Policy WSA9 – Land to the east of Chester Road, north of Pacific Nurseries, Hardwick

Object

Representation ID: 10618

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Smith

I object to the inclusion of WAH230, being an area of SLINC, and WAH 254, containing an important local garden centre and a Group TPO area. The construction of housing on both of these sites would be detrimental to the green belt area in which they fall.

Object

Representation ID: 11184

Received: 25/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Catherine Hulley

Reference WAH234 and WAH246
Ever decreasing wild habitat and trees
Areas already congested with increased pollution inc noise and flood risk
Education and health facilities overwhelmed already and poor transport links

Object

Representation ID: 11706

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Miss Emily Williams

I am a resident of Lindrosa Road. I strongly object to any building on the woodland areas, also known as Hardwick woods labelled as WAH254. This area is inhabited by many woodland animals and a variety of trees and shrubs. If this were to be chopped down the environmental impact would be devastating. I will be informing the Woodland Trust of the proposed plan and do anything I can to stop it. Thank you for your consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 11708

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr James Grant

I am a local resident of Lindrosa Road and strongly object to the proposal for ‘WAH254’. In particular, the strategic allocation that clearly overlaps the woodland to the east of Pacific Nurseries and Lindrosa Road. This area of woodland, locally known as Hardwick Woods, is clearly shown in your plans to have a grouped tree preservation order yet the strategic allocation plan still encompasses this. Furthermore, the natural wildlife in this woodland is abundant - owls, bats, muntjac deer, woodpeckers, frogs, jays, foxes, and many other animals. There would be severe detriment to their habitat if this plan went ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 11736

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Roderick Gifford

Development of the site would cause:
Significant loss of wildlife, ecosystems and natural habitat including protected species such as bats and - going against the BCP objective of "Enhancing our natural and built environment" and against Climate Change
Loss of woodland which has a Group Tree Protection Order - going against the BCP objective of "Enhancing our natural and built environment" and against Climate Change
Destruction of an area of natural beauty enjoyed daily by the local community - going against the BCP objective of "Improving the Health and Wellbeing of residents"

Object

Representation ID: 11770

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Gloster

Sites ref WAH230, WAH246 & WAH254
I believe the green belt, which was prepared by our forward thinking forbears, was introduced to prevent urban sprawl & manage the environment & associated infrastructure & thus provide space for nature & human population to co exist & enjoy a quality of life. This plan seeks to destroy this aim by linking areas together resulting in higher pollution & trafic levels, congestion of local roads & increasing demands on already overloaded infrastructure, healthcare, social care & education systems.

Object

Representation ID: 11845

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Chanade Hemming

This will cause significant traffic to the area. Making this Pat of Chester road the same as the beggars bush area. There are not enough shops, schools or general facilities and people living here have chosen here for the peace and quiet and lovely scenic areas and walks, not for a crowded housing estate.

Object

Representation ID: 11929

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Helen Martin

I have concerns regarding access to the proposed site from Lindrosa Road and the impact of increased traffic. I am also extremely concerned about the potential destruction of the Hardwick Woods and knock on effect on local wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 11930

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin Martin

I have concerns regarding access to the proposed site from Lindrosa Road, as well as the destruction of a large area of established trees.

Object

Representation ID: 11960

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jamie Parmar-Purewal

415 houses will completely change the lovely Streetly and will significantly increase traffic through Lindrosa Road which is a family friendly area that has little traffic making it safe for children to play it. If this goes ahead it will be a short cut to the new housing which will make it unsafe. In addition, there is no mention of an additional secondary school. 415 houses will equate to more secondary aged students applying for secondary school places!

Object

Representation ID: 12094

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Finney

1. This identification of local land has not been brought to the attention of local residents (e.g. via posted letters) so feels rather underhand. This process to "consult" is obfuscated and limits local residents' feedback to 100 words.
2. Green belt looks intact but only because Group Tree Protection Orders and Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation are being built on instead. Shameful disregard for *existing* bio-diversity.
3. Local secondary school is already over-subscribed.
4. Any increased traffic flow needs to be via Chester Road not via quiet residential loop of Lindrosa/Windermere.

