Public Meetings and debates through the press

Beacon Action Group have finally come through with a list of dates along with further other meetings organised by the council.

The details are HERE it is very disappointing thought to find out that there is not going to be a proper public meeting where both sides of the debate can be questioned.

I will not be able to go to the BAG meeting as on that date I already had something planned, which is a shame but to be honest the debate is a well worn path now.

I note in the debate that BAG are once again not coming up with a planning reason for this to be rejected. Everyone in this debate has to be aware because of the recent changes in planning rules made by the government and Walsall local development plan that you have to argue against these.

Of course it is inevitable this debate will be in the press and Peter Allen has the following reply to the points made by both Bob Winkle and Tom Watson.

GBO 24-1-14 Page 14

I do find the one argument of traffic so funny. Is it only now that the residents have noticed Chapel Lane is quite busy ? Anyone who has travelled down there at morning rush hour knows it is a nightmare. This is largely caused by the large delays onto the M6 on the slip road. Maybe if the residents actually asked Tom Watson (as the MP responsible for that area) to go to the Highways Agency to sort it the problems would be lessened.

In these debates it is always easy to find one outstanding issue and peg it to something you are against.

Finally if BAG want to be taken seriously then they really should come up with viable alternative plans. The lack of these must ask people what their real motivations are.

Advertisements

142 thoughts on “Public Meetings and debates through the press

  1. As a Chapel lane resident, who has highlighted the issue in relation to traffic,i wish to make the following point to you Ian, i have been in touch with Walsall council on many occasions in regards to the traffic issues, most recently in regards to another development that has been given planning approval on Chapel Lane. I have said i am not against this development but as everyone including yourself are aware traffic is a big issue and concerns need to be addressed. You clearly don’t have any of the answers and like to make assumptions, i am not a politician nor do i wish to be, especially in light of all the comments i have seen on here and other sites. I have asked questions of the architects and await their response. I will make my decision based on this fact and nothing else. I have also noted that in these meeting the architect etc will be present, so your comments are incorrect. You are a Labour person i believe and the official statement is that Labour will be sitting on the fence and have no view, you clearly have a view and that is to choose to ignore residents. I live in Walsall and my vote comes under Pheasey, i also live on Chapel lane, you as a labour member are not interested in my view and i am no longer interested in yours, i want answers not mud slinging, and sly comments or im on the fence I’m off the fence…..

    • how is it your view point is so important there are a lager number of us on neither hall that support this application if fact Walsall council do not see chapel lane having a traffic problem other wise they would have put in the gates that would have closed the thru access( proposed traffic action done in 2002). I for one am thankful that at least one party is prepared to listen to all sides of the argument before coming out on one side or the other. an ex ukip support because of this issue and there idiotic stance on this as a vote winner.

      • I personally am sorry to hear that you are now longer supporting UKIP, however, please be aware that UKIP stance on this is not in any way purported to be a vote winner. UKIP are against any green belt development, it is national UKIP policy. Steve Grey, who has stood for UKIP in the area many times (and i am sure will answer you too), has fought against this type of development for many years.

        Steve’s pro activeness on this subject simply shows his honesty and integrity, he is and always will be against, just as UKIP are in general. Now if he or UKIP acted any differently and let us say, supported the development, then that would be a cause for concern. Unlike some party members who seem to change with the wind to suit their own end.

        Mind you, i think that the way you have named yourself as ex UKIP and hit back at a person who was simply berating the labour party seems to to be rather suspect.

        Funnily enough, everyone we spoke to on NHP was actually against the development, one man was scared tremendously that he may lose his excellent view if this development goes ahead.

      • Paul, from your comments about NHP being scared tremendously, Im guessing your not on the Facebook page for the residents. As that tells quite a different story!!
        Also for you to talk about UKIP stance, has Mr Farage not just “dumped” the entire UKIP election manifesto until after the Euro elections in May? If that’s not sitting on the fence, then I don’t know what is!
        This debate should not be about party politics/alignments, but whats best for this nationally important building, which is soon to be nothing but rubble!

      • I am sorry but you are saying all nether hall reject the development WE DO NOT!!!. there is a very large group who want something done. this looks good in comparison to what we have at the moment

        now I have said that are you against saving historic builds by the use of enablement applications or is it just a ploy by people to try and get there names known ?

        Labour – don’t know
        conservative against ( Mike Bird is of one our councillor and is the chare of Planning who will decide this )
        Ukip against

        I think all of you are using this as a political ball not what the majority of us wan,t or feel in our sleeves is correct.

        I will not vote Labour as you have implied above but they are the only ones listening I was Ukip but now I don’t know Labour to my regret appear to be putting our views first over name grabbing. therefore, in the next election I will not vote.

      • Errr I think you missed the point where the Chapel lane resident said they were in support of the development.?? I can fully understand why NHP residents would be in support of the plans, having previously lived on On the Park….but traffic on Chapel lane needs to be looked at. It is disappointing that Labour were out on Chapel lane last week listening to Chapel lane residents concerns, and then seeking to ridicule them on this site…maybe the gates that got rejected in 2002 ‘or whenever’ could be reviewed….given the extra traffic….and then I would be 100% behind these plans….

      • NPPP can you give one example where Labour has belittled anyone last week ?

        Check the website and I await your quotes.

        It seems some people are struggling to understand an individual position from the party position which allows people to have their say. In fact we contacted English Heritage for the residents to get their position and will present all view points in a fair way as our reply to the planning process.

        We were due on Netherhall and Park Farm tomorrow but had to cancel due to the weather.

        If you wish your views to put forward Labour would be happy to do so but I would imagine that they are already covered.

      • Paul, where does the person live where is scared of losing the view ? I am sure you are aware for the majority the views are like any estate.

        also did you correct him and show him the plans to show no visual impact on him ?

  2. Beacon Action Group have a host of genuine and legitimate planning reasons for objecting to this development and we will be sharing these with concerned residents at our meeting on Saturday 1st February at the Great Barr War Memorial Hall on Chapel Lane.

    The reason we are not holding a public meeting/debate is that we want people to make their own minds up based on the facts that are available at both of these meetings that have been organised and not by providing a public forum where people will argue out loud their point of view, which may become very heated.

    We will in due course make public our grounds for objection, but not until we have fully consulted with local residents.

    • Confused:

      BAG please respond you state that you will be making objections known at residents meeting on 1st Feb. This would suggest that you have already consulted as the reasons are already known so why can’t you make them known now?

      Or have we misunderstood and you will be making the BAGS concerns known to residents on 1st and taking a note of residents at the event and thus making public your grounds for objection after this meeting?

      Please kindly clarify?

    • if the BAG ever had any intention of EVER supporting an application for Great Barr Hall they would have long ago realised that whether it’s 27 47 or 107 houses that are proposed something on Chapel Lane needs to be done and spent their time and energy in trying to find a solution to this dilemma.

      in reality however their chairman Bob Winkle has been pre occupied in objecting to every development application in the area. not only those which relate to great Barr hall there are many others which the he has deemed insensitive and objected to.

      The biggest thing I feel which the owners can be criticised for is for taking the time to actually consult and meet with the BAG. the owners wasted their resources in trying to work with an organisation that won’t give an inch.

      • as you said BAG have known about this for years, they have consulted with residents over this time. are BAG prepared to say what they would allow and if no housing at all can they explain what happens to the land.

        Their blog is clear on their stance on what they think. Unlike this blog I have allowed different statements to be put up, for and against, they have not, where is the discussion there ?

        anyone is welcome to post a piece on this olog, please send it in via the About page.

