20mph speed limit, also regularly exceeded and with a busy primary school only a few yards away, would also face the same situation is wishing to travel towards Great Barr.
Aldridge Road, a single carriageway, is a main commuter route into Birmingham and also has a large primary school exiting onto it. Traffic is extremely heavy in the morning and afternoon rush hours, and especially at school times. The additional traffic caused by the proposed development would pose an extremely and significant danger to the safety of the school children.
In the interest of public safety, therefore I strongly feel that the proposed development should definitely and categorically not go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 23339

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Barrow

Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road
I strongly object to the proposed plans for the following reasons.
Queslett Road east is the main outer circular road for north Birmingham, and is extremely busy dual carriageway. Although it carries a 40mph speed limit, speeding is rife, as evidenced by the fact that a mobile police traffic camera is frequently deployed on the road. The road can be very dangerous, and several fatalities have, unfortunately occurred. Entering and especially exiting the proposed development would be most hazardous and would be the cause of further accidents with potentially fatal consequences. In addition traffic from the development wishing to go west towards Great Barr would have to turn east to the Queslett island to turn around, or else make an illegal and dangerous u-turn at the Lindens Road or Donegal Road junctions. Traffic exiting into Doe Bank Lane on the western side of the proposed development, which has a 20mph speed limit, also regularly exceeded and with a busy primary school only a few yards away, would also face the same situation is wishing to travel towards Great Barr.
Aldridge Road, a single carriageway, is a main commuter route into Birmingham and also has a large primary school exiting onto it. Traffic is extremely heavy in the morning and afternoon rush hours, and especially at school times. The additional traffic caused by the proposed development would pose an extremely and significant danger to the safety of the school children.
In the interest of public safety, therefore I strongly feel that the proposed development should definitely and categorically not go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 23340

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Kim Barrow

Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road
I strongly object to the proposed plans for the following reasons.
Queslett Road east is the main outer circular road for north Birmingham, and is extremely busy dual carriageway. Although it carries a 40mph speed limit, speeding is rife, as evidenced by the fact that a mobile police traffic camera is frequently deployed on the road. The road can be very dangerous, and several fatalities have, unfortunately occurred. Entering and especially exiting the proposed development would be most hazardous and would be the cause of further accidents with potentially fatal consequences. In addition traffic from the development wishing to go west towards Great Barr would have to turn east to the Queslett island to turn around, or else make an illegal and dangerous u-turn at the Lindens Road or Donegal Road junctions. Traffic exiting into Doe Bank Lane on the western side of the proposed development, which has a 20mph speed limit, also regularly exceeded and with a busy primary school only a few yards away, would also face the same situation is wishing to travel towards Great Barr.
Aldridge Road, a single carriageway, is a main commuter route into Birmingham and also has a large primary school exiting onto it. Traffic is extremely heavy in the morning and afternoon rush hours, and especially at school times. The additional traffic caused by the proposed development would pose an extremely and significant danger to the safety of the school children.
In the interest of public safety, therefore I strongly feel that the proposed development should definitely and categorically not go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 23341

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Zoe Barrow

Queslett Road East / Aldridge Road
I strongly object to the proposed plans for the following reasons.
Queslett Road east is the main outer circular road for north Birmingham, and is extremely busy dual carriageway. Although it carries a 40mph speed limit, speeding is rife, as evidenced by the fact that a mobile police traffic camera is frequently deployed on the road. The road can be very dangerous, and several fatalities have, unfortunately occurred. Entering and especially exiting the proposed development would be most hazardous and would be the cause of further accidents with potentially fatal consequences. In addition traffic from the development wishing to go west towards Great Barr would have to turn east to the Queslett island to turn around, or else make an illegal and dangerous u-turn at the Lindens Road or Donegal Road junctions. Traffic exiting into Doe Bank Lane on the western side of the proposed development, which has a 20mph speed limit, also regularly exceeded and with a busy primary school only a few yards away, would also face the same situation is wishing to travel towards Great Barr.
Aldridge Road, a single carriageway, is a main commuter route into Birmingham and also has a large primary school exiting onto it. Traffic is extremely heavy in the morning and afternoon rush hours, and especially at school times. The additional traffic caused by the proposed development would pose an extremely and significant danger to the safety of the school children.
In the interest of public safety, therefore I strongly feel that the proposed development should definitely and categorically not go ahead.