Dear Sir/Madam,
Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common
I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing
units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall
Common known as Site 3.
I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three
brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak
farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2,
Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of
the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now
expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other
settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South
Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not
seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of
HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in
finding alternative sites to build on.
To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling,
traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan
to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full
at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public
transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during
peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the
Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The
Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality
in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open
countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the
public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall
Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any
significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the
seams".
Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and
Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development
of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is
being included. 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 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 on nocturnal
creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads,
clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.
Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane
opposite Hob Lane. 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 Road
residents) 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 lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as
drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. 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 would be an absolute travesty. 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 need to build here.