        Can BAG confirm that no resident has the right of access over the land and the couple i saw walking down suttons drive and over the fence this morning were trespassing ?

        Can BAG confirm what the owners are allowing is far greater access than has ever been allowed before ?

  3. Ian, You said:

    “I do find the one argument of traffic so funny. Is it only now that the residents have noticed Chapel Lane is quite busy ? Anyone who has traveled down there at morning rush hour knows it is a nightmare.” – (Sorry, but i felt obliged to correct your spelling mistake in my version of your words).

    How terribly poor of you to speak like this.

    We all know how bad traffic is in Chapel Lane and nobody has ever tried to put it right or even cared apart from the residents! You even admit the traffic is so bad, YET, you still, as Ian Robo support the development and as webmaster/blog writer for Pheasey labour party sit on the fence.

    At least UKIP, if not everybody’s political cup of tea, are open and straightforward on this development! UKIP demand no more building on green belt, are adamant on that and opposed to this development.

    The labour party around here seem to be FOR, AGAINST and ON THE FENCE. Bookies would call that edging their bets!

    Mind you as the Labour Party were responsible for the last development along with the the law that allowed John Prescot to allow it to happen, is it any wonder?

    At least Adrian is truly sitting on the fence and helping to allow the local residents the chance to make their own mind up with a public open day. Although, i do wish he and his colleagues at local tory HQ would be against.

    I wonder how Chris Towe see’s this development? He has not spoken as yet, much like Mike Bird.

    • shows what you know Paul, Mike Bird is NOT allowed to speak as he is ion the planning committee.

      Adrian is not on the fence, his postings have made it clear he personally supports it.

      • Ian, read again what i said before you jump in feet first! I asked what Chris thought and said he has not said a lot like Mike, but the use of Mikes name could have been swopped with anyone’s name who has not spoken.

        Sorry Mike if your ears are burning.

  4. As a local I know, and I’m sure the rest of you know of 2 public consultations held. Many of which attended. This was more than any one has done before!
    For BAG to say there has not been any proper consultations with the public, is false.
    Chairman of BAG Bob Winkle has obviously been in consultation throughout the process of the planning application, and this is evident from Peter Allen’s letter to the Observer. BAG has been throwing around “there will be no public access”, when their own Chariman has said he wants restricted access! Bob Winkle has obviously been to meetings/consultations, as a representative of the public/BAG, over the last 2 years to discuss plans, this again will show consultation as he is a representative of the public and BAG. There is an article which states that the owners first made contact with the action groups once the Hall was purchased.
    BAG are once again forgetting the Netherhall Park residents and the good impact the development will have for them.

  5. I am a local resident who recently moved herein the last year. I would fully agree with BAG comments, that traffic is disgraceful and I am someone who travels along chapel lane daily. After saying all that I think the traffic issue is a bit of a red herring as the traffic isn’t caused by the immediate residents but by people living further afield. However I don’t see BAG kicking up a fuss about other developments which may end up using chapel lane to get on to the motorway. I think the problem is the motorway junction . Mr Watson claims he has been working with BAG for years, then the question I have is why is it neither BAG or Mr. Watson campaigned over the years to get the junction improved especially when they had the chance of doing so with the motorway upgrading , that has been taking place over the last few years. I suspect it is more about the politician coming out with bite size sound bites than actually doing something worthwhile. Likewise BAG I suspect are using the traffic as a smokescreen just to oppose this development, after all 1250 cars already on chapel lane another 20 cars in that 2 hour slot isn’t going to make much difference to the overall traffic.
    Finally it would be nice for BAG to either work with the developers or come up with a solution rather than the tried and tested answer of NO , now what is the question…???. I still intend to go to the meeting but I pray they and the MP spend the time coming up with answers rather than stirring up the room with Soundbites!!!!!

  6. Hi Paul, yes the comments made by the individual calling themselves ‘Ex-UKIP’ do look rather suspect to say the least; An attack against a very well balanced post to my view from Michelle Walton, because she dared to criticize both Ian and Euro-Labour; and the criticism of both myself and UKIP in general.
    As you state, a number of us (UKIP Walsall Branch Members) went across to Nether Hall Park yesterday morning (while a number of UKIP members from West Bromwich went to Chapel Lane, Coronation Road, The Grove, Birmingham Road and Merrions Close). We did speak to a number of local residents and all of them were totally opposed to the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application.

  7. Ian this post is a direct criticism of Chapel Lane residents concerns I quote your words “I do find the one argument of traffic so funny. Is it only now that the residents have noticed Chapel Lane is quite busy” This isn’t an argument this is a fact Traffic is already busy and a 500 person conference facility will only add to that. I thought you were going to take our issues away and have them addressed, when you met with us last week?? If it is an issue with the M6 slip road then can you and the Labour Party not take this up as a resident concern??? Personally I think making the road private is a good solution, as when the road was closed for maintenance last week it was great…..and guess what didn’t make any difference to Scott Arms traffic or Queslett Rd…..but then I’m not a traffic expert nor are you.

    • the road was not closed at rush hour though. I suggest you put the majority of those cars down Beacon and Queslett at rush hour and you would create serious problems. Remember most use chapel Lane to avoid the Scotts.

      The traffic experts from an independent company and both councils have said that the development will not cause any extra pressure, do you think they are wrong ?

      Yes Chapel lane is a serious problem, when I worked in Stoke over 16 years ago I used to have go before 7.15 to avoid the mess on there. The mess though is caused by the stupid arrangement at J7 where all the flow from the Birmingham Road/Scotts is not stopped and therefore little gap for cars from the other side to get on.

      Over time there has been work on the Lane but mainly to reduce the speed of the traffic and the traffic lights by the hotel, at the time I doubt the actual flow was looked at.

      The thing is over the years has anyone complained to the councils and highways agency about this before ? I certainly do not remember any complaints. There are issues and they should not be confused with current plans which according to the studies will not put hardly any extra strain on the Lane.

  8. I think BAG and Chapel Lane residents should take that question to their Labour representative, Tom Watson. So far from BAG (not aimed at No political party person), we have heard the objection about the development due to traffic, and no alternatives. They are obviously in direct and regular contact with Tom Watson, as their Sandwell MP. I think they should take this suggestion and put it forward to him instead of stirring by not giving Tom Watson the full briefings (as evident in Peter Allen’s letter to the Observer).
    We should also consider that NHP is leaning towards in favour of the development, as is evident on the Facebook page.
    As Peter Allen’s letter stated, there are around 15 houses affected by the development on Chapel Lane, but BAG have forgotten to recognise the 450 on NHP, which will help sure up the perimeter, safety and security from a disused, tired, somewhat dangerous landscape.
    Further more what happens if the work is not done to the damn/lakes. Look at the weather we are recently receiving. Does ANY person, or Political party for that matter, want the the bank to fail? That would mean ALL of the lower end of Queslett Road, Booths Lane etc under water! The Environment Agency can confirm that this is a Category A damn, which requires remedial works! Another vital bit of information which has been missed out of the BAG briefings.

    • Thanks for reminding us about the dam and I heard about the serious state of that months ago and mentioned it a couple of weeks ago. BAG have to answer about what they would suggest as a costed alternative. Thanks to the owner contacting myself we have some base figures to work on so no one is being unfair asking the alternative question of BAG.