Object

Representation ID: 12122

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Gary West

Currently there are insufficient services in the area to meet the needs of current households.
My son had to attend a school in Great Barr, as there were not enough primary & junior school places for him to attend St Annes School.
We are still registered with a GP in Great Barr, despite having lived in Streetly for 15 years, as there is insufficient spaces in local surgeries.

Object

Representation ID: 12244

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Julia Bannister

Loss of precious Green Belt which provides an essential habitat for diverse wildlife, countryside and woodland species (without limitation birds, insects, bats, pheasants, foxes,) vegetation including established tress and hedgerows. Enables creatures to move between mix of habitats and flourish in mix of landscapes. Environmental impact - area experiences flash flooding. Pressure on local social infrastructure, transport and public services; traffic congestion, decreased air quality/reduction in clean air. High density development significant detrimental impact on character of area and quality of life. Strain on local road networks, increase in pollution and traffic; noise disturbance and nuisance.

Object

Representation ID: 12893

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Dr Sarah Harris-Darley

I absolutely object to building on Green Belt land.
As a local resident, I am also particularly concerned about the proposed development in Streetly
(Walsall) - plot WAH254.
It is unclear where the access roads for this plot (WAH254) will be - will this be off Chester Road?
The residents of the Lindrosa estate certainly do not want an access road built to the WAH254 plot
via the Lindrosa estate (Lindrosa Road / Coniston Road / Windermere Drive. The Lindrosa estate is
currently a cul-de-sac and many families (mine included) have specifically moved to that estate to
avoid through traffic in order to make it safer for our young children. I would wholly object to any
access road being built between the Lindrosa estate and the WAH254 plot as this would be
extremely detrimental to current residents.

I am also concerned about the impact of the multiple proposed sites in terms of sheer numbers of
people moving in to the area - what are the plans to enable schools and other local services to cope
with higher numbers? I am a local doctor and local GP Practices are already totally overwhelmed
with demand.

Given the level of environmental destruction and loss of habitat that has already happened in this
area, I am extremely concerned about the negative environmental impact and I don't feel that this
has been fully addressed. I totally disagree with building on green belt land so cannot support any
development that proposes to do this

Object

Representation ID: 13491

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Miss Caroline Harris

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

Comment

Representation ID: 13595

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Pacific Nurseries

A representation made on behalf on Pacific Nurseries Ltd, Chester Road, Aldridge, WS9 0PH to Strategic Allocation WSA.9
Black Country Plan
Introduction.
Pacific Nurseries (established in 1957) is a privately owned independent garden centre located on the Chester Road, Aldridge. It is bordered to the north by open agricultural land now referred to as WAH 246 and WAH 230 in the BCP. To the south it is bordered by WAH254.

Pacific Nurseries part own the site occupied by the garden centre and operate part of WAH254 on a leasehold agreement from Aston and Cain, joint owners of WAH254.
The site lies within the Green Belt boundary although it is “well developed” with a number of permanent buildings.
The site comprises a hard surfaced car parking for 120 cars leading to a steel portal frame garden centre shop together with associated café/restaurant within. Behind the retail building lie a number of polytunnels, storage containers and land used for growing plants and storage.
The outdoor plant sales area, storage yards and retail canopy structure are all positioned on the leasehold land (WAH 254).
Proposal – Strategic Allocation WSA.9
WSA.9 comprises three areas known as WAH 230, 246 and 254. Pacific Nurseries, a narrow strip of land of approximately 35m is sandwiched between 246 to the north and 254 to the south.
The Draft Black Country Plan has excluded the site of Pacific Nurseries from this Strategic Allocation and has left this as a rather strange narrow finger of Green Belt land.
If parcel WAH254 is zoned for development (the leased land) and the remainder of the Pacific Nurseries land was protected by green belt (as per the draft plan) then this situation would render the garden centre business potentially unviable leaving an unsightly feature.
Adjoining the site, to the immediate south of the access off Chester road, is an existing chalet bungalow which has recently received approval for planning for three houses and we note that this was in the green belt hence feel the request to have the nurseries removed from greenbelt is in line with your thinking and appropriate going forward.
Pacific Nurseries would be interested in further development (on their freehold land and the leased land) hence the request to incorporate the entirety as part of WSA.9 Strategic Allocation.
This land parcel would be promoted and delivered in tandem with our neighbours to the south whom they lease from and in turn are intrinsically linked to.

