No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 3299

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Matthew Quinn

Representation Summary:

Site 1 Objection.

20% of new housing development in Balsall Common, but settlement does not meet Council's own criteria on accessibility.
Limited employment opportunities, which encourages car travel. This adds pressure to road network and increases carbon. No proposals for SPRINT in this area.
3 Greenfield sites have been chosen over 14 PDL sites; therefore very special circumstances have not been demonstrated.
No safe access via Meeting House Lane. Highway safety risk to children walking to school or cricket/tennis club.
Cul-de-sacs should not become through-routes.

Full text:

OBJECTION to site 1 , Catholic Church Land and Barrets Farm, Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 1. Barrets Farm and The Land Near there owned by the Catholic Church

The reasons for my objection are below.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) No access would be safe via Meeting House Lane. Lots of children walk to the school and cricket/tennis club and the proposed access via any part of meeting house lane would be dangerous.

5) Cul-de Sac roads should remain this way and would not be safe to transform any of
these.