We have lived in Balsall Common for more than 45 years and therefore have a keen interest in the developments proposed in the Draft Plan. Following is a letter expressing our views. We have examined the Plan document, and the questions within it, and will respond to each after discussions with your officials at the Balsall Common consultation session next Saturday 7th.

However, the format of the document and the questions asked does not allow us to give our response as we would wish and therefore we have chosen to write the attached.

You will see from our address that we live on Meeting House Lane and therefore could justifiably be accused of NIMBY-ism. However, I will be 75 next birthday and my wife is not far behind. Housing development in 5 - 15 years' time is unlikely to be a long term concern for us. It will be a serious concern for the next generation and the one after that and that is why we feel strongly that changes to the plan are needed. Please take the time to read our letter and respond.


Housing Development in Balsall Common and Berkswell.

The proposed housing development in Balsall Common/Berkswell will (together with HS2) considerably affect our village for years to come. In the short term, there will be massive disruption but this is out-weighed by the loss of countryside for decades to come. Houses, once built, will not be pulled down. It is therefore hugely important that sites are selected which meet not only current needs but also do not prejudice the "vision for the future". At a strategic level the draft plan sets out to do this but fails in its detail recommendations: We are talking about Green Belt and particularly the Meriden Gap. As with houses, Green Belt once released will never be re-instated.

It is critical for the future of our village that the criteria used to redraw the Green Belt (and thus approve sites for housing) make sure that the rural nature of the Borough is retained.

If we look at issues raised in the SMBC Local Plan and the reasons given for the sites chosen, it seems that short-term considerations are winning the day.

Proximity to bus stops, rail services, local shops, the surgery, traffic may be important now, but may not be in 25 or 50 years. All of these can change - one by the stroke of a bus company manager's pen. The location of 1150 houses is permanent and can never be changed. Our residents got it absolutely right in their responses after the site exhibition last summer. Overwhelmingly they stated that protection of the Green Belt and, therefore, of the countryside and the wildlife in it was their top concern. SMBC are ignoring the residents wishes by choosing large sites in the Green Belt which may be easy to acquire and develop and where eager builders are pushing them. If Green Belt erosion is allowed now our descendants will look at a Midlands conurbation which stretches as unbroken urban sprawl from Wolverhampton to the eastern boundary of Coventry and ask us, why did we ever allow that? We had a chance to keep some fields and we blew it.

The SMBC have published the Strategic Green Belt Assessment dated July 2016. The introduction stresses "the vital strategic Meriden gap"; but the Draft Local Plan produced from it will destroy it.

This document suggests that a pseudo-scientific approach to the decision has been used and all 'Broad Areas' and 'Refined Parcels' have been carefully analysed to ensure that Green Belt which is best suited for purpose is retained. However, careful reading shows that, although the methodology may appear impartial, it all depends on the scoring given for each purpose in each area and these are essentially subjective. For example, compare the scores given to the Barrett's Lane and Grange Farm sites - sites RP 54 and RP 51 respectively.

Purpose Barrett's Grange
Lane Farm

1 To check unrestricted sprawl 1 2

2 To prevent neighbouring towns merging 2 2

3 To safeguard the countryside 2 3

4 To preserve the character of historic towns 0 0

This gives Grange Farm a total Green Belt weight of 7 and Barretts Lane 5. Therefore, in SMBC'S view, Grange Farm is a more important site to keep as Green Belt. However, anyone looking at a map can see that the gap between Balsall Common and Coventry is at its most vulnerable at Barretts Lane. With HS2, and Coventry's plans to build westwards from Burton Green, plus a proposed new road connecting the A46 via Warwick University through to the A45 (which will reduce traffic through Balsall Common and hence reduce the pressure for a bypass), the Meriden Gap will shrink to close to zero.

We are not just attempting to divert building away from Barretts Lane to Grange Farm. We have no doubt that examination of many other scores in areas away from Balsall Common would show similar anomalies. We are showing that the scoring that the methodology uses is flawed and cannot be relied upon to justify decisions which are so important to our future and that of our children.

We are fully aware of the housing crisis the country faces and that homeless people would rather have a house to live in than a beautiful piece of Green Belt countryside. However, it does not have to be one or the other. There are many sites to consider and SMBC should take another look at them.

We are asked the question: if not here; where? We suggest SMBC follow their own guidelines as defined in the Draft Local Plan. Namely;

1. Non-Green Belt land first

* The site enclosed by Wootton Green Lane and Kenilworth Road as proposed by tyler parkes at the site exhibition last summer. This is largely Brownfield.
* Lavender Hall Farm. This is also largely brownfield and easily accessed by the new roundabout on the A452 at Park lane. A site likely to be attractive to housing associations for the building of affordable housing

2. Green Belt:

Previously developed land if highly accessible or moderately accessible location

* None identified

Greenfield - if highly or moderately accessible location and is being lost as a result of committed development

* The site enclosed by Windmill Lane and Kenilworth Road which we fear is already lost as Green Belt.

3. Greenfield - other
* New Mercote Farm. This is farm land that is isolated from the rest of the Berkswell Estates land and therefore of lower agricultural value. It has defensible boundaries (roads) and good accessibility from the new roundabout which HS2 Ltd will leave at the end of the construction period at the junction of Park lane and the A452. It has no footpaths and is therefore of poor usage to the community as Green Belt compared with Barratt's Farm which is highly used by local walkers. It is less than 1 km from the primary school (Berkswell), 1/2 km from fresh food (Sainsbury) and on the north side of Balsall Common and hence close to the growing jobs area around the airport.
* These sites may not make up the full 1150 houses required. Any shortfall could be shared between that part of the Barretts Lane site which fronts onto Station Road; and that part of the Grange Farm site fronting onto Wootton Green Lane. These two sites are largely Green Belt but have less impact on the Meriden Gap than SMBC's draft proposal.

All these areas have defensible boundaries as defined in the Assessment Methodology - Roads, Rail, Watercourses, Woodland, Hedgerows, and Established field patterns. All other areas should be reconfirmed as permanent Green Belt.

This proposal has several advantages:

Most of the development is north of the village centre which we understand will ease traffic through the village.

Most of the development is away from HS2 and there should be less simultaneous disruption. Completed developments should be easier to sell.

Accessibility is better with direct access onto the Kenilworth Road for the majority, and reduced flow onto Station Road which already is severely restricted to the east by the low bridge and to the west by the village centre.

The burden, and the CIL revenue, is shared by Balsall and Berkswell parishes which should make it easier for them to agree a joint NDP.

But, by far, the major advantage is reduced erosion of Green Belt between Solihull and Coventry. We must aim to move the epicentre of the village away from Coventry, not towards it.

We ask that our three SMBC Councillors, the two JOINT parish councils and NDP committees make the case effectively to SMBC and secure a revised Local Plan for the benefit of all current and future residents.