Letter of opposition to proposed development of Barratts Farm in Balsall Common and construction of by-pass.

1. Pressure on the Village

a) With no clear access from the South neither Hallmeadow road nor Station Road could cope with the increased traffic this development will bring.

b) There is already a lack of car parking spaces in and around the village. Hallmeadow Road is consistently used for general parking for Berkswell Station and the medical centre. Parking for any of the shops, library and Jubilee centre are extremely hard to come by. In this area there is an average of 1.6 cars per household with 2.5% of households having 4 or more cars/vans. It is fair to assume that there will be upwards of an additional 1500 cars in the village and the pressure these additional 1500 cars would bring would be immense.

c) It is already difficult to obtain a doctor's appointment at the clinic. The feeling locally is that it is already at capacity in terms of providing an acceptable level of service. With an average of 2.4 people per household locally another 1900 patients will do nothing to ease this problem.

d) Building more houses in this location will create more unsustainable car traffic by encouraging more car commuters to live in Balsall Common. It is accepted that Balsall Common is an area where there is little in the way of job creation and many residents have to commute by car to work around the West Midlands. Only 6% of residents of this area travel to work using public transport (information from solihull.gov.uk) This is contrary to planning policy. Routes to exit the village to the east is very restricted under the low bridge at Station Road and the narrow bridge on Lavender Hall Lane with no room for expansion on these. To the west Balsall Street East is not a major thoroughfare and does not have the capacity to cope with a large increase in traffic, so virtually all traffic will be travelling north on the A452.

e) Brownfield sites to the north of the village would be far more suited to cope with the increase of traffic without adding strain to the village centre.

f) This land is greenbelt land. The NPPF identifies the 5 key Purposes of Green Belts as the following: 

i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

ii. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and,
v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.


g) I understand that there are adequate brown field sites which could be used without using greenbelt land in order to fulfil the housing requirements. It is clear that the only reason the greenbelt site to the rear of my property has been highlighted is because it is the biggest site allowing for the maximum amount of housing possible including high density housing. With the above 5 points in mind it is clear that the availability of these brownfield sites would bring into question the adherence to the NPPF guidelines. The development would bring outlying areas of Solihull even closer to the outlying areas of Coventry.

h) The development of these houses in this site will do nothing to benefit the village, only to ruin the community feel of this village and put further strain on its capacity.

2. Consequence of the development to the immediate surrounding area

a) For the duration of the construction of the proposed development, estimated to take up to 4 years we will be subject to noise, HGV traffic, dust and general appearance of the area.

b) I live within the blighted area of the impending HS2 build. With the current housing and bypass development you are not taking into consideration any of the pressures HS2 will impose on surrounding property in this area and HS2 will not be taking into consideration any of the pressures you are looking to impose. We could possibly end up with the HS2, 900 new houses on the greenbelt land and a newly built bypass in close proximity to our homes.

c) Once the houses and bypass are built, there will then be the day to day noise, congestion and additional traffic that an additional 900 households will bring to our doorstep and with 73% of people travelling to work by car in this area that means in the region of 1100 cars will be commuting to work each day.

3. Personal quality of life

a) I am not against progress in general or for the good of the village and community, but this burden should be shared by all. This proposal on top of HS2 means that a small number of residents in this area are impacted twice as much as any other area and are therefore taking much more of the burden of 'progress'.

b) I appreciate that 'view' is not an acceptable reason for opposing a build of this nature but both 'view' and the 'right to light' law does absolutely play a part in me opposing this build. Should there be a large area of high density residential development or houses close to my property or any other that is adjacent to Barretts Farm then the uninterrupted views over green fields for, in my case, 400 years, and the amount of direct sunlight could be severely affected. Under this circumstance we would have a very strong case under the so-called 'right to light' law to impose an injunction on the commencement of building.

4. My objection and rejection of the proposed development of housing and the extension of the bypass.

I object in the strongest manner to the proposed building on land to the rear of my property on the Barratts Farm site and to the possibility of a 'bypass' across the same land.

Should the plan go ahead, I object strongly to Barretts Lane being used as a pathway to the houses especially as this will encroached on either side of my property. Barretts land is a narrow road which is already being blighted by fast through traffic on the Barretts Lane Farm site and is becoming dangerous for pedestrians.

Any 'high density' housing should to be moved directly to an area that is not blighting any existing housing bordering this greenbelt area.

Until further plans are seen, it does not appear that the bypass is not only a 'bypass' but an access road to serve the 900 proposed houses. This would not help in easing pressure on the village it would put much more strain on the village and Station Road due to the sheer amount of extra traffic therefore irrelevant where it is placed.