  9. You are incorrect Ian, the road closed signs were up through out the day and night Ian, so obviously deterred traffic. Did you put your debate about traffic to the residents when you spoke with them last week? As these plans have yet to be approved, isn’t it our right as residents now to put forward our concerns……don’t agree with the traffic numbers published in the plans nor do most residents who live on the estate. I am also concerned about a venue that can cater for 500 people but only has 46 (this is what I counted) parking spaces. You said in another blog that Lapworths indicated 228 spaces????? I can’t see this in any plans, so have questioned it , and in fairness to them they have agreed to report back…..but they or you didn’t point us in the direction of theses 228 parking spaces in the plans….as for not speaking out about this before, I guess you just learn to put up with it, but then something like this happens and it makes you realise the road can’t cope now…this will only make it worse! I want these plans to go ahead I really do, it is the only real solution for the park, but please will someone listen to the concerns of the residents without just dismissing them with sly remarks!!!!!!!!

    • Lets look at some of those points.

      Yes as residents you have 100% right to put forward your views and also to be challenged on them. This is why I started the blog. I am a political person but I keep it out of any my posts on here. It is why we as a party took a neutral stance because there is rarely a winner or lose from planning disputes and we just want to represent. I will be honest the local party is split over this and the debate on here is reflected in the party.

      At the meeting last week we took away the issues with the traffic and it was mentioned about the spaces. However on the Lapworth document it is clear that there is 228 spaces and the council would never pass it anyway if the parking was not there.

      The traffic now in and around junction 7 and the Scotts is now such a major concern that it is impacting on all of Great Barr. Added to the extra homes planned on Booths Lane then the situation will only get worse. for me someone has to grasp the nettle and build an underpass or overpass at the Scotts. However that is another debate !

  10. Some neutral political stance you are keeping Ian.

    I wonder how Tom Watson will be feeling when he is “concerned” and you guys locally are either on the fence or for the development?

    The problem with the traffic in Great Barr is that there is too much, far too much. Adding new residencies in Booths Lane and Chapel Lane is just going to make it worse! There is a good enough argument for NO MORE HOUSES without any other reason.

    As for an underpass, how does that work with a flyover? Or maybe an flyover over the flyover? Perhaps we could fina a way to route the traffic through Red House Park and Great Barr Park? Or we could open a new junction in Queslett Rd for the M6?

    Better still the development could move to a brownfield site and the caring owners of the hall could use their profits to put the hall right and give us a nice bit of green belt to have our picnics on. I would even share my picnic with them as a thank you.

    • who says I keep a neutral stance, are you just being ignorant Paul who do you not understand the nuances ?

      Clearly not.

      so lets state it again, I believe this process should be non political and within the Local labour party and wider there are huge differences. So there a decision was taken a while ago for the party to keep a neutral stance. I defy you to find any statement from the local party that is anything other than neutral int he last 6 months ?

      Your comments show a total lack of understanding of the planning rules, I suggest you read up on them, give you a clue on the council site before you comment again.

    • Paul,

      You previously said you had access to great barr hall as your family worked at the hospital. Clearly they will no longer be working their.

      Why dont you suggest they apply for one of the jobs which will be ccreated by the restoration? Perhaps at the hotel, conference centre or resteraunt.

      Maybe the new owners will also allow you to visit your family. Surely you would much rather enjoy your picnic with your family! Seems like a win win situation.

      • Hi PK, there are mostly pretty close by as it is, in St Margarets Cemetry or retired.

        Somehow PK, after my musings and if the development gets the go ahead, i doubt i will be very close to the top of the invitation list either.

  11. Pretty clearly you miss my sarcasm, you are quite a part of the local labour party yet speaking for the development.

    Nothing near neutral in my book, but you are right about labour being split as you are for against and on the fence between you!

    Comment was nothing to do with planning laws.

    Fancy answering any of the other points i made in the last post?

    • what other points the rest is the same old stuff, brownfield development, as I say read the rules first before you post rubbish like that.

  12. As always this blog is getting railroaded to talk about personal issues and point winning…..the real issue as I have said and conveniently forgotten is the motorway traffic itself, and not the development. BAG should concentrate their efforts on getting Tom Watson to put a case forward for the motorway junction improvement and not griping about this development. Clearly regardless if this development gets the go ahead or not the traffic issue has been a problem for years. So maybe Mr. Watson would be better concentrating his sound bites to get the local residents a better motorway junction than picking on easy targets.

  13. One of the residents a number of us spoke with in Nether Hall Park yesterday morning was not too overly happy with regard to a number of individuals claiming to be Nether Hall residents and supporting the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application on Facebook. This resident, an opponent of the application, like everyone else we spoke with yesterday, was of the opinion that a majority of these people using the social network site to support the proposed development do not actually reside in Nether Hall Park.
    I was only made aware of this ‘conversation’ taking place on Facebook a couple of days ago; and note that one or two people posting on here have mentioned it of late.
    I’ve no doubt that some of the individuals using this website are probably pretty knowledgeable when it comes to using computers, mobile phones, websites and social network sites; I wonder if say someone was using a pseudonym on Facebook or Twitter or on here, is there any way of actually pinpointing exactly where they are accessing any particular web or social network site from?
    It would be interesting to see if any of these individuals not giving actual names and claiming to be local residents are actually logging in from for example Towns and districts such as Darlaston, Brownhills, Dudley, Cannock, Willenhall, Wednesbury etc etc.

    • Steve, Ian would be able to see what ip address each comment is coming from. Trouble is anyone in same area on same internet supplier would most likely show up the same although it would likely show roughly where from. It should pretty much show out of towners.

      Not much chance on facebook without looking at profiles if they were in fact telling the truth.

      Plus it is a private group on facebook for members only weirdly, not sure why that would need to be to be honest.

      • if people want to check IP addresses I would suggest that shows a certain level of paranoia, which I can not be bothered to spend the time to check.

  14. Steve

    perhaps the only real way for you to be certain the individual is who they claim to be would to switch your computer off and spread your vile perhaps door to door rather than on internet blogs.

    I assure you if you do this it will resolve the issue for you once and for all.

  15. Just so you know I live on parkfarm road backing out onto nether hall. I know you steve you are in pinle g and I even have some of your murder mystery books. So I am local!!!!

  16. Hi Paul; Interesting; So out of Towners using this website would show up. I wonder why this group on Facebook is for members only? Seems odd to say the least.
    pk – Right; let me see if i’ve got this absolutely correct. If i switch off my computer and spread something called vile on peoples doors (and would these be front doors, side doors, back doors or car doors? You didn’t stipulate which) Well i’d then know which individuals on this website were actually local residents and which individuals were not. Fascinating.
    What exactly is this vile you mention? And will i also need the aid of a magic wand and a crystal ball??
    Hi James; Yep, you do indeed sound like a genuine local resident.

  17. Ian, this is wordpress, a single glance at the list of comments in the back end will show you the ip of the comments along with the registered email address and name of commenter – takes 2 seconds to do.

    • I have been running wordpress for over 5 years now and work in the Internet world, I think I know what I am doing Paul.

      the point is why I would waste any time doing it ?

      • You are a novice compared to me then Ian, i was building websites before i thought the interweb would even work, back in 98.

        Why would you even bother? Well, to appease Steve at least maybe? For a fair playing field after the assumptions being made? The list is a long one

  18. pk – The only Vile i can think of play in Claret and Spew, reside at the Witton Dustbin; and Albion visit on Wednesday evening. Come on you Baggies!!!!!!!

    Being a little more serious about this. The Vile are a much tougher proposition than last season and if we can get anything out of what is sure to be a challenging task indeed; i for one will be relieved.