Object

Representation ID: 13760

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr George Stuart McEvoy

Number of people: 2

3. Whereas 9 other proposed sites display the number of homes to be built with regard to the Streetly site, WAH254 in particular, there is no indication of how many might be built or what type, flats, bungalows, semi-detached etc. By comparing the size of the sites, there could be 400 — 500 homes — potentially 2,000 residents.
4. The increased traffic on Chester Road will have a considerable impact. Traffic will come from the quarry, Pacific Nurseries and at least two roads serving the new homes.
5. The proposed sites will entail felling a substantial number of mature trees in the established wooded area behind the properties of Lindrosa Road. These trees help attenuate noise from the railway travelling to established properties as well as providing a long-term wildlife habitat.
6. School places, doctors' surgeries and even Streetly Community Centre are all under pressure with the current level of housing. We do not have any guide that these problems are being addressed.
7. There can be flooding towards Wheats Garden Centre so, has the siting of sewage and drainage facilities been investigated particularly for area WAH230? Building houses here will exacerbate an already marshy area with drainage only available into Footherley Brook. This will increase the likelihood of flash flooding in this already wet area. It could well impact on existing housing in the A454 Aldridge Road and Foothertey Brook Road area.
8. The railway runs along a raised embankment bordering sites WAH 246 and WAH 230 which will promote the noise of the railway to travel across to any new homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 13826

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: The Wedding Rooms Florist

I am writing concerning the proposed new housing land, shown on your map in the Black Country Plan.

The land I am referring to is known as Hingleys Covert ((2.15ha) to the rear of no.s 90 – 106 Lindrosa Road).

This is an area of broadleaf woodland with a canopy of sycamore, oak and birch along with holly, rowan and thorn. This area of woodland is a wildlife haven, we see an abundance of birds, including woodpeckers and many species of birds of prey, the woodland is also home to roebuck deer and foxes.
This woodland is also subject to a tree preservation order, a copy of which I received from Walsall Council in 2006.

I am very disturbed by your plan to remove this woodland and replace it with housing. Given the current climate crisis, we are being encouraged by our Government to plant more trees and rewild areas of our Country. Our Housing Secretary, Michael Gove, has publicly announced a change in planning policy to focus housebuilding efforts on brownfield sites.

Given the location of this proposed new housing, I do not believe that affordable housing would be built on this land, but the development of luxury housing, of which Streetly is not short. What Streetly is short of is access to good public transport links, the current access to public
transport would not support these new housing proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 13917

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Liz Roberts

With regards to policy WSA9 pages 564 and 565 of the consultation document about building houses on the green belt next to Pacific Nurseries on Chester Road, I am writing to object to this proposal. I am objecting to this proposal as there is not the infrastructure to accommodate more houses in this neighbourhood. Anti social behaviour will increase as there is a lack of facilities for young people which will mean more pressure on police. The nearby raods such as Chester Road, Hardwick and Little Hardwick road are busy as it is with traffic. Having more residential houses will increase the traffic which in turn will increase pollution. Increase in traffic will also increase the risk of children being able to paly safely. My suggestion would be to build on the brown fields first as there are plenty in the area and leave our beautiful green belt alone. You are killing wildlife and increasing the carbon footprint by proposing to remove woodland.

