Alternative Site Suggested (Call for Sites)

200 houses on Site 3 between the Kenilworth Road and Windmill Lane
I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.
5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties
7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.
8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.
9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.
10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport
2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots
3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development
5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
Having used the train service from Berkswell to Birmingham New Street for 7 years whilst at school, I was affected by the decision to cut the number of services down from 3 to 2 per hour. This was definitely not a frequent service as the decision led to me often getting home 40 minutes later as the Berkswell trains ran at 13 minutes past the hour and 53 minutes past the hour (my school day ended at 4 so I rarely was able to catch the 4:13). I sometimes instead had to travel to Hampton in Arden which was highly inconvenient.

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Objection to the development site 3 @ windmill Lane
I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

see attached response

see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge

My view on the Proposed sites for Balsall Common is that ..... : I lived in Balsall Common up until 5 months ago (48 years) and am currently Chairman of Berkswell Cricket Club who thrive in the Centre of the village.
Its great the see the demographic growing in Balsall Common as from a purely selfish point of view it will help increase our membership. The Oakes Farm development stands out from other proposed developments in the village as it is slightly on the fringes and does not impose on any existing 'green' and leisure areas within Balsall Common which, to be frank, other proposals do. Balsall Common has never been abundant with affordable housing and to see 50% of the proposal catering for this is really pleasing. I lived opposite Oakes Farm for 10 years and can safely say that the proposed area for development can only compliment what is there already. Out of all the proposals in Balsall Common, it is the stand out and obvious choice.

see letter and supporting documents for Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Nos. 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:


"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) I do not believe the central village has the parking, facilities or general capacity to deal with further growth within Balsall Common.

2) There are insufficient bus services to service the area resulting in more vehicle traffic and the resulting issues this causes.

3) The current crossing at the Kenilworth Road/Alder Lane/Kelsey Lane junction is already treacherous due to the many large lorries passing through, general volume of traffic and no pelican crossing. This is a nightmare for local children trying to get to school.

4) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the"very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.


5) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".


6) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.


7) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.


8) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

9) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties


10) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.


11) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.


12) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.


13) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:


1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development


5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

My view on the Proposed sites for Balsall Common is that ..... : We are totally opposed to Frog Lane being development because the loss of playing fields. If housing has to come, amenities need to be built and Oakes Farm scheme is the lesser of two evils.

see attached vision statement

I'd like to raise the following concerns regarding the development of the Frog Lane site - hardly a large plot, and so I don't believe that the damage caused by developing it will be justified by the relatively small number of additional homes:
1. Frog Lane is niche green belt land and has been selected over more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why is this the case?
2. The Frog Lane development is a green field site on the outskirts of the village, so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane. This seems particularly concerning, given point 1 above.
3. Balsall Street East and the roads surrounding the Balsall Common schools - adjacent to the Frog Lane development - are already severely congested (with increased related pollution) at school drop off and pick up time. The Frog Lane development would no doubt have access via Balsall Street East and the immediate area and adding up to another 300 cars into this congestion every day will only increase the problem. I would suggest you or one of your team visits Balsall Street East at around 8.40am on a weekday morning to see the extent of the current issue, to then review how developing Frog Lane will further exaggerate the problem.
4. The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around, as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site, but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less impact on the surrounding countryside - Dengate Drive appears to have been overlooked, for example.
5. The Frog Lane site is a considerable distance from the village amenities, and in particular the train station - which will encourage people to drive more and increase the congestion and pollution problems in the village - and so goes against government planning guidelines on the subject.

We have lived in Balsall Common for more than 45 years and therefore have a keen interest in the developments proposed in the Draft Plan. Following is a letter expressing our views. We have examined the Plan document, and the questions within it, and will respond to each after discussions with your officials at the Balsall Common consultation session next Saturday 7th.

However, the format of the document and the questions asked does not allow us to give our response as we would wish and therefore we have chosen to write the attached.

You will see from our address that we live on Meeting House Lane and therefore could justifiably be accused of NIMBY-ism. However, I will be 75 next birthday and my wife is not far behind. Housing development in 5 - 15 years' time is unlikely to be a long term concern for us. It will be a serious concern for the next generation and the one after that and that is why we feel strongly that changes to the plan are needed. Please take the time to read our letter and respond.


Housing Development in Balsall Common and Berkswell.

The proposed housing development in Balsall Common/Berkswell will (together with HS2) considerably affect our village for years to come. In the short term, there will be massive disruption but this is out-weighed by the loss of countryside for decades to come. Houses, once built, will not be pulled down. It is therefore hugely important that sites are selected which meet not only current needs but also do not prejudice the "vision for the future". At a strategic level the draft plan sets out to do this but fails in its detail recommendations: We are talking about Green Belt and particularly the Meriden Gap. As with houses, Green Belt once released will never be re-instated.

It is critical for the future of our village that the criteria used to redraw the Green Belt (and thus approve sites for housing) make sure that the rural nature of the Borough is retained.

