Table 3 - Black Country Housing Land Supply and Indicative Phasing 2020-39

Comment

Representation ID: 10658

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Brookes

No green belt land should be used untill all brown field sites are used including industrial sites that have been vacant for 2 or more years no site that currant children's play areas should be used. There are also listed buildings /sites sitting derelict because people can not afford to put back to original ...there a waste and should be taken over and site used . All so I have heard of sites given to people of town/city by wealthy individuals sold off by councils for housing. Must stop unless a consultation on any deals

Object

Representation ID: 11380

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Miller

We should not build 7,720 houses on the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 11453

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Ms Charmaine Stint

There is a high level of commitment to using green belt land. It does not seem apparent that other options have been fully explored.
The additional benefits that green belt land provide will not be replaced in the longer term in and around new housing developments.
The volume of new housing appears to be creating high density housing enclaves within areas that are already highly populated.

Object

Representation ID: 11465

Received: 03/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Annette Templar

I object to releasing green belt land for development, specifically land off Worcester Lane Pedmore.

Object

Representation ID: 11477

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Beddow

no housing on green belt
there have been minimal brownfield sites allocated and those that have been selected are on greenbelt!
builders dont want to build anywhere thats not lucrative so they will always choose greenbelt
you should be telling the builders where to build not the other way round
mental health, flooding, environment being green, ecological, infrastructure are all reasons against
plenty of brownfield sites available but not in areas builders can make money
shameful

Object

Representation ID: 11503

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Michael Blamire-Brown

I object to land being taken out of the green belt for housing. No green belt land should be released in the plan until it has been demonstrated that all brownfield land has been committed for development and green belt land should not be released as a matter of course. Sites which have been excluded for consideration as part of the land supply should be the subject of further investigation before the plan is finalised.

Object

Representation ID: 11771

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Varinder Hayer

My Property has been has identified in SHLAA - this has not been indicated to me.

Object

Representation ID: 11803

Received: 09/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Coyne

I do not want greenbelt built upon until all brownfield sites have been exhausted. I do not see this in the plan especially in regards to St Mathews Walsall.

Comment

Representation ID: 11931

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Patrick Lavery

Reduce the number of retail and shopping centres in Walsall Town Centre as few and fewer people are shopping this way. Walsall town centre has too many retail parks with units that have been empty for years and will never be re-let. This space could then be used to build socially affordable houses particularly for younger people. This would also help to re-vitalise the town centre as this group of people are more active and spend more time socialising with friends out side their homes. Empty office buildings should also be re-purposed as places for people to live.

Object

Representation ID: 12060

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Mrs Clare Guest

I am concerned that Green belt land is being released. These areas are vital within our communities and for the local wildlife. I am particularly concerned with proposals to build on land off Viewfield Crescent (DUH210). The land is home to and other protected wildlife and is connected to Cotwall End Nature Reserve which is a designated site of local importance to nature conservation and is within a landscape heritage area.
In addition the land is steep and building on there could exacerbate potential flooding in the area due to the natural springs.

Object

Representation ID: 22159

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

At 7,657 (Table 3), we consider the windfall allowance to be high - it represents around 16% of the total housing target for the plan period, which is a considerably proportion. Given the requirements of the NPPF, we consider the plan is at risk of not being 'positively prepared' given this (we feel) overreliance on unallocated housing in the emerging plan. Paragraph 71 of the NPPF sets this out clearly: 'Where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source ofsupply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Plans should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development ofresidential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.'

Comment

Representation ID: 23251

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Historic England

We recognise that Table 3 on page 90 sets out a significant housing requirement for the Black Country and seeks to find land to accommodate over 47,000 new homes in the plan period. Historic England is concerned about the location of this proposed development and is keen to ensure that the Plan has a positive strategy for the historic environment, seeks to protect and where possible, enhance the significance of heritage assets including their setting and has suitable and up to date evidence to justify the inclusion of proposed allocations and any potential harm/ avoidance and mitigation measures.

See comments elsewhere on proposed allocations and within the body of the letter attached to this response.