No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 206

Received: 13/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Wheeler

Representation Summary:

The selection process by which the three sites in Balsall Common were selected is based on incorrect data in terms of Green Belt assessment, accessibility, and alternatives considered.

Full text:

I strongly disagree with the proposed locations. No green Belt land should be released until all Brown field and heavily developed existing Green Belt sites have been exhausted - as stated many times in the many documents produced to date

As to specific locations the Atkins Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment report on which the allocations are based states (page 4):

"The character of the Green Belt varies greatly across the borough with the eastern portion forming part of the vital strategic Meriden Gap - the area of Green Belt separating Birmingham and Solihull from Coventry in the east."

In spite of this clear direction, the site proposals are for 800 houses at Barrett's Farm in the narrowest part of this "strategic gap". At the same time HS2 will drive a major scar through the middle of it, and Coventry City Council are considering a large housing development into it. This proposal is an obvious breach of SMBC and Atkin's own guidelines.

The SSHELAA in 2016 identified 19 potential sites in Balsall Common. I am unable to determine the process whereby this was reduced to the three chosen. SSHELAA also says Barrett's farm has suitability constraints which other available sites do not.

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 1 - To check unrestricted sprawl Barrett's Lane Grange Farm


1 2

Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging

2 2

Purpose 3 - To safeguard the countryside
2 3

Purpose - 4 To preserve the character of historic towns
0 0

This gives Grange Farm a total Green Belt weight of 7 and Barrett's 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 Barrett's 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 A452 or 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 were told at the drop-in session in Balsall Common that the Draft Local Plan Topics Papers contained the reasoning for site selection. Para 399 highlights parcels 51 (Grange Farm) and 58 (Holly Lane) as moderate to high performing; parcel 57 (Windmill Lane) low performing. Parcel 54 (Barrett's farm) not mentioned at all; just "Land further from the settlement is generally high performing". Parcel 54 appears from nowhere in the list of locations chosen with no justification. This site is one the largest in the whole of SMBC and for it to be selected with no rationale is astonishing. If the Topics Papers was used as a basis for choosing locations there was a serious error here.





Accessibility to this site is unacceptable. The Draft Local Plan Topic Papers which was presumably used as the basis for selection, states for Balsall Common (para 398):

"This settlement varies in accessibility, with sites to the east being of medium to high accessibility, sites to the west of medium accessibility and sites to north and south of low accessibility." This statement is totally incorrect on almost all counts.

The only route eastwards from Station Road is either via the single carriageway traffic light controlled low bridge which is impassable to high vehicles, or via Meadowhall Road and the single carriageway bridge on Lavender Hall Lane which leads to the centre of Berkswell village. The route from the southern end if access is created onto Kelsey Lane goes via the hump-backed bridge to another single carriageway traffic light controlled narrow bridge by Nailcote Hall; or along a minor road to the dangerous T junction in Burton Green.
Accessibility westwards may be considered medium although it is along a winding B road to the centre of Knowle.
Accessibility to the north is excellent with the dual carriageway A452 running from the Stonebridge flyover almost to the centre of the village.
Accessibility to the south is poor along the winding and dangerous A452 to Kenilworth or alternatively slightly better along the A4177 past Honiley but still having to negotiate Haseley and Hatton before joining the A46 north of Warwick.

It seems that whoever wrote the accessibility statement had never visited the settlement and it cannot be used as input to any site location decision.


As to where else, there appears to be no proposal to build around Dorridge in spite of a specific reference in the Vision statement (paragraph 84):- "A mix of market and affordable housing will have been provided in Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath". Dorridge has better facilities,a central rail station and build there would not threaten the Meriden Gap.

There is also a significant Brown field site at the now closed garden centre in Barston which could surely be made available.