First off let me say thank you to all those who took the time to read my recent post on the housing crisis, in particular those of you who left comments. Today I want to explore further into this issue as things are never as simple as they first seem.

On the point that was made about bringing empty homes back into use negating the need for 1.5 million new homes to be built. There was an article on BBC NEWS today by Brian Wheeler, “Why are we building homes when so many are standing empty?” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g518le0r5o the author makes the point far better than I could as to why this may not be as easy as it looks.

One thing is for sure, getting the right sort of homes built in the right area to satisfy local need is not, as some folks seem to think, something that can be resolved overnight.

This new government needs to think beyond just increasing the total number of new homes being built each year and tinkering around with planning regulations in order to resolve the housing crisis.

A serious conversation has to be had beginning at a local level to inform regional policies in order to inform the national plans around types of construction, making sure that the local infrastructure is there to support new residents. Are there enough school places? Is there easy access to local shops. Are transport links adequate just name a few. Then of course there’s the prickly subject of building in the green belt and what actually is and is not green belt land. All of these issues require far more openness and transparency from those we elect to act on our behalf.

It is a big task and we as residents must also play our part. If we want to exercise our right to comment on the decisions our politicians make, then we need to react when those politicians come forward with consultations. It’s no good shouting on social media about something if you didn’t make your views know when you had the opportunity.

Local news media also have a responsibility to make sure that as many people as possible know when decision makers are seeking their views and that they have all the facts to help them give an informed response. There’s far too much sloppy journalism about, and by that, I mean that all too often journalists quite happily regurgitate the contents of a press release without taking the trouble to do a fact-check first. I’m not saying all journalists are like this, there are some very good exceptions. What I am saying is that we all need to up our game, take responsibility, don’t act, don’t moan.

I came across a couple of planning applications in the New Invention area going through the consultation period ahead of a decision by 13 December 2024 probably going to the January 2025 meeting of Walsall Council’s Planning Committee.

One was seeking the demolition of the former Victory Club on the Lichfield Road in order to erect 11 new homes. Seven would be 3-bed properties, three would be 4-bed, and one a 5-bed property.

The other was proposing the demolition of the former Methodist Church, also on the Lichfield Road. This application is looking at erecting 18 new homes with access from the Lichfield Road. There are 3 different types of property shown all of which appear to be 3-bed properties. From what I can glean from the site plan, five are detached properties, the remaining fourteen are semis, four of which are slightly larger than the rest.

There are issues with both sites. In the case of the former Victory social club site, the access road is immediately ahead of the bus lay-by with a bus stop in the other direction almost opposite. Any vehicle coming off the development could be blind-sided by the hedge back of a narrow footpath. Whether or not planning and transport regulations would allow this I wouldn’t like to second guess. Other than that, there are those who would argue that a new small housing development would be better than what currently exists. It will be interesting to see what comments come from the consultation.

Moving on to the proposal to demolish the former Methodist Church further down the Lichfield Road towards the Crab Lane/Pooles Lane junction to enable an access road to be constructed to service 18 new homes, all 3-bed, 14 of which are semis, the remaining 4 are larger detached homes. There are those who would argue that it would be a shame to lose the existing church building, however, it is empty, and it doesn’t have listed building status and the site was sold some time ago with a view to develop. The development also requires that a number of trees of varying quality would have to go. I would hope that those on the planning committee would argue that given the proximity of the site to a busy main road and that it’s not that far away from the M6 motorway, they would be making the case for the developer to plant replacements in the area to improve air quality.

This leads us onto the question as to whether these two developments will help even in a small way, to satisfy some of the housing needs in our area? Even if the answer is yes will they ever get built given that the Roman Catholic site just up the road on Forest Gate remains undeveloped, in spite of planning permission being granted around a decade ago.

One final point. From some of the comments I saw about social housing tenants on my previous post, there is no doubt in my mind that there has to be a cultural change. Whether it be home ownership, social housing or the private sector rental market, everyone has the right to have a roof over their heads.

NB

If you want to have a look at the two planning applications mentioned above follow this link:
http://planning.walsall.gov.uk/swift/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display where it asks for Planning Reference insert 24/0647 for thr Victory club site application and 24/1067 for the Methodist site application. Click search to reach the details.

Common material considerations include:

• our planning policies
• central Government planning guidance
• adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, for example noise, disturbance, overlooking (but not loss of view), loss of privacy, daylight, sunlight and overshadowing
• the size, appearance, layout and density of the proposed development
• accessibility
• size, appearance, layout and density
• visual impact
• effect on the character of the neighbourhood
• design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)
• over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character compared with existing development in the vicinity
• if in/near to a conservation area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the conservation area
• if near a listed building, adverse effect on the setting of the listed building
• means of access, parking, servicing, traffic generation, highway safety (where there is technical evidence to back up this claim)
• impact on landscape and ecological habitats
• crime prevention and community safety
• effect on archaeology
• air quality and odours and hazardous materials/ground contamination
• flood risk
• renewable energy, sustainability of proposed development
• previous appeal decisions
• loss of trees

This is not an exhaustive list.