  19. For the Facebook page you must contact the administrator of the site and give your address of where you live on NHP, and come with a recommendation that you live there, so not too sure who you have been speaking to on NHP, because its not been anyone I have spoken to, nor has it been published on the site that you’ve been there…so for your out of towners comment for the Facebook page I guess thats “Boing Boing”

  20. Why on earth do you feel the need to use a pseudonym, Anonymous????? – I’m surprised that you’re unaware that myself and a number of other local residents and UKIP Walsall Branch members were in Nether Hall Park yesterday morning, as not only did we speak to a number of locals in NHP we also delivered over 400 papers and over 400 leaflets to every house and to at least some of the flats/apartments. We didn’t ask the people that we spoke to for their names. Perhaps at some point they’ll also attempt to join your private Facebook page – or is it only open to individuals supporting the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application? – Hence the reason why most if not all of the people on the page support the planning proposal.

  21. There are around 225 people on the Facebook page, not one person has mentioned UKIP (but I must guess that’s because your not important). Everyone has a right to their own opinions and support who ever they wish. Or do you feel that this should be a dictatorship and go with whatever you think, because your right in everything you say?
    I’m pretty sure that on this blog you’ve even mentioned that you don’t see NHP as part of pheasey/Walsall. Or is it now time for you to be electioneering and try to get your name out there, even when you have blantentley stated on this blog you do not like the NHP?

  22. Anonymous, You appear to be the one running the dictatorship via your private Facebook page. You are absolutely incorrect when you say you’re pretty sure that i’ve mentioned that i don’t see Nether Hall Park as part of Pheasey/Park Farm/Walsall on this blog – or anywhere else for that matter. I’ve never said anything of the sort. I note that you said ‘pretty sure’ and not did!!! – Nor have i ever stated on this blog – or anywhere else that i do not like Nether Hall Park. If you can find a post on this website or printed anywhere else for that matter that states what you claim then let’s see you quote it. – You won’t, because it does not exist.
    As for electioneering; I have stood as the UKIP candidate for the Pheasey/Park Farm/Nether Hall Park/Orchard Hills Ward on a number of occasions; Standing to represent ALL of the people of the area and not just some of them. Rather unlike yourself and your private Facebook page. I also use my name and don’t feel the need to hide behind a pseudonym – unlike yourself.

  23. Hi Paul; Yes, i’d say that the genuinely local residents who write on here; and those that don’t feel the need to hide behind a pseudonym; would probably prefer to see ‘a level playing field’ for everyone posting comments.
    From what you’ve said it seems that Ian could easily indicate which individuals taking part in discussions on the website are not actually local residents/people accessing the sight from areas a fair distance from Pheasey/Park Farm; – ‘Out of Towners’ as you described them yesterday.
    Better still, Ian could insist that everyone posting on here use their actual Christian/first name and surname and not a pseudonym.
    I’ve no problem with anyone residing outside our local suburbs joining in the debates on here; but like yourself i’m sure, i just don’t want them claiming to live locally when they do not.

  24. Anonymous; I challenged you yesterday to back up the false claims you made against me. I note that you have not yet done so.
    I don’t ever recall stating that you ‘Anonymous’ (whoever you really are) are not a local resident.

  25. In no forum I am a member of I have never had to prove who I am and will not do it that. If people can not answer points and simply resort to are your local, then your argument must be damn weak.

  26. Anonymous; I repeat, i have never at any time stated that you are not in fact a local resident. You, however have falsely claimed that i have made derogatory remarks with regard to Nether Hall Park. If you can in fact back up the false allegations you’ve made against me, then again i ask you to do so.

  27. pk; I have never mentioned a slave rant against Nelson Mandella on this website or anywhere else.
    I have never stated on this website or anywhere else that the former South African President murdered the teenager Stephen Lawrence; Nor have i ever met any Local Councillors from any political party in Worcester; and i have never made mention either on this website or anywhere else of a UKIP Councillor having posted racist rants on the internet.
    If i had done so, Ian, who created and runs this website and Local Councillor Adrian Andrew who sometimes posts on here, would (for example) have been duty bound to immediately inform the Walsall Police of the nature of such inflammatory statements.
    Quite why you have decided to accuse me of having spread such toxic commentary when i have done no such thing is beyond me?????
    Perhaps you would care to post proof that i have committed all of the acts you wrongly accuse me of.

  28. I attended the very professionally conducted information session relating to the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application staged by the Beacon Action Group this morning. There was a very good turnout by residents from across the wider Great Barr area concerned with the planning proposals, who listened intently with regard to, read about and took away very detailed information sheets printed by the BAG and dealing with all aspects of the application.
    Tables holding a petition objecting to the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application were very busy; and it was also encouraging to see a number of front gardens of houses along Chapel Lane displaying boards showing opposition to the planning proposals.
    There are also another two very well written letters against/objecting to the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application in this weeks Great Barr Observer from local residents Mr Kevin Wilkes of Pheasey/Park Farm and Mr K Eccleston of Coronation Road.
    I hope to see much more of the above in the days, weeks and months to come as the majority of residents from Pheasey/Park Farm, Nether Hall Park, Chapel Lane, Coronation Road, The Grove and Merrions Close pull together in the fight to see the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application thrown out by Walsall MBC.

  29. I see on twitter that Pheasey Views comment about the walsall advertiser story … “Does Geoff Reader want loads of social housing then ?” and asks of his pal brownhills bob “this is just so funny eh ?”

    Amazed you have not handed your card back in to the labour party Ian when Valerie Vaz and Tom Watson are so against this development unlike yourself. You being so in favour is incredible when one considers how many are against and in unison, political beliefs are being ignored, just a simple massive anti this development statement shown this morning.

    Some may think you have a stake in the proposal the way you speak out on your limb.

    Never mind, seems that you are alone on today’s turnout based on the fact that there was not a single person there who was in favour, including the NHP residents who i met too.

  30. Hi Paul; Yes; The Nether Hall Park residents i spoke to were very much of the opinion that the very small number of people who appear to be in favour of the application probably have family, business or other financial links to BCG Lakes/Lapworths. – A view shared by a fair few of the residents from Pheasey/Park Farm, Chapel Lane, Coronation Road, The Grove and Merrions Close i chatted to. A view also shared by a few people from Orchard Hills and Paddock who’d turned up to show their very welcome opposition to the planning proposals. They also said that there are large numbers of residents in Orchard Hills, Paddock and Park Hall who want the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application thrown out by Walsall MBC.
    Like yourself, i doubt that there was anyone at the War Memorial Hall this morning that was in support of what is an appalling threat to further desecrate the local Green Belt.

  31. Paul

    If you read the Walsall advertiser story it leaves you very confused.

    Tom Watson is quoted as saying “I stand absolutely behind Beacon Action Group in their campaign to get a proper development on this site.”

    yet Valerie Vaz is quoted as saying “I have seen the developer’s plan to build an horrendous brick wall at the entrance of the site which will affect Mr Winkle and his neighbours.“I am also absolutely against building on green belt land.”

    The two MPs do not seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. valerie like UKIP seems to be against the principal of development on greenbelt whilst Watson is behind bag in seeking a proper development.

    To further add to the confusion…The 9 page document setting ideas for objection which we received today which provides ideas on what to raise in an objection letter states on page 2 that If you are concerned Please write a letter as we need as many Letters as possible to stop this development. No where in the document does it suggest anything about trying to get a proper development. I also spoke to members of bag earlier and asked them what would be acceptable and the only response was not sure but definitely no housing on chapel lane.

