Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7271

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Angela Walton

Representation Summary:

Historically houses in Balsall Common have commanded a good price and I presume that allowing development here provides a better CIL for SMBC than developments in North of the borough? But the proposed bypass is ill thought out and there is no acceptable firm commitment to provide extra leisure facilities, shopping centre or safe access to shops for both cars and pedestrians.
Secondary school expansion should be planned at the same time as housing.

Full text:

The proposed Hall Meadow rd &its extension cannot be classed a bypass.It is the only vehicular access to Riddings Hill, & the Medical Centre and will be have access roads for Barratts farm.
There is already a bottleneck at station roundabout because of access to the health centre, station, shops and coventry. Use of all these will increase with extra houses and in addition access TO A NEW SCHOOL AND EXTRA CARPARK SPACES is in this area.
No attention appears to have been given to pedestrian access to the proposed new primary school eg how village residents coming by foot will cross what the current proposals suggest will now be a busy through road.
There is limited additional choice for access to Barretts farm. Meeting House Lane has no pavements and there are already bottlenecks at either end.The plan quotes numbers of house but not number of additional carpark spaces.
The current road surfaces throughout the village are in poor repair.
There are no public leisure services eg swimming pool, gym.There is currently a fairly good train service but only an hourly bus service.Neither service gives easy access to public leisure facilities such as swimming pool, gym, and there are no facilities in the village. A round trip to Tudor Grange by public transport requires significant planning and at least half a days free time. Councils must have responsibility for reducing the carbon footprint. Lack of local facilities and public transport forces residents to use private transport not including such facilities in the plan is irresponsible.
Access to open green field spaces is being reduced not just for the able bodied but also for the disabled.

Heart of England has very limited sports facilities given the size of the school, and there is limited space for expansion. It must be anticipated extra classrooms and sporting space will be needed for extra secondary school pupils.
Importantly policing has been reduced, even with the existing population. Drug use in the village centre carparks is evident from the number of dropped gas canisters. Anti-social behaviour is a problem now and likely to increase with a vastly increased population. No mention of additional policing is made in the proposals.
The village centre is already congested and dangerous. Parking is frequently full and visibility on station road spaces in front of the shops is poor. The current buildings appear to leave no scope for improving traffic flow or parking or providing additional supermarket/ shopping facilities for the increased population.

Mention is made of the money available from the CIL which will be available for community projects but no indication of the scale of this sum is given. Providing leisure facilities and extra secondary school places should be in place as part of the plan. How much money will be available to the Parish Council? How much will Solihull get? And to which purpose(s) will it be put?
A proper bypass (dual carriage with limited disruptive junctions) on the Western side of the village linking to the Land Rover site would appear a better option, given that Hall Meadow Road, whether or not extended, is not a bypass.
Mention