Policy CSP2 – The Strategic Centres and Core Regeneration Areas

Object

Representation ID: 43853

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

4.8 Policy CSP2 sets out the growth network and identifies this as comprising the Strategic Centres and Core Regeneration Areas. This approach is not considered consistent with the Vision and Spatial Strategy set out previously nor with the strategy in CSP1. In particular, the Neighbourhood Growth Areas, which are a fundamental part of the overall Spatial Strategy, are not mentioned in Policy CSP2 or referred to as forming part of the overall growth network. This is an inconsistency, and the Neighbourhood Growth Areas should be given equal importance to the Strategic Centres and Core Regeneration Areas currently mentioned in CSP2. Failure to do so means the Strategy falls back on a polarised approach towards meeting development needs targeted predominantly on existing brownfield sites within the urban area. A more balanced approach is needed, in accordance with the vision identified for the Black County and overarching spatial strategy defined in CSP1. This is particularly significant bearing in mind that the Plan identifies a shortfall in the provision of both housing and employment land.
4.9 Furthermore, the justification for the approach set out in CSP2, focusing growth solely in the Strategic Centres and Core Regeneration Areas, refers to supporting balanced growth taking account of environmental, climate change, accessibility and social requirements. In fact, the approach merely focuses development options on areas of the Black Country which require regeneration rather than taking a more balanced and holistic approach to delivering the most sustainable and deliverable solutions, which would also involve Green Belt release to broaden choice in housing and employment development options. The narrow focus set out in CSP2 also conflicts to an extent with paragraph 3.15 which acknowledges that Green Belt status should not be the sole criteria in assessing the suitability of a site’s ability to deliver sustainable development
4.10 The justification of CSP2 refers to the Core Regeneration Areas particularly reflecting the large parcels of employment land found in the Black Country and the opportunity it has to release poor quality and underused land for housing. The justification to CSP2 actually highlights the failings of such a narrow approach, in that it would only deliver housing on 'poor quality and underused land' which will not deliver a range of housing opportunity sites nor reflect the need to provide choice in both types of accommodation but also location.

Comment

Representation ID: 45882

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Transport for West Midlands

Overall TfWM welcomes the land use options presented in this chapter and that predominantly the Strategic Centres and Core Regeneration Areas are the primary focus for sustained regeneration and infrastructure investment to support the delivery of growth. These locations are already served by an extensive public transport system and provide the most suitable locations for economic and housing growth from a transport perspective.

However, with the extent of growth planned, there will be limited capacity for travel on the existing networks and modes and while the transport chapter presents an array of schemes to assist with this growth, the traffic modelling datasets and evidence (setting out the travel demand across all modes) is still missing. This means it is unclear whether the potential mitigation measures which might be required to minimize and manage the travel demand increase will be enough to off-set the growth and support wider social, economic and inclusion objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 45931

Received: 31/03/2022

Respondent: Walsall Labour Group

Agent: Cllr Aftab Nawaz

The proposals have the potential to change our borough for the worse meaning that invaluable greenbelt land will be lost for the residents of our borough and for our future
generations. Once lost the Greenbelt is gone forever and this cannot be something that we can accept as the representatives of the people.
The enjoyment of the land and its use for the wellbeing of our communities is something we vale highly. The removal of this land will impact the health and wellbeing
of our residents and will be harmful to them. We cannot support these proposals that will be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of our residents.
In addition to this many Green Spaces, for example in the Reedswood area of the borough (another unwelcome proposal), are a buffer to the pollution that comes from
being so near to a major road network like the M6. This buffer that removes, alleviates or mitigates the impact of the pollution helps the health of residents in the area
particularly children. The removal of this ‘buffer zone’ will therefore impact negatively and directly on the health of residents and therefore cannot be supported by us.
The destruction of valuable habitats from proposals set out will be huge and will be directly opposite to our responsibility to the natural environment. These habitats are not only important to the biodiversity within our borough but are also significant natural amenity for our communities and residents. The negative impact on wildlife cannot be justified on the basis of needing more homes.
The development of brownfield land and former industrial land has not been exhausted and therefore the proposals for development should be focussed on this type of land.
It is highly irresponsible to develop Greenbelt land, Greenspaces or on areas of Special natural significance without exhausting brownfield / former industrial land.
Finally these proposals are aimed at helping developers maximise their profits and not helping residents and protecting them from unfair, inappropriate and unacceptable developments. The fact that developers may have to spend a little extra in remediating brownfield / former industrial land and thereby reducing some of their profit margins should not be the basis of attacking our most valuable land. It is not a financial issue for us but a moral issue. The land that is covered by the
proposals cannot be measured in pounds. It is invaluable in the benefit that our residents get from this land.

Comment

Representation ID: 46177

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Subsection (3c) of policy CSP2 states that the Strategic Centres have the potential to provide 9,561 new homes of mixed type and tenure; the majority built at high densities as part of mixed-use developments. The Subsection (3c) reference to density should repeated in subsection (4d) such that intention is extended to also reference potential for high density residential development in the Core Regeneration Areas. The BCA currently have a 25% housing shortfall against requirements, even when proposed green belt release sites and provision by neighbouring authorities out of area are factored-in. It is highly likely that a component of any solution to addressing the current housing shortfall will be higher density residential development in the defined Core Regeneration Areas in addition to in the defined Strategic Centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 46277

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr John Stackhouse

I strongly object to loosing any green belt sites. Vertually three quarters of Park st, Walsall town centre is now empty and Bradford St area is an utter disgrace - knock all that down and centralise all the existing shops. There is plenty of brown site areas with empty factory and office premises around the Walsall area. Any extra housing in Pelsall would devistate such as small village. The extra traffic alone would cause chaos and the infrastructure could not cope. I want something left for space and nature for the future for my grandchildren.