Other Green Belt Changes

10. Do you have any comments to make on potential changes to the Green Belt boundary east of the settlement (Balsall Common) that would result in the removal of the 'washed over' Green Belt from those areas not covered by a formal allocation?

We oppose removal of 'washed over' designation because it is useful in restricting the scale and density of redevelopment in Green Belt areas surrounding large towns and cities. near large populations. . In low-density settlement areas, or dispersed settlement, the 'washed-over' designation ensure that Green Belt policy is maintained. This provides for limited infilling in a developed frontage, where new houses are permitted of a size and height of the existing development. But elsewhere new houses should not be significantly larger than those they replace.

In the area east of Balsall Common, removal of Green Belt status proposed for land south of Old Waste Lane and Waste Lane will remove the current level of control over development. This would result in unstructured, random development as individual sites are promoted for development.

The majority of the land in this parcel is broad area 4 and is scored at 12 in the Atkins Strategic Green Belt Area Assessment (2016). Only a very small area RP56 is found to make a limited contribution to the Green Belt. Therefore proposing to remove this land from the Green Belt goes against the AGBR that broad area 4 which states " The area covers a large part of Birmingham and Solihull to the West and Coventry to the East......The area performs highly against all 4 purposes and makes an equal contribution to the preservation of the Meriden Strategic Gap and the setting and character of the Berkswell Conservation Area".