Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill Lane)

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 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative. Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

The reasons for my objection are below.

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. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more unwanted development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

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".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself, roads are often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to main employment centres.

The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing.Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

As site 3 is a considerable distance from the schools and amenities, there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.

Balsall Common 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.

The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous. Living where I do, each week, I witness near misses on this road and I have been concerned with the increase of large lorries now using it as a main access to and from the A452. Lorries coming in different directions often have to mount the verge or pavement to squeeze past each other, creating a huge danger to walkers, cyclists and other road users. The development of site 3 will increase this many fold.

Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

Since moving from Coventry, I have been appalled at the lack of provision and access to the NHS at our local doctors. To get an appointment within a week is virtually unheard of and getting care for my three children has been extremely difficult. The difference in accessibility to this care in comparison to Coventry has been eye opening. My parents were turned away from Balsall Common doctors when my one year old daughter became lifeless and drowsy as they were told there were no appointments and they would be taking up a valuable emergency appointment for someone else. It was suggested that they visited a walk in centre with her instead to alleviate pressure at her own doctors. On arrival at Coventry walk in centre, she was rushed to Walsgrave and then to Birmingham Children's Hospital where she underwent 3 major stomach operations and spent the next five weeks hospitalised. Her consultant explained that the delay could well have been fatal and they spent several hours stabilising her before she could be operated on. Whilst in hospital caring for her, my middle daughter got a chronic ear infection and my parents were again refused an appointment as there were none available. From my experience, this is not a doctors with capacity to expand as they are unable to treat the patients that they have got.

I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

Since I moved here 4 years ago, I have had the pleasure of being able to show my children all kinds of different wildlife. The field is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deers, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see, I am sure. It is both disappointing and outrageous to hear that the developers are informing potential buyers that the conditions of planning to protect the Great Crested Newts on the current Kenilworth Rd development no longer need to be adhered to as they have made a financial arrangement with the Council. This makes a mockery of the planning process and laws surrounding protected species. The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

Expanding Balsall Common this much will result in an increase in factors detrimental to our health and quality of life, with increased traffic, road noise and poorer air quality. The beauty of the village with its open countryside and fantastic greenbelt would be destroyed by these proposals.

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Much of the appeal of living in Wellfield Close, is the open countryside views and feeling of space and tranquility that one gets at the edge of the village. Having the field next door was a huge attraction to us when we purchased the house and we were pleased to learn that it was protected greenbelt. I chose a house that wasn't overlooked or part of a housing estate to give ourselves and our three young children the best quality of life growing up. Building houses right next door would greatly affect our way of life. Our house is situated so close to the boundary hedgerow that the new houses would be in close proximity to us. Whilst I really hope that you remove site 3 from these current proposals, should the council choose to ignore the protection of greenbelt and the views/knowledge of the local community and go ahead with building work at site 3, then I hope that you would consider greatly reducing the impact of these buildings on our home and be open to discuss possible strategies that might alleviate our concerns.