Object

Representation ID: 14021

Received: 01/11/2021

Respondent: Miss Louise Daykin

I would like to lodge my formal objection against Policy WSA9/ strategic allocation WSA 9, the proposed development of the land to the east of Chester Road, north of Pacific garden Centre, Hardwick, Streetly. The proposed development is for 415 houses to be build on this site. I have a number of points of objection:
1- This site falls on green belt land, Walsall Councils development policy/ SAD (adopted in 2019 and published on the website) states that green belt will be protected and that building will not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances, of which there are non. The development of Greenbelt land is also in contravention of the 'brownfield first' objective of the Walsall Site Allocation Document (section 2.1). There are ample brownfill sites in the borough where development could take place.
Excert (section 7.2):
The Green Belt forms an important component of the Boroughs environmental network,
providing for the continued role of agriculture and maintaining a rural character, particularly
in the areas surrounding Aldridge and Pelsall. The defining characteristics and functions of
the Green Belt will continue to be safeguarded as part of the wider West Midlands Green Belt.
Most types of development, except for a limited list as set out in the NPPF, are inappropriate in the Green Belt. SAD Policy GB1 will be used to control development that is not
inappropriate and where controls are not available under other policies in the development plan, as well as in the NPPF itself.
2- The local infrastructure will be unable to cope with the significant rise in residents. The Chester Road is already extremely congested and the addition of hundreds of new residents and drivers will significantly increase this and the associated danger. An additional junction where hundreds of additional drivers join the Chester Road will be very dangerous. The increased traffic will also significantly reduce air quality, and therefore the health and safety of residents.
3- There are insuffucient schools and medical facilities to support the increase in residents. GP provision is already stretched and the addition of so many new residents will increase this pressure further and again put the health and safety of residents at risk.
4- The proposal talks of affordable housing, an average new development for a detached house in the area is circa 1 million pounds. Therefore, even with a smaller house with a lesser price, I fail to see how an argument can be made that this will meet the proposed objective of affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 14155

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Dr and Mrs Paul and Gail Wright

Number of people: 2

This Objection Is sent on behalf of Dr.Paul Wright and Mrs Gail Diane Wright




SAVE OUR GREEN BELT LAND / ALDRIDGE ROAD QUESLETTE ROAD, STREETLY / ALSO KNOWN AS COLUMBIA PARK DEVELOPMENT



Dear sir or Madam

We wish to advise you that we strongly object to the proposed BCP using Green Belt land in particular the land on the Aldridge Road and Quelsette Road here in Streetly.



The density of housing on this site is the highest on the BCP plan and is totally unacceptable for our community. The area will put extreme pressure on our already overwhelmed community infrastructure ,where are all the children going to go to school, how are we going to ensure everyone can get a doctor's appointment (impossible now)??. Dentists will be overwhelmed, Police with their limited resources will be stretched even more, and Council Services will be put under more pressure.

By using this land to build 960 homes will take way for ever or corridor of open space we have at present. In these times when the focus is on Climate change and global warning it would be an absolute tragedy for our generation and future generations to build so many homes on this site. It will remove for ever the trees, hedgerows, fields' grassland and habitation for so much wild life. All this totally goes against the message of Climate change the Government is setting out. We need to retain our Green belt land to have chance of building a better world so it survives for generations to come.

The homes would bring more air, light and noise pollution and emissions, 960 homes will equal at least 960 cars. This will lead to an increase in traffic on local roads that are already used by far too many vehicles now and are now unsuitable for a vast increase in traffic. If these homes were built major changes would have to be made on the surrounding network of roads to make them safe to either enter or exit the site for all these additional vehicles. Public Transport is at present inadequate for the area, if it was ever to be improved with more bus routed this would be another addition to our already congested roads and would add to the emissions.

Every effort and additional efforts must be made to identify and use Brown Field Sites, there are many many abandoned shops and units along our high streets .... convert these to affordable homes to breathe life back in to the High Streets before they are lost forever. I know the Plan has to give some more Employment but surely now as you look at the West Midlands there is so much unused and empty Industrial/Office Spaces so why are these not been looked at so they can be used. Off ice Blocks can be converted in to suitable homes
for all ages. By using Brown Field sites it is an opportunity to put back the area to housing stock and improve the surrounding environment so giving more back to improve the Climate not to mention how much better it would all look so appealing to a wide majority of home owners and bringing a better standard of environment and surrounding area.

Flooding is another issue here in Streetly, when we have heavy rain many of our roads become flooded as they cannot cope now, put another 960 homes in to the equation and we are going to be in serious trouble especially at the junction of the Aldridge Road and Queslette Road it is impassable when flooded until it is cleared. There would have to be some serious adaptation of the complete drainage system in the area.

With an already busy area for troff ic if this plan is past to use this Green belt site during construction what Guarantee's would we have as local residents to be able to go about our daily routines if the area is swamped with construction traffic? I suspect we would have no guarantees what so ever that our lives would not be disrupted for a very long time.

We, like other residents are concerned about our house values, who would want to buy in the midst of this large development taking place, I think we would certainly lose a lot of value to our homes during and after construction.