    From the above I deduce:

    1. The labour party including MPs all have different views.Valerie vaz is against all development according to her quote whereas Watson is not. Ian like me can keep his card.
    2. bag And Watson have not made clear whether they are in favour of the principal of development on green belt.
    3. BAG have never confirmed that they agree with Tom Watson statement that they are seeking a proper development on this green belt site? And if they do then why does no where in their 9 page statement talk about a comprise or ideas for proper development?

    Would be helpful if BAG could confirm their position to stop us all from speculating.

    • PK I heard about Steve’s question yesterday and if he stood up and said the question as I have been told, how pathetic is that. The Labour party has no issues with members holding different views which are not against party policy, on this issue there is NO party policy at all so the MP’s speak for themselves as elected representatives.

      I understand he asked Tom W to kick me out of the party, amazing stuff really.

  32. pK; A few days ago you falsely claimed that i had made a series of inflammatory statements; I did ask you to prove that i had spouted the outrageous comments you accused me of making. I note that you have not yet done so; Again, i invite you to show your proof of the false allegations that you have made against me.

    Paul and myself spoke with a number of local residents from the Beacon Action Group this morning and none of them were in favour of any development whatsoever in Great Barr Park.
    The 7 point document given to local residents who attended the information session today entitled ‘Beacon Action Group – Suggested Planning Objections’ should really answer the question you pose with regard to the action groups position in relation to any proposed development taking place in Great Barr Park.

    • PK showing her true colours now, sadly in a discussion that should not be political. at all.

      Dirty tricks some would call it, i just think that as the argument is lost by the minority insults and lies are becoming prevalent!

      If we as UKIP members have to be accountable for the people that you mention PK then every other party member must be accountable for the same along with much more!

      • Paul

        Sorry forgot to reply I dont really care about the views of UKIP members like yourself.

        I do however feel political candidates should be held to account for the sunstabtial number of racists sexists remarks comments etc

        Esp when the examples involve fellow Staffordians UkIP councillors.

        see
        http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/Election-leaflet-sparks-UKIP-row/story-20157517-detail/story.html

        I dont need you to reply because as I say I am not particularly interested in your view in relation to this.

      • PK, you have no reason to be offensive or nasty to me and for your information, I am not JUST a member of UKIP, so i guess you tar me with the same brush as Steve.

        I am a prospective UKIP candidate and i can assure you that i am not racist or sexist, mind you, i can also assure you that i have never had a sexual relationship with an alien at the age of 6 or any age for that matter. As far as I know, I am not related to aliens either, whether 6 foot green ones or otherwise!

      • Paul,

        It has never been my intention to offend you.

        I didn’t realise you had political aspirations. if you don’t mind could you please tell me what formal qualifications you have in addition to all your life experiences etc etc

        I am intrigued what profession a man who makes such bold claims as you do would be skilled in.

        You want no more houses in great Barr because you want to keep the views and the historic woods.

        The views you have are of pylons, farmland, a hotel, hospital housing and a sub station. You have no view of any signifanct landscape feature the hall or the lakes so to me this argument seems stupid.

        Which historic woods are you looking to keep? Are you sure your not confusing great Barr park with merinos wood? Which historic woods dp you want to keep? Why don you want to keep them? Due to the historic woods size. Species mix.? Would be good to have your thoughts.

      • PK if you have never intended to offend me then i suggest you read your previous comments, such as:

        “I dont really care about the views of UKIP members like yourself.”

        Formal qualifications and life experience:

        Well, let me see, I have not got a degree in politics and i have not gone through the ranks of “common purpose”, that is of course a good thing, keeps me from being part of the political elite! Thus allowing me to be more like the majority of the electorate, I actually know the price of a loaf of bread.

        I have had 50 years on this planet, a very varied life of many ups and downs. Some of the ups include my marriage of some 33 years, the birth of my 3 children, the lowest down being when my daughter was run over on a pelican crossing by my bank manager, whom was allowed to walk free without a blemish on his character! My daughter on the other hand never regained consciousness and passed away the following day aged just 12 years!

        I currently employ 40 people, all of whom i have plucked from the ranks of the unemployed, each and everyone of them earn more than the minimum wage! I started my business with a mere £750, it is now 5 years old, however, i am not a rich man but i survive. I own and live in a house i inherited from the people who my mother handed me over to at just a week old. I guess she did so because she did not want me, couldn’t have done really as she kept my elder brother and sister, then had another child a little while later. Those 2 people became my parents, my mother and father, the best parents i could have ever wished for. The most generous, caring and honest people i have ever met.

        I have served my country as a member of HM Forces and i care about my country very dearly.

        IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

        You were intrigued, hopefully you are intrigued no more?

        I want no more houses in Great Barr ?

        Well, not of the type proposed, there is no need or call for them. Walsall MBC have their own 10 year plan and this type of house is not in fitting with their plan. Walsall needs affordable housing, not half a million pound extravagances.

        My views of this site do have pylons, a hotel, etc, however, they also have views of green fields, trees and nature. Why would I want to add unwanted views to the little greenery we have? What view will the residents of Chapel Lane have? A great wall.

        I would like to have the option of viewing the Hall in the style it once was, i would like the chance to visit the lakes, maybe cast a line or two in to them. I would like to walk my grandchildren in the woods, the greenery, the pleasant place that is Great Barr Park.

        I will bounce your last paragraph back to you, I did understand what you were saying, even though you did not use your spell checker.

        I want to keep the woods because they are there and have been for more years than you, me or our parents before us. I want to keep them because I like them, they are part of Great Barr, the Great Barr that i grew up in, as did my wife in coronation road. I want to keep them because they are picturesque. I want to keep them because i like to think that from her grave my daughter is surrounded by what is a very nice part of Great Barr, green and pleasant. I do not want to know that my daughters grave is being encroached upon by a monstrous development along side the church and the grave yard.

        I do not think it is a good idea to build houses by pylons as they are not ideal to live by.

        Sorry i was a little long winded and sorry if i have not answered the way that you expected but you did ask.

  33. PK; I have been fighting all development in Great Barr Park since circa 1985; before i became involved in local politics and joined the Labour Party. UKIP were not founded until 1993; and i did not join the party until 2001. So for all of the years spent working to protect the local green belt, it would have been rather difficult to toe the party line of a party i was not then a member of or prior to 1993, as i’ve said, did not actually exist.
    I am accountable for no ones actions other than my own. I am not responsible for the views of a very small number of foolish individuals from other parts of the country.
    Your outrageous and ridiculous assertions regarding the mostly very decent people in UKIP and especially my many good friends and colleagues in the Walsall UKIP Branch (a number of whom are like myself former Labour Party supporters and voters) are slanderous and incorrect and i will be taking up the matter of your disgraceful comments with my local branch Chairman tomorrow.
    John Prescott is responsible for 450 homes being built in Great Barr Park; and Paul and i have indeed remarked on that actuality on a number of occasions.

    • Steve

      like I said if you consider it to be acceptable to link labour members in support of the application with the office of deputy pms decision then your actions too must be judged by fellow political and ukip colleagues.

      whether you have met this is irrelevant considering the distance between Prescotts former constituency and netherhall and the fact that I am sure majority of us local labour supporters have not met Prescott.

      despite our different views I think you MOST certainly should explain answers of fellow Staffordian UKIP councillors and I hope you would agree perhaps an apology is needed by you on behalf of fellow Staffordian colleague for these remarks

      see
      http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/Election-leaflet-sparks-UKIP-row/story-20157517-detail/story.html

      • Linking labour party supporters to a labour government decision is a far cry from holding UKIP members accountable for other individual UKIP members actions. Or should we hold labour supporters accountable for the labour councillor who had underage sex with an alien?

