Ref : SMBC draft Housing Plan : proposed developments of 1,150 houses in Balsall Common

I am writing to respond to the Consultation Document published by SMBC as it relates to Balsall Common.

My interest is as a resident at 99 Meeting House Lane in Balsall Common. My property backs onto the fields earmarked for the Barratts Lane development.

I have tried to use the SMBC Questionnaire : I have submitted it but it doesn't allow me to tell the story in the way I think is relevant - despite the several hours it took to read most of it! So I am sending you this short précis which covers the points I want to raise.

Current situation -
* Balsall Common has already undergone significant housing development over the past 30 years with significant increases in Kemps Green, Needlers End, Riddings Hill and more recently on the Kenilworth Road (Elysian Gardens). Add to this numerous infill/smaller estates.
* Overall population growth must have increased by at least 2-300% over that period (conservative estimate).
* The improvements in infrastructure have not kept pace at all with the increase in housing and population growth
* The centre of the village is small with relatively narrow roadways and becomes hazardous to all users at peak times.
* Parking is severely restricted adding to periodic traffic "chaos" and danger to pedestrians
* Facilities at the railway station are totally inadequate with restricted parking availability - overflow parking onto Hall Meadow Road overspills almost onto the roundabout by the station every working day
* Having said that the greenfield area to the north of village at Barratts Farm provides good access to the countryside for many residents where people walk and take their dogs, cycle - which adds to the satisfying rural aspect of the village - so important for a more healthy lifestyle and family time


SMBC Plan -
* The proposal in the SMBC Development Plan is to increase housing by 1,150 units
* This is almost 20% of the entire allocation for the borough! - going into an community which has already seen massive redevelopment in very recent times
* Note - of this 800 representing 13% % of the total Plan is earmarked for just one area in the village - at Barratts Farm !
* This will be in close proximity to the new HS2 line
* 100% of the development is in the green belt


Impacts -

* Further destruction of the green belt around Balsall Common representing also additional unacceptable incursion into the Meriden Gap
* Increase in population will not be supported by already inadequate infrastructure - centre of the village especially will be put under even greater strain
* Increase in hazards resulting from increase in traffic density and road usage :
Specifics regarding road access and possible by-passes around the village are still to be finalised - but in any case the general increase in population - and therefore cars - will cause more overloading of the already stretched traffic networks
* Add to this problem the significant level of construction traffic supported by inadequate networks at the same time as HS2!
* Station parking already overstretched will become impossible
* Schools and doctors surgeries will not cope without further significant extension and therefore investment
* Size of Barratts Farm development too large to be absorbed by village - risk of becoming a separate community (village within a village)
* Barratts Farm development will cut off the easy or nearby access to countryside for many residents
* Where will the "multiple points of vehicular access" be located to give access to and from Barratts Lane site? Impossible onto the very narrow and already dangerous Meeting House Lane - at the very least for health and safety reasons. So the access pints will be at the far ends of the village. See further comments below.
* Current quality of life enjoyed by existing residents will be further negatively impacted by this proposed disproportionate development - also coming on the back of HS2

This allocation to Balsall Common (and especially to Barratts Farm ) is totally disproportionate to the size of the village. The village is already overly-developed due to recent increases in housing which have outpaced both existing and recent increases in infrastructure.

Alternative considerations

* Brownfield sites - more effort needed to identify these. It is too easy to redesignate green belt land
* Total allocation needs to be more sensibly and sensitively spread rather than doing what is easy and convenient - perhaps this has been done based on developer land banks in the green belt currently available (I assume use of these was never promised so therefore were at their risk)
* I would suggest a suitable cap on any allocation - perhaps based on population - to ensure fairness and sustainable integration. Any allocation to BC should include the existing development on the Kenilworth Road (Elysian Gardens) to avoid changing the goal posts. The allocation of 800 homes to one site in a small village - in this case Barratts Farm -should not be allowed to be developed to such a size due to difficulty of sustainable integration. We don't want a "village within a village".
* If brownfield sites and a fair and proportionate allocation of sites around the borough do not generate the housing capacity required, consideration should be given to the creation of a "new town/ village". Although this would still probably be within the greenbelt, such an approach would have the benefit of :
- being planned from scratch according to current or new norms - so built for the future and not as a make-do catch-up which is what the current proposal represents
- include purpose-built transport networks rather than inefficient (and potentially dangerous ) bolt-on access points or use of inappropriate roadways
- limits for redesignation from green belt would be agreed in advance, but would allow for further growth and expansion in the future as whatever you do now, you will want more at some stage going forward
- no disruption to existing communities as a result of "haphazard" top-down allocations based on available land (incl speculative developer land banks) which are probably in the wrong place (as in the case of BC)


Meeting House Lane

There is a suggestion - though denied by a Parish Councillor - that an access is being planned to the Barratts Lane site at or near No 111 Meeting House Lane. Can I remind you that you have the report prepared by the Parish Council raising several health and safety concerns regarding traffic using the lane. As you know the lane is narrow and has no pavements (and no room to make them) to the east of the pinch pints (by the church/tennis courts). There is not enough room for 2 cars + pedestrians. Sleeping policemen (road bumps) act as an inducement for some cars (usually SUVs) to increase their speed. However dangerous, traffic today uses the Lane as a short cut around the village at peak times. We know children who have been "brushed" by cars on their way to school. I walk down the lane most days - on several occasions the traffic have driven at inappropriate speed within a few feet of me. One road user commented to me that speed bumps were "an unnecessary inconvenience as nobody has been killed yet". He was serious! - as am I on this subject. So already today we need better traffic calming measures, improved signage regarding speed, and clarity of priority at the pinch-points.
Conclusion - any suggestion of an entry/ exit onto Meeting House Lane from the proposed Barratts Lane development is not worthy of consideration at least on health and safety grounds


Conclusion

I formally object to the proposed allocation of a further 1250 new houses to Balsall Common on the grounds that it is totally disproportionate to the size of the village Such large development, will overstrain the already inadequate infrastructure (despite plans to improve), represent an unwarranted incursion into the Greenbelt and Meriden Gap and reduce the rural quality of life currently enjoyed by residents. Specifically with regard to the development of Barratts Lane - the village would have serious problems absorbing and integrating the "massive" allocation of 800 houses on this single site. I would therefore request that you withdraw the proposed Balsall Common developments as currently drafted from the Plan.

I would appreciate a reply to my points at some