No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1770

Received: 15/01/2017

Respondent: Chris Brittain

Representation Summary:

Object to the proposed housing expansion within Balsall Common. Balsall Common is a village location and the proposed housing expansion plans are too large for the village to cope with as regards infrastructure, schooling and local services.
Windmill Lane and Kenilworth Road and other roads in the village will become gridlocked with cars. There needs to be some consideration for residents that are also facing the prospect of having to deal with the disruption of HS2 which will further burden village residents with more errosion of the little bit of countryside that we currently have left.

Full text:

After attending the "Have your say" Briefing in Balsall Common on the 7th January 2017, I wish to respond to the consultation of the Council's Draft Local Plan as follows:

* I am a resident of Kerly Close, Balsall Common (No. 7) - a private development of 9 houses including a private paddock and road.
* It is noted that the respective site plan within the Council's Draft Local Plan has included the hatching of the above private paddock together with three resident's gardens and I wish the Council to note the following:

- The above private paddock is owned and maintained by the residents and therefore it should be removed from the site plan and future development within the Draft Local Plan.

- As a resident and owner of the private paddock, I wish it to remain as part of the Green Belt and not removed by the Council as per part of their future development.

- Council are advised that as an owner of the private paddock, I hold restrictive covenants in legal documents which prevents its use and future development.

- Notwithstanding my objection to the proposed development should future housing development take place on the "triangle" beyond the paddock (which shall be subject to ongoing dispute), I will require the Council to provide suitable screening and/or planting around the paddock (in areas not in ownership of paddock) in order to reduce environmental noise/disturbance and to also ensure that any access to the paddock is secure and only accessible for Kerly Close residents/owners.

- In addition to the above I am particularly concerned that you are proposing that the Triangle accommodates 50% affordable housing which raises a large concern. Notwithstanding my disapproval to this in the first instance, should this be permitted through proper process then I would propose that that the affordable housing is located central within development where new private purchasers of surrounding properties are made clearly aware prior to purchase. Otherwise I shall be extremely concerned at the loss of value to my property if affordable housing is visible from my property and will hold Solihull MBC to account on this matter.

I would also like to personally object to the proposed housing expansion within Balsall Common. Balsall Common is a village location and the proposed housing expansion plans are ridiculously too large for the village to cope with as regards infrastructure, schooling and local services. Windmill Lane and Kenilworth Road will become gridlocked with cars, not to mention all the other roads within Balsall Common, there needs to be some consideration for residents, which is something I cannot see within your plans. Residents are also facing the prospect of having to deal with the disruption of HS2 (another waste of time and money!) which will further burden village residents, yet more errosion of the little bit of countryside that we currently have left.

I am also greatly worried by the amount of destruction for local wildlife, if this carries on, they will have nowhere to go! The Council should take this into account - it's not just about what humans want, animal welfare needs to be preserved and respected too. Due to the current housing construction on the Kenilworth Road, we have already seen additional wildlife venturing onto our paddock! This needs to stop, they have rights too and the Council should consider these in the plans - I cannot currently see any evidence of this .

I will await a further version of the Revised Plan taking into account the above comments.