        Quite sad, i think, that you have to take this route PK when you are on the back foot!

  34. Evening everyone!!!!. I like Steve was at the meeting today, however as a local resident of a number of years I was amazed to see how many of the people were not from the immediate local area but from the wider conurbation. It was as if people had been drafted in to make the numbers,!,!. , but despite that there wasn’t as many people as I expected based on the remarks of people on this bulletin board, and how much they hate the proposal. I would agree with Steve it was extremely professional as both Tom, Valerie and Bob spoke to whip up a frenzy of hatred to the proposal. In fact I was shocked and ashamed by some of the remarks made by Valerie in particular !! I would go as far as to say it contained a large degree of hatred of the developers( does she know them personally!,,). In hindsight the whole event seemed very stage managed by BAG and didn’t allow us as residents to make comments to the floor.
    Unfortunately for me it didn’t attempt to give a balanced view of the proposal and all conversations and literature was directed at raising objections to the plans. In fact a leaflet was handed to me effectively writing my objection to the proposal and they even offered to pick up my letter to take to walsall council. Not EXactly an unbiased view…
    Lastly what probably disturbed me the most was when I tried to make a comment in favour of the development a member of BAG accused me of either being a member of bcg or being related to them, and this because of the colour of my skin???. No matter how much I denied it she had made her mind up and then wouldn’t give me the time of day. So I am guilty based on my colour and not based on my actions!,,,

    Finally based on today’s meeting I like a few other people in that room will now be writing to support this proposal.THANK YOU ….BAG..

    • You are talking absolute tosh!

      We were all allowed to make our thoughts known to anyone and not least Tom, Val and Bob.

      Also why bring colour in to the discussion? I think you should either make a complaint to the police for racism or retract your accusation because if you are making a false accusation of racism you are breaking the law yourself! If what you are saying is true then the person needs dealing with, if it is not true then you are underhand to say the least!

      In all honesty her reaction, i would have thought would be down to the fact that she would be dumfounded that anyone could support this monstrous development after seeing the plans first hand, unless of course they had a vested interest!

      Your thoughts on Valerie Vaz are based on a different set of rules to those the BAG lady had of you are they?

      What did you expect to hear at a public meeting organised by a group against the development? You must be very naive if you thought they would not give every reason they could against the proposal.

  35. As i said earlier, i thought the Beacon Action Group information session yesterday was very well attended; There were indeed individuals there from Pheasey/Park Farm, Nether Hall Park and areas in the wider local conurbation, but i’d say that the majority of citizens taking part were from Chapel Lane, Coronation Road, The Grove and Merrions Close.
    I don’t recall anyone attempting to speak following Bob Winkle’s closing comments – but then again the room was pretty full, so of course i couldn’t see everyone in there. I’d be surprised if there were actually ‘a few people’ in attendance who will now be writing in support of the BCG Lakes/Lapworths application. The few people who will be writing in support of the application will in the main to my view have links to the developers and will have had little interest in the views of nearly all of the residents inside the War Memorial Hall yesterday.

  36. Very well put Steve, I got answers yesterday that I have been asking on Pheasey Labour for weeks….did they attend the meeting? I initially had issues with traffic, and was told by Pheasey Labour, well its already bad so can’t make much difference…….and this deduction is based on what?? and with regards to parking was told there are 228 parking spaces……nope didn’t see them, they arent there….what I was told, is the response back from the developers is that most events will see attendees ferried in by coach!!! Oh joy 30+ coaches !! How this is even possible given the weight restrictions on the lane for vehicles???? I have said this before, Pheasey Labour and Ian have made a number of responses based on assumptions, they are clearly in favour, without having a full understanding of the plans and the impact on the local residents…that you choose to ignore and dismiss… not really a good vote winner…not for me who unfortunately falls under Pheasey Walsall . They had indicated that BAG were heavily involved in the planning, no a don’t believe they were at the end…you also said that BAG were against any development….no they are not…..they like most of the residents on Chapel Lane and surrounding want to have a say, after all it is supposed to be for all residents to enjoy….we won’t even see it if plans go ahead…..how on earth can that be for residents to enjoy….

    • why the political points, that shows your motivation. BTW did BAG invite the architects, no, despite the architects offering to attend so that show the motivation. I said all along I could not go and I just represent myself only and no one else. The likes of you and UKIP who wish to link Party politics to this are just stirring it up.

      Yes I totally disagree with Tom and Valerie and I will say this I think BAG have lied to them. This is not about politics at all as I have severe disagreements with the MP’s over this and neither have provided answers to obvious questions.

      Just some points

      1. The land is PRIVATE, for Tom to say access to be granted is showing a distinct lack of knowledge of the land. The plans are pemmitting more access than there has ever been before.

      2. BAG have not proposed after all this time a suitable alternative to the plans.

      3. The traffic situation is as it is and always been like that, where has Tom and Valerie been over the years to combat that ?

      4. Not one single argument based on planning regs and rules have been shown

      5. Have BAG spoken to Netherhall residents ?

      6. Why did BAG block Lapworth’s from attending ?

      7. What would BAG do to secure the site and prevent trespassing ?

      8. Why did BAG LIE about no consultation with the owners when Bob met the owners and reps on many occasions ?

  37. In response to BAG supporter what a bizarre statement! The room was packed! We got there about 11 so unfortunately missed the speeches. The room was full of local residents I no, because I am a local resident and have houses on Chapel land and Nether Hall!! So no they were not drafted in….I wasn’t against planning (I am now) I listened and was allowed my say by everyone I spoke with. You say you have been a local resident for a number of years but in an earlier statement say you have only recently moved to the area in the last year???? Hmmmmmm

    • No Political Party Person, well said!

      Had Ian been there he would have seen the truth of this development and understood why even more people are now against!

      The fact that there will be a road joining NHP and this development, making it very viable to build even further in the future.

      The fact that the rebuilding (and not renovation) of the hall will not happen for 10 years.

      The fact that in 10 years the profit from the houses will most likely not be enough to rebuild the hall, especially as the financial viability is a calculated risk.

      The fact that there will be a rush hour in unsociable hours on Chapel Lane when the venue closes(not that Ian cares about that as it will not affect him).

      The fact that Chapel Lane residents will gain but a load more traffic and a very high wall and nothing else! Something Ian again will not be bothered the least by.

      The fact that Walsall has it’s own 9/10 year housing plan in place and these type of houses do not fit in with the needs anyway.

      The fact that this will possibly set a precedent for further green belt development.

      The fact that there will be 10 years of disruption!

      • The fact that the rebuilding (and not renovation) of the hall will not happen for 10 years.

        The fact that in 10 years the profit from the houses will most likely not be enough to rebuild the hall, especially as the financial viability is a calculated risk.

        So the owners, Architects, English Heritage and Peter Allen are all lying ?

        Walsall Council can ensure the building by putting it into the permission, do you think they will not ?

