The proposal to build 1215 new houses in Balsall Common (1350 with current permissions) represents a strategic change which will both fundamentally change the balance and nature of the existing community and will overwhelm already precarious village infrastructure.

Expanding the existing settlement by over a third is disproportionate when measured against the impact on other areas such as Dorridge which have equally good transport links and better infrastructure provision.

The plan provides no convincing reason as to why similarly rated sites in these areas have been disregarded in favour of Balsall Common options.

A failure to spread development more evenly loses the opportunity to deliver housing needs without major disruption to infrastructure and with sensitivity to existing residents.

The three sites proposed for Balsall Common all utilise green belt in priority to a number of potential PDL sites all of which appear to have been disregarded without a reason being given.

As such I regard the proposals as inconsistent with existing NDDP requirements and Solihull's stated strategy. Why is this being ignored in the case of Balsall Common?

In particular, the size of the proposed Barratts farm development when combined with major developments such as HS2 and planned for west Coventry places unacceptable pressure on existing green belt and in doing so threatens the very essence of the Meriden Gap.

The siting of such a major development is also inconsistent with the Plans stated sustainability objectives. Building housing in the south east when employment opportunities are in the North and West with an absence of reliable sustainable transport options can only serve to further impact existing road congestion.( see further comments on infrastructure requirements below)

I understand that that more housing could be created by resurrecting the Berkswell Parish Council proposals for use of reclaimed land at Cornets End Lane for creation of a new settlement. Has this been considered and if so why was it rejected?