Responding to Solihull Council's draft Housing Plan

Having followed the various publications and announcements with regard to the proposals for an additional 1350 houses in Balsall Common, I am taking this opportunity to make my representations. The online questionnaire that I have been referred to does not appear to be accessible, so I a simple email covering the basic points will have to suffice.

I do not agree that 800 houses at Barrett's Farm is an appropriate response to the need for additional houses in this area. The reports suggest additional road access will be necessary from Station Road - which suggests an entry point to the land by the British Legion. All well and good, but this will create significant additional traffic on Station Road, which at the junction with the A452 is already congested at peak times. For people wishing to visit the village centre from this new location there will be little by way of additional parking at what is already an overcrowded area. There just is not enough capacity in the centre of the village to deal with this additional population and the necessary car travel it will create.

Adding a further 1350 houses to Balsall Common will not create additional employment opportunities local to this housing. Balsall Common will become even more of a dormitory settlement with most occupants having to travel away from the area to work. There are already significant numbers of cars parking on Hall Meadow Road as the Station car park is not large enough. More cars will eventually lead to more congestion. Further work needs to be done to address the need for employment opportunities in the area.

With the huge vanity project that is HS2 due to commence at a similar time, the disruption, road closures and additional construction traffic will make life in Balsall Common almost intolerable.

All in all, whilst accepting the need for additional housing in the area, it seems that Balsall Common is scheduled to take a disproportionate number. Spreading the overall number more evenly around the area would have a lower overall impact on the area as a whole, cause less damage to the local environment, and share the burden more evenly.

There must be scope for retaining as much green belt as possible by concentrating on brownfield sites. How can ripping up green fields be the right way, when there are packets of undeveloped brown field industrial land left to idle.

Everybody accepts that there must be development, but it appears that in this instance the council have not given sufficient thought to the impact on local people. Please reconsider.