In respect of Balsall Common I totally disagree with the Spatial Strategy. The development sites proposed ignore the principles previously stated in several aspects.

It makes no mention of the use of existing Brown field or heavily developed Green field sites although this is stated to be a guiding principle.

It proposes releasing Green Belt land to the East of Balsall Common ( not North-east as stated in Option G) for the building of 800 houses - all in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap. Coventry City Council are already considering housing development on the Tile Hill/Burton Green side of the Gap making it narrower still.


The allocation for Balsall Common is 1150 houses - increasing the village size by 25%. Developers typically find ways to increase their allocation once outline approval in granted - as seen at the existing Windmill Lane site. SSHELAA 2016 estimated yield for the three chosen sites to be 1633 and no doubt developers would see this as their target. (The SHLAA report from 2012 estimated the maximum yield from the then Barrett's Farm site - which was about half the new area proposed - to be 2463 units. It also said this site was too large and had suitability issues) This, together with development of Brown field/windfall sites could easily more than double the 1150 and completely overwhelm all the services necessary to support them.

I suggest another look at possible sites in Dorridge and Barston - away from the Meriden Gap.