I started to complete the online consultation document but soon realised that was designed to frustrate and ensure no objections were received by you so I have resorted to email.

The infrastructure proposals do not meet the current needs let alone the needs of a significantly increased population if all your proposed houses are built.
1. Interconnected cycleways are required to assist in reducing the number of cars used to drive from Balsall Common to surrounding cities and workplaces.
2. Some of the new development is proposed for roads with no footpath, with increased traffic the risk to pedestrians would be significantly increased
3. The bypass you have proposed would appear to be flawed. It would either cut the proposed Barrats Lane development in 2 or have a 90 degree bend at the point where it would meet the existing B4101 near Little Beanit farm and it would then follow the line of the exiting road down to Catchems Corner. From Catchems Corner to the junction by Evesons fuels, will it would then appear to replace the existing Windmill Lane. That does not appear to be new infrastructure but is actually re-purposing existing infrastructure which is already inadequate for the current traffic volumes.
4. Existing properties within some of the proposed developments do not have access to public sewers, but your plan does not include provision of public sewers for existing properties.
5. The current primary school seems to be full to capacity, a new additional primary school is required before any new house building commences.
6. Existing public transport is inadequate, additional public transport is required before additional house building commences.

The Windmill Lane proposed development is completely out of character for the area at present. This area is rural and undeveloped, it is largely still 'proper green belt' in keeping with what green belt was supposed to provide when originally designated 80 years ago. This green belt should be protected from current and future development, the proposed development does not do that.
The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity, which were built on green belt without any consultation to remove those sites from greenbelt, should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect onnocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly puttingthe lives of the newts at risk.

Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Windmill Lane is already used as a rat run and has no footpath meaning residents already take their life into their hands to walk along it, additional development on Windmill Lane will only make this situation worse. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Roadresidents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This is not sustainable.

Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this is totally unacceptable. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.

All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.

Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.

In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no justification to build here.