In your documents you state that you have to make the most efficient use of any land, I presume that means putting as many homes on one site as possible but then you read on and you say you will ensure a healthly living environment It goes on to say about enhancing nature conservation but you are destroying our nature if this plan goes ahead so it is all very contradictory is it not?

These are our reasons for been totally against the use of this Green Belt Land for these 960 homes here in Streetly, or for that matter any other Greenbelt Land for any other number of homes or businesses. This land is very precious and important to us all living and enjoying healthily lives. If you pass this plan the Greenbelt Land will be gone forever and no matter how many promises you make it will never be the same for those of us living here now and for future generations.

Yours sincerely

Object

Representation ID: 14240

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Adam Gibson

These same design principles refer to "A transport strategy that ensures the transport impacts of the development are appropriately managed and mitigated". Again, this is wildly generic. Roads adjacent to the potential development, such as Windermere Drive, Lindrosa Road and Coniston Road are designed for limited residential use and already see congestion in the event of any large vehicular access. If there were any attempt to provide transport links from developments onto these roads, that would cause considerable upheaval and inconvenience for current residents. Furthermore, given the narrow nature of some of these roads, and the likely desire to use such a route to access Hardwick Road and on to the A38 and other major routes, the increase in traffic could cause a significant risk to health and failing in emergency response due to inhibited access.

Overall, this plan appears rudimentary and offers no conviction to suggest it has had any depth of consideration. Design principles could apply to any development in the entire country, with no local understanding or appreciation. When coupled with the use of greenbelt land, this appears a poorly thought out and damaging approach, both environmentally and ethically.

Object

Representation ID: 14245

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Lee Swann

I believe the local infrastructure in the Streetly Area cannot support any additional houses. The green areas around Streetly are beautiful and provide superb habitats for animals, insects, birds etc including bats. It also provides a welcome "nature break" between Streetly, Aldridge, Four Oaks and Pheasey.

I also believe there are adequate Brown field sites in the area that could and should be an alternative to building on green belt areas or farming fields & meadows. The local amenities are already at capacity and the local roads are busy at all hours (also, why did I only receive this today !!)
Green Belt should be the last resort, not the first option !! WAH246

Object

Representation ID: 14659

Received: 07/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Penn

Number of people: 2

WAH234 (Columba Park-Aldridge Road) WAH 246 (Chester Road)
I object to building on green belt land when there is many brownfield sites that could be used first my wife is also in agreement with me

Object

Representation ID: 15696

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England objects to the above allocations. The above sites are in close proximity to Sutton Park Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserve. Sutton Park is one of the most important wildlife site in West Midlands and is known as the green lung of the Black Country. It is a local destination green space for local people in maintaining their connection to nature thus supporting their mental health and wellbeing. A mosaic of habitats including ancient woodland, heathlands and wetland habitat. The wetlands are natural being ground fed but are affected significantly by sewage
and storm water mixing during high intensity rainfall. The wetland habitats here although severely impacted in areas by water pollution, are exceptionally rare in the Midlands and of better quality than those found at Cannock Chase. The topography of the land means that surface water and surface
water drainage which contains pollutants will flow down into the park area consequently compromising the site. It is imperative that any additional housing does not impact upon the wetland environment.

The following issues would need to be addressed for us to be able to remove our objection:

• Water pollution from foul drainage and surface water drainage

The Sutton Park SSSI is currently suffering from significant damage through urban water pollution (e.g. sewage and storm overflow mix during flooding events). The addition of these sites without proper mitigation will worsen an already dire situation.

• Recreational impacts

The SSSI currently suffers from significant recreational pressure. The increased scale of new housing might reasonably be expected to exert excessive pressure on the SSSI through added recreational visits. We advise the councils within the Black Country to review any existing
visitor surveys and commission a new one as necessary in order to identify if there is a threat to the SSSI. Policy in Black Country Local Plan will need to reflect evidence base/any moves to
better understand the situation e.g. alongside Birmingham City Council.

• Air quality. The site is currently exceeding ammonia, nitrogen deposition and acid deposition levels.

The site is highly urbanised in nature and air quality is already an issue for the site.