      • I said “The fact that this will possibly set a precedent for further green belt development.” do you struggle understanding simple remarks? The operative word there is POSSIBLY

  38. Ian the political points are not my motivation, be assured of that. My motivation is simply I purchased a property that I intended to spend the rest of my days in, that I have brought my children up in. I have lived in Great Barr all of my life, it would be wonderful if this derelict land could be restored. I turned to local councillors because I needed answers, is that not what the parties are for?? I am starting to think not..so I therefore speak for myself and what is mine, and seek answers through my own way. I do not stir things I simply find it very disappointing that you visit the area i live, with a view to listening to residents concerns, paying lip service is what i call it….. Because you don’t appear interested in what they have to say.

    • Parties are for that and Labour did that, took the points away and found questions.

      On a personal level then I fully support this application for all the reasons stated and do you think a few residents should have a veto. Especially when the residents on the other side seem to back it ?

      I have put points of fact to people about this and no one can answer them. If you brought your house you should have researched the history of the land opposite and realised an enabling development could be built to restore the hall.

      So if you do you research you will find that this plan is in line with all the requirements of local, national government and in line with English heritage.

      there have been three traffic surveys done two by councils one by private all with the same result.

      So I ask what do you want and what is feasible ?

      • I have done all of my research that is also a fact. i also appreciate the history of thr hall. Ihave also lived on both NHP and Chapel Lane so no more than most I guess with regards to the estate… Without wanting to repeat myself, I am for development on the site, but unfortunately there are more negatives than positives with these plans now….as for your comments about traffic…you no there are traffic issues, you have pointed that our many times

      • yes of course there are traffic problems but all that is do with the M6 junction and where has Tom or any party including us ever dealt with that ?

      • jesus, where the heck do you think that traffic is going eh ?

        It is going to the M6 and queuing up to that junction, it is hardly going onto the Scott Arms.

  39. what is interesting is that we all have completely neglected the article above by peter Allen.

    one thing is certain anyone who resides locally will no his commitments and knowledge ttowards great Barr hall.

    so why are his points beingbignored?

    • because like the letter in the Great Barr Observer you ignore something which is uncomfortable and inconvenient.

      I have no doubt that the residents and BAG want NO development at all, thats fine but you can only say that on legal grounds and so far they can not. By ignoring the owners, by lying about no consultation they have made their position worse and not better.

      • “because like the letter in the Great Barr Observer you ignore something which is uncomfortable and inconvenient.”

        Much like you ignore the reasons against?????????????????????

    • I have read the article with interest from Peter Allen, and I have to question,why is he all for the plans? I have an email from Peter which was sent to me last year where he states – he has an alternative view on the restoration of Great Barr Hall which is historically more valid and will considerably reduce the burden of enabling housing development – So i would be interested to no what has changed Peters mind and will be emailing him directly if he isnt at the planning meeting.

  40. You see Ian, there is my point! local residents do accept some form of development, so you havrnt listened. As for NHP residents being fully supportive, this is probably because they are all for the woodland being cleaned and restored and security made better, as Bovis failed on delivering this, but as for the building and traffic, this will not effect them. If the plans showed a through road on to the estate, would they feel differently??

    • Do they ?

      I have read all of BAG’s statements as they claim to represent the residents and not seen anything I could say supports any development.

      Can you show me a quote that does ?

      What I see is a lot saying no development at all, and a couple have said some but when challenged on what they can not say exactly what.

  41. I don’t the BAG could show an example of 1 single development which they have ever supported since their existence yet their are dozens they have opposed in addition to great Barr hall.

    surely if they would support some development as no political party Person says then they would Have told the owners what this is at one of the many meetings they have attended.

    could a member of bag confirm if they Havre ever done this?

  42. I will repost yesterday’s questions by me

    If you read the Walsall advertiser story it leaves you very confused.
    Tom Watson is quoted as saying “I stand absolutely behind Beacon Action Group in their campaign to get a proper development on this site.”yet Valerie Vaz is quoted as saying “I have seen the developer’s plan to build an horrendous brick wall at the entrance of the site which will affect Mr Winkle and his neighbours.“I am also absolutely against building on green belt land.”

    The two MPs do not seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. valerie like UKIP seems to be against the principal of development on greenbelt whilst Watson is behind bag in seeking a proper development.

    To further add to the confusion…The 9 page document setting ideas for objection which we received today which provides ideas on what to raise in an objection letter states on page 2 that If you are concerned Please write a letter as we need as many Letters as possible to stop this development.

    No where in the document does it suggest anything about trying to get a proper development. I also spoke to members of bag earlier and asked them what would be acceptable and the only response was not sure but definitely no housing on chapel lane.

    From the above I deduce:

    1. The labour party including MPs all have different views.Valerie vaz is against all development according to her quote whereas Watson is not. Ian like me can keep his card.

    2. bag And Watson have not made clear whether they are in favour of the principal of development on green belt.

    3. BAG have never confirmed that they agree with Tom Watson statement that they are seeking a proper development on this green belt site? And if they do then why does no where in their 9 page statement talk about a comprise or ideas for proper development?

    Would be helpful if BAG could confirm their position and if they support some development inform us what they told the owners woikd be acceptable and supported by BAG to stop us all from speculating.

    • Maybe it would have assisted if you had attended the meeting yesterday for your answers as we did

    • indeed and the latest on their website is unclear as to their position. The fact that their meeting did not allow the architects to speak formally says it all.

      The name should say they represent all residents of the area, Beacon includes Netherhall but they make no attempt to allay their problems, worries and fears.

      • Ian I repeat, no one was kept from the meeting, no one was stopped from asking questions, even I got my time with Tom and Val when it was clear who i was, much the same as the architects and owners would have done! Or can you prove they were told they were not allowed in or to ask questions/give answers?

    • The position of BAG is from I can see no development at all yours is different. I would like to see less housing and I do believe it is possible to get the number of homes down to 40-50 and conference size down to 400 but to rebuild the hall takes millions as well as restoring the dam, the lakes and ground and secure the whole site.

      So some development is required, I do not believe we are too far apart on this.

      • and for me that is the realistic position I took on this and so did English Heritage, Peter Allen, Adrian Andrew, Walsall council planners.

        If BAG come to this position then everyone can get what they want or at least some of it ? Remeber BAG were consulted despite what they said so they have to think within all the parameters about compromise and the owners can and end of issue.

        The only ones who will not get what they want are those who say NO to anything.

    • Sorry I don’t think you follow perhaps my fault for not being clear. I did attend yesterday and attempted to ask these questions but was not given any real answers.

      As residents we really need to be told by BAG what they have told the owners will be acceptable on our behalf.

      This info is needed sooner rather than later!

  43. One final comment before I get a life for the day… You said that BAG is against all development…I have just read Bob Winkles article in the Observer where he says “I believe we need to have much more community involvement before we reach an acceptable solution” to plans ….. I guess this gives a response to both PK and Ian…this is on the BAG website btw

    • but what is their ‘acceptable solution’

      I do have a life, I think but whilst laughing at West Brom’s attempt to play football might as well be on here !

  44. Oh, you you accept they are prepared to listen to an acceptable solution! You said differently above …

    Going back to see if Albion can get an acceptable solution to Liverpools 1 goal lead now!

    • what is their ‘acceptable solution’ then ?

      They are not speaking to the owners nor architects and they have not laid out a min plan. It is BAG who made their stance public, it is BAG who got their position in the press and yet we still do not know the ‘acceptable solution’ ?

      Do you accept BAG lied about being consulted ?

      Do you accept that they have had two years since the grounds changed ownership and the consultations started to work out a position ?

    • Paul

      Whilst it may not be down to you to come up with a solution I think we all need to appreciate the beacon group claim to have been set up in 1983 to prevent insensaive development surely even if they had not intended to ever consider what is acceptable in all these years it would have crossed their minds at some stage over the last 30+ years?