If we look at issues raised in the SMBC Local Plan and the reasons given for the sites chosen, it seems that short-term considerations are winning the day.

Proximity to bus stops, rail services, local shops, the surgery, traffic may be important now, but may not be in 25 or 50 years. All of these can change - one by the stroke of a bus company manager's pen. The location of 1150 houses is permanent and can never be changed. Our residents got it absolutely right in their responses after the site exhibition last summer. Overwhelmingly they stated that protection of the Green Belt and, therefore, of the countryside and the wildlife in it was their top concern. SMBC are ignoring the residents wishes by choosing large sites in the Green Belt which may be easy to acquire and develop and where eager builders are pushing them. If Green Belt erosion is allowed now our descendants will look at a Midlands conurbation which stretches as unbroken urban sprawl from Wolverhampton to the eastern boundary of Coventry and ask us, why did we ever allow that? We had a chance to keep some fields and we blew it.

The SMBC have published the Strategic Green Belt Assessment dated July 2016. The introduction stresses "the vital strategic Meriden gap"; but the Draft Local Plan produced from it will destroy it.

This document suggests that a pseudo-scientific approach to the decision has been used and all 'Broad Areas' and 'Refined Parcels' have been carefully analysed to ensure that Green Belt which is best suited for purpose is retained. However, careful reading shows that, although the methodology may appear impartial, it all depends on the scoring given for each purpose in each area and these are essentially subjective. For example, compare the scores given to the Barrett's Lane and Grange Farm sites - sites RP 54 and RP 51 respectively.

Purpose Barrett's Grange
Lane Farm

1 To check unrestricted sprawl 1 2

2 To prevent neighbouring towns merging 2 2

3 To safeguard the countryside 2 3

4 To preserve the character of historic towns 0 0

This gives Grange Farm a total Green Belt weight of 7 and Barretts Lane 5. Therefore, in SMBC'S view, Grange Farm is a more important site to keep as Green Belt. However, anyone looking at a map can see that the gap between Balsall Common and Coventry is at its most vulnerable at Barretts Lane. With HS2, and Coventry's plans to build westwards from Burton Green, plus a proposed new road connecting the A46 via Warwick University through to the A45 (which will reduce traffic through Balsall Common and hence reduce the pressure for a bypass), the Meriden Gap will shrink to close to zero.

We are not just attempting to divert building away from Barretts Lane to Grange Farm. We have no doubt that examination of many other scores in areas away from Balsall Common would show similar anomalies. We are showing that the scoring that the methodology uses is flawed and cannot be relied upon to justify decisions which are so important to our future and that of our children.

We are fully aware of the housing crisis the country faces and that homeless people would rather have a house to live in than a beautiful piece of Green Belt countryside. However, it does not have to be one or the other. There are many sites to consider and SMBC should take another look at them.

We are asked the question: if not here; where? We suggest SMBC follow their own guidelines as defined in the Draft Local Plan. Namely;

1. Non-Green Belt land first

* The site enclosed by Wootton Green Lane and Kenilworth Road as proposed by tyler parkes at the site exhibition last summer. This is largely Brownfield.
* Lavender Hall Farm. This is also largely brownfield and easily accessed by the new roundabout on the A452 at Park lane. A site likely to be attractive to housing associations for the building of affordable housing

2. Green Belt:

Previously developed land if highly accessible or moderately accessible location

* None identified

Greenfield - if highly or moderately accessible location and is being lost as a result of committed development

* The site enclosed by Windmill Lane and Kenilworth Road which we fear is already lost as Green Belt.

3. Greenfield - other
* New Mercote Farm. This is farm land that is isolated from the rest of the Berkswell Estates land and therefore of lower agricultural value. It has defensible boundaries (roads) and good accessibility from the new roundabout which HS2 Ltd will leave at the end of the construction period at the junction of Park lane and the A452. It has no footpaths and is therefore of poor usage to the community as Green Belt compared with Barratt's Farm which is highly used by local walkers. It is less than 1 km from the primary school (Berkswell), 1/2 km from fresh food (Sainsbury) and on the north side of Balsall Common and hence close to the growing jobs area around the airport.
* These sites may not make up the full 1150 houses required. Any shortfall could be shared between that part of the Barretts Lane site which fronts onto Station Road; and that part of the Grange Farm site fronting onto Wootton Green Lane. These two sites are largely Green Belt but have less impact on the Meriden Gap than SMBC's draft proposal.

All these areas have defensible boundaries as defined in the Assessment Methodology - Roads, Rail, Watercourses, Woodland, Hedgerows, and Established field patterns. All other areas should be reconfirmed as permanent Green Belt.

This proposal has several advantages:

Most of the development is north of the village centre which we understand will ease traffic through the village.

Most of the development is away from HS2 and there should be less simultaneous disruption. Completed developments should be easier to sell.

Accessibility is better with direct access onto the Kenilworth Road for the majority, and reduced flow onto Station Road which already is severely restricted to the east by the low bridge and to the west by the village centre.

The burden, and the CIL revenue, is shared by Balsall and Berkswell parishes which should make it easier for them to agree a joint NDP.

But, by far, the major advantage is reduced erosion of Green Belt between Solihull and Coventry. We must aim to move the epicentre of the village away from Coventry, not towards it.

We ask that our three SMBC Councillors, the two JOINT parish councils and NDP committees make the case effectively to SMBC and secure a revised Local Plan for the benefit of all current and future residents.

see attached letter

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the"very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

NB: Can you also please remove the paddock located at Kerly Close which is included and hatched on your site plans - this is a private paddock which is owned and maintained by the residents of Kerly Close and contains legal restrictive covenants as to its use and development. This paddock is to remain as part of the Green Belt.

email & see attached report
Please find attached my objection to site 3 (Balsall Common) proposed for allocation in the Draft Local Plan.

This objection is in response to Q15 in the DLP and recommends the removal of site 3 from the plan and that site 240 be allocated instead.

You will note that this report is co-authored my myself, Jeanette Mcgarry and Wendy Wilson and is focused solely on site 3.

I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this report further with yourself, Cllr Courts and the co-authors of the report.

see letter from Agent

see letter from Agent

see letter from agent

see attached letter from agent

Good evening,

I have just heard that there has been an interest in the land opposite Miller and Carter, Solihull. The planning application I believe is to build 2000 houses on green fields. Unfortunately I could not make tonight's meeting (copy of minutes please).

I was under the impression there may be some development on Dog Kennel Lane too, so if these developments are agreed, this will mean that the whole of Shirley South will be engulfed with further housing instead of the lovely countryside which drew me to coming from Shirley East.

I live just off Stretton Road and come across traffic queues from Tanworth Lane to Blackford Road/Dog Kennel Lane on my daily commute to central Solihull. This will be much worse once this development is erected. Currently we have the excess traffic from the existing Dickens Heath village plus new developments, Dickens Manor, The Paddocks and Cheswick Place which has definitely increased.

I understand there has been a willingness to sell land from the Christmas Tree farm owners and the Football Ground which I am very surprised.

We have lots of dog walkers, joggers and cyclists go through this area, where will they go now? Also there are steel Pylons through this land, surely that is not suitable building land?

I am very concerned about the old people living round this area and the extra houses and noise.

What you should be concentrating on is flattening the speed bumps on Tanworth Lane, Stretton Road and Hathaway Road and reducing the amount of noise from motorbikes and them using our roads like a race track.

What is going to happen to the pressure on school places with our schools bursting at the seams already? Both Dickens Heath and Woodlands cannot be expanded due to space, no one has thought about this. Why not build at Blythe Valley, right by motorway access? LEAVE SHIRLEY ALONE

I am submitting my comments to the Local Plan Review.

I am unable to submit my comments by your preferred method of the portal because that does not work properly, I am unable to access that (a matter which is subject to a separate complaint).

My comments are as follows

1 Firstly, the document is very long, there is no summary and it is full of jargon. In my opinion it fails the "plain English" test. It is full of obfuscation which makes it quite difficult to understand what is being proposed. If the Council really wishes to have meaningful consultation with council tax payers then there needs to be simpler communication.

Specific and general comments on the document are :-

2 I disagree with "Challenge G" - Gypsy & Traveller issues. I fundamentally object to the massively disproportionate amount of Council time and effort and council tax payers money that is expended on this very small section of the "community". These people are not part of the community, they do not wish to be part of the community, they just want to take advantage of the community.

3 Opening up of Green Belt Land around Damson Parkway/Old Damson Lane for use by JLR and other companies associated with car manufacturing. - I object to this proposal ( and I have objected to the planning submission by JLR for their LOC). There is no need for this suggested development to be immediately adjacent to the JLR plant, anywhere reasonably close would be perfectly suitable. I am very concerned by the inference in the document that because the despatch facility which has recently been built used green belt land then it is acceptable to use more green belt land for JLR convenience. That is in my view completely wrong. Obviously there was no other practical option for the despatch facility than the one approved (which I why I commented in support - with reservations - about that application).

4 New Housing developments - by the time I got to this section of the document I had already spent about an hour trying to understand earlier sections of the report, so I was beginning to lose the will to live, therefore I am not fully clear as to what is being proposed here. However I am clear that the plans for housing development, particularly affordable homes, are completely inadequate. The country as a whole faces a massive shortage in affordable housing and much more land needs to be released to provide major developments. I would much rather see further housing development around the periphery of the town than the proposed industrial development

see letter

see attached letter

see attached and online submissions

see additional documents to support online submission

see attached response

letter re: Call for Sites site 82

see attached letter - land on south side of Houndsfield Lane

see attached letter - land at Diddington Lane Hampton in