However these proposal sites also present an opportunity to maintain the vital wildlife corridor (green infrastructure) that links Barr Beacon Local Nature Reserve and existing surrounding green space. There is good green infrastructure connectivity here for bats along the railway corridor which must be maintained to facilitate bats’ movements across the borough. There are good green infrastructure opportunities to enable the Nature Recovery throughout this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 15698

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Natural England

WAH254 (GB1) Pacific Nurseries, Chester Road, Walsall

Natural England objects to the above allocations. The above sites are in close proximity to Sutton Park Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserve. Sutton Park is one of the most important wildlife site in West Midlands and is known as the green lung of the Black Country. It is a local destination green space for local people in maintaining their connection to nature thus supporting their mental health and wellbeing. A mosaic of habitats including ancient woodland, heathlands and wetland habitat. The wetlands are natural being ground fed but are affected significantly by sewage
and storm water mixing during high intensity rainfall. The wetland habitats here although severely impacted in areas by water pollution, are exceptionally rare in the Midlands and of better quality than those found at Cannock Chase. The topography of the land means that surface water and surface
water drainage which contains pollutants will flow down into the park area consequently compromising the site. It is imperative that any additional housing does not impact upon the wetland environment.

The following issues would need to be addressed for us to be able to remove our objection:

• Water pollution from foul drainage and surface water drainage

The Sutton Park SSSI is currently suffering from significant damage through urban water pollution (e.g. sewage and storm overflow mix during flooding events). The addition of these sites without proper mitigation will worsen an already dire situation.

• Recreational impacts

The SSSI currently suffers from significant recreational pressure. The increased scale of new housing might reasonably be expected to exert excessive pressure on the SSSI through added recreational visits. We advise the councils within the Black Country to review any existing
visitor surveys and commission a new one as necessary in order to identify if there is a threat to the SSSI. Policy in Black Country Local Plan will need to reflect evidence base/any moves to
better understand the situation e.g. alongside Birmingham City Council.

• Air quality. The site is currently exceeding ammonia, nitrogen deposition and acid deposition levels.

The site is highly urbanised in nature and air quality is already an issue for the site.

However these proposal sites also present an opportunity to maintain the vital wildlife corridor (green infrastructure) that links Barr Beacon Local Nature Reserve and existing surrounding green space. There is good green infrastructure connectivity here for bats along the railway corridor which must be maintained to facilitate bats’ movements across the borough. There are good green infrastructure opportunities to enable the Nature Recovery throughout this area.

Object

Representation ID: 16174

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Alison Smith

I write concerning the proposed development below.
The proposal for the use of land on the east of the Chester Road in Streetly (WAH230) (WAH254) and (WAH246) will make the Chester Road junction at The Hardwick very congested. This is a busy junction for people going into Birmingham and is used by large lorries coming from the quarry at Aldridge as well as elsewhere. The congestion would increase standing times for vehicles which would increase pollution. The risk to people's health with the increase in traffic fumes, should not be over estimated. Particularly as the area under proposal is already in the direct path to Birmingham airport, with all the pollution that the aircraft deposit on the houses below. The proposed area would result in a large and dense area of tree removal being necessary. As trees are vital to cleaning the air, this would be detrimental to people's health. Not only would the trees be removed, the habitat for many species would be lost. With the lost of vegetation and the increase in tarmac, concrete etc, this would make surface run off a concern, especially as the proposal places the site by a flood zone. As we all know the climate is changing and with it rainfall. Surface run off could lead to greater risk of flooding in the area, which could exponentially increase in size with time. In turn this could increase financial cost to householders.
I must object to the development on the grounds of health. mental well being and possible financial costs to house holders.

Object

Representation ID: 16502

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Ian Hitch

WAH254,WAH246 and WAH230.

I am writing in objection to plans to build on land under WAH254,WAH246 and WAH230. Not only is it willful destruction of precious green land which holds a multitude of wildlife. It will increase pressure to all ready over subscribed local schools and doctors etc.
The area you are proposing to build on will increase traffic and increase air pollution caused by the increased traffic.
In a time when the world is waking up to the importance to save greenfield spaces and nature , I find it unbelievable that you are even considering building on any greenfield sites at all.
With site number WAH254 I believe it is your intention to use conisiton road and Lindrosa road as access roads. This is utterly mad, these roads are both far to narrow for such traffic and could endanger local residents both young and old.

Object

Representation ID: 16725

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: 17052

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.