      Only a thought.

      • So now you are inferring that BAG are claiming what they are not?

        You don’t half make some statements without foundation PK.

        Yet again i say, why does any party who objects to something have to have an alternative?

  45. Hi Ian; The only time i have ever spoken with Tom Watson was prior to the result for West Bromwich East being declared at the 2010 General Election count in Tipton. I did not speak to Tom Watson, Valerie Vaz or anyone else from Euro-Labour at the War Memorial Hall yesterday morning. If anyone asked Tom Watson to kick you out of Euro-Labour at the information session, well it wasn’t me, so get your bloody facts straight before you make accusations like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    PK; As i stated previously, i am accountable for no ones actions other than my own; And as said i would, i have now made my local UKIP Branch Chairman aware of the disgraceful and slanderous remarks you made last night.
    Hi No Political Party Person; Like Paul and myself you clearly had a number of very pertinent and important questions answered at the information session yesterday. Ian has again said that the residents of Nether Hall Park seem to be backing the BCG Lakes/Lapworth application; Well over the last two Saturday mornings i have spoken to a fair few of our good neighbours from Nether Hall and every single one of the people i spoke to are against these appalling proposals.

    • Steve, I would agree that not all NHP are for the plans, as previously mentioned we used to live on the estate and still have a number of friends on there…there concerns aren’t as great as Chapel Lane but they are objections never the less. There were also a few residents from NHP at the meeting yesterday, so I hope they will take away the issue ref. the possible through road that was shown on the plans….

  46. Hi; No Political Party Person; Yes, i’d say that a good proportion of local residents who attended the information session on Saturday morning were really unhappy with regard to and were talking about the proposed road the developers want to run through part of Great Barr Park.

  47. Real World! It is going to be developed no matter how many meetings,protests or whatever.More than 57 houses will be built over time,its obvious cost of renovation, new build on site is huge.Councillors ,do not suffer infrastructure pressures from development or meeting residents protests, as they do not live in the area,nor will prospective Labour rep.he comes from Darlaston.Oh for local representation!! from people who live with us in the area.
    DJ.

  48. Hi DJ; You could always stand yourself in the forthcoming local elections. There is also the very welcome news that a local lady may be putting herself up as an independent candidate. UKIP will again have a long time local resident as their candidate; and it remains to be seen whether or not the Fib Dems contest the ward this time around; and if they do whether or not their representative will also be a local resident.

  49. STOP the petty political bickering just because it the start of the political funny season . this is to important to people lives.

    As far as I can see one of the main problems is the traffic on lanes why cant this not be a condition to be resolved as part of approval of the application.

    Also why cant a condition be that work must be completed on the hall otherwise the houses should be removed and the land returned to it’s original sate this would mean that the developers wood lose everything if they did not completed the hall.

    As to the green belt issue this is covered by the enabling grant they cannot build or develop anything else on the land otherwise the grant is removed and the houses would have to be removed from the site.

    • James, good point on the enabling works.

      As to the traffic the problem is nothing to do with this development but the poor layout of J7 that does not allow traffic from the North side to be able to get onto the junction easy. that easy would be millions to resolve.

      • Obviously Ian, you understand the implication of weight of traffic being an issue??????

        Whatever you do at junction 7 will lead to either more or no change in the weight of traffic on Chapel lane. The development will add more weight of traffic and the nett result will be more misery!

  50. I spend most mornings looking outbid my window at the traffic PK you might want to try driving up the lane between 7 and 9…..good luck!!!

    • How many minutes have you spent looking through the traffic assesment?

      The report does not deny from what I see that over 450 cars in both directions use the lane during 7-9am.

      I therefore would of have thought the scheme has taken this fully into consideration together with the impact of 57 houses.

      So assume the 57 houses add 30 cars an hour in both directions during the peak hours then I don’t see how this will be unmanageable?
      I also dont think yyoume or anyone could assume more than 30 cars each hour for 57 houses.

      The most inconvenienced will be people further down the lane all other residents will be in exact same position. Ie if you come out of coronation road and turn right and its at a standstill will still be same number of cars ahead of you.

      • I have looked at all of the detail. What about the coaches of people that they are proposing to ferry in and out of the conference venue becuase they dont have sufficient parking space….. please tell me how this will work..? Also I have checked the traffic assessment in the plans that were done in 2012…Traffic is worse….now. like I said maybe come and spend some time on our lane and you will see what I mean. Maybe come and see a coach drive down the lane (although this is actually illegal given road weight restriction) and really get an understanding

      • No Political Party Person you hit the nail on the head, coaches will be able to legally enter the lane from either end currently to access the hotel, there will be chaos, absolute chaos, bad enough right now to cross directions with cars and let alone coaches. Then there is the 10 years of lorries coming in to the development!

        Ludicrous, absolutely Ludicrous

      • PK, not sure what time you intend to visit the lane today, but just to let you know, i am looking out of my window to a queue of traffic stretching right past the church down the hill to Crook lane.
        There is another traffic survey being done at the moment, lets see what figures that gives. Btw Crook lane is about a mile and half from a34 ( not sure if you no the area)

    • Paul – I used to work for the Highways Agency and may be able to help – my understanding is the general rule that restrictions are that where you have a n XX tonne restriction this would be for through vehicles i.e. wanting to take a short cut say from Birmingham Road towards Aldridge etc.

      The same restriction would not apply however if you are seeking to gain access to a particular site.

      I may be wrong but pretty certain this is what we were told. Hope this helps!

      • Thanks Adam, you are correct in what you are saying generally, unless the restriction is total (like for instance when a bridge cannot take over a set weight), however, when i mentioned weight of traffic, i meant amount. Weight of traffic is a term meant to mean the amount of traffic.

        In other words, the amount of traffic will always create congestion due to the circumstances. Let us say 100 cars went down chapel lane from barr beacon with a 3 second gap between them, even if there was no traffic at the other end, there would be a result of congestion because it takes more than 3 seconds to give way, look and then turn on to the next road.

        Thus meaning Ians reasoning for the congestion being due to Junction 7 quite wrong!

  51. Paul,

    It has never been my intention to offend you.

    I didn’t realise you had political aspirations. if you don’t mind could you please tell me what formal qualifications you have in addition to all your life experiences etc etc

    I am intrigued what profession a man who makes such bold claims as you do would be skilled in.

    You want no more houses in great Barr because you want to keep the views and the historic woods.

    The views you have are of pylons, farmland, a hotel, hospital housing and a sub station. You have no view of any signifanct landscape feature the hall or the lakes so to me this argument seems stupid.

    Which historic woods are you looking to keep? Are you sure your not confusing great Barr park with merinos wood? Which historic woods dp you want to keep? Why don you want to keep them? Due to the historic woods size. Species mix.? Would be good to have your thoughts.

  52. Hello Paul,any chance of a job? But after the 200 plus houses are up and Walsall Councillors as usual ignore their responsibilities to their electorate in P/PF/Neth.I may get a job in a new school,docs Surgery,or even supermarket,Messrs.Bird,Towe,Andrew will like the rates money,and they cannot see the site from their homes, or suffer traffic chaos getting to their newly tarmac car park at the Council House.
    DJ.

    • DJ if there are any jobs going i will be happy to let you know. I do hope tat you are wrong about this development getting the go ahead mind you. After all, it is unlikely to generate any jobs as they most certainly still will not open any more schools, surgeries and i hope they do not open another supermarket too.

Comments are closed.