I am writing in support of the objections raised by bcbarrage about the proposed development for residential purposes surrounding Berkswell Windmill. I am a member of Coventry Guild of Weavers Spinners and Dyers and myself and other members regularly attend the open days at the Windmill, demonstrating these traditional skills which are in keeping with the historical age of the Mill. Visitors from far and wide, including international visitors, attend these events and are enthusiastic in their respect for this historical monument and it's heritage, it has been carefully and professionally preserved and returned to it's original condition with funding and expertise provided by Historic England. The sails again turn using wind power and this year it will be grinding flour, however this could be prevented if the current proposal for high density housing surrounding the Mill goes ahead. There is significant research to show that any high density building interferes with wind flow and therefore this would have a detrimental effect on the Mill.
The objections are with regard to:
1: Issues relating to the DLP in general
2: Issues relating to the allocation of site 3
3: Issues relating to the concept plan

1;DLP. Allocation of sites across the Borough;
a) There appears to be a disproportionate increase from 3,900 to 5,700 for Balsall common whereas Dorridge, which has more sustainable infrastructure, eg; public transport and other public amenities, has no allocations, even though there has been significant investment in that area.
b) The G L Hearn report proposed a new settlement well beyond the current northern limits approximately 2 hours from the railway station, reflecting that most employment is to the north. The Council's report appears to ignore the importance of the strategic and local separation provided by the green belt as highlighted in the Hearn report.
c) There is no indication of timing and how the growth proposed for Balsall Common will be managed especially in relation to the construction of HS2, all of which will need skilled programme and project management including the need for increased infrastructure ie; schools, doctors shops etc. All of which needs careful planning at the outset.
d) Balsall Common does not meet with the Borough Councils own criteria for 'High frequency' public transport either rail or bus.
e) No ecological assessment within the evidence put forward has been shared this is an essential requirement if the consultation process is to be meaningful.
f)Balsall Common Primary School is already full, and contrary to the Council's information is Form 4 entry Not form 3, this is an unacceptable error especially as the Borough Council has responsibility for education.
g) Over 20% of SHELAA Assessments are incorrect, this does not instil confidence in the overall assessment and planning.

2: Site allocation: Sustainability Appraisal.
a)Considering all facts this indicated that site 3 scored only 2 positives but 9 negatives
b) Sites 22 and 23 were considered too remote to be included and yet site 3 extends far beyond sites 22 and 23 in terms of distance and remoteness from Balsall Common settlement.
c) Site 3 would create the narrowest gap between Balsall Common and Burton Green due to the presence of great crested newts and poor ground conditions, it would be both and an inefficient and ineffective use of land. Only 6 of the 11 hectares being suitable for development as much of it would be taken up with ponds and corridors for the newts. Therefore the loss of a significant area of green belt cannot be justified with the amount of land suitable for housing low and the area given over for corridors and ponds inaccessible to the public.
d) The Council appears to justify the loss of Green belt because the development of sites 22 and 23 has already undermined the purposes of the green belt. This is an irrational argument, the aim should be to preserve the remainder of the triangle.
e) The ground conditions would necessitate the use of pile driving, this invasive work so near to Berkswell Mill risks long term damage to this historic structure which would have a detrimental effect on the historical culture of the area.
f) The overall disruption to residents and the detrimental effect on the local wildlife cannot be justified when the amount of land available for housing will be minimal.

3. The Concept Plan.
a) The plan does not demonstrate how the site will function as there is no indication how the corridors and ponds for the great crested newts will link between the various parcels of land.
b) The road network does not appear to have given consideration to the present levels of congestion on to the main road A452, it appears that the only access will be via Windmill Lane which is not viable. A bypass is mentioned, unless the construction of this precedes the housing development the level of traffic will create further congestion and be unsustainable.
c) Biodiversity;
As previously mentioned site 3 has and abundance of wildlife which is much appreciated by local residents. The solution for sites 1 and 2 has been to provide nature reserves whereas for site 3 the Council intends to 'offset' the loss of wildlife habitat, this is unacceptable to local residents.
d0 Density; The proposal to build medium density housing adjacent to existing residential properties and gardens does not respect the local character of the area or the needs of residents. Building right up to the boundaries of existing properties with no significant green space and lack of pavements gives the impression that houses are crammed in on top of each other with little consideration for the health and wellbeing of residents.
d) Berkswell Mill is a grade 11 listed building it is of extreme cultural and historical importance, a lot of effort and money has been poured in to restore the Mil,l affording local residents and visitors a visual and educational amenity. It is now in good safe working order any impact from building works or wind disruption could render it unsafe and unable to function reducing the benefits to the area.

As a member of Coventry Guild of Weavers Spinners and Dyers with an interest in keeping traditional skills alive I would urge the Council to give full consideration to the benefits the Mill brings to the area and think carefully before agreeing any development which would have a detrimental effect on the Mill.
Whilst we all recognise the need for more affordable housing if the rush to provide it is at the expense of such an important amenity as well as the loss of wildlife habitat and green space then the long term benefits to residents existing and new will not be realised. Quality of life is not just about housing there is considerable research to show that access to green space and interests other than work and home are beneficial for physical and mental health.
Lets not concentrate on short term gain but consider the long term benefits to retaining our cultural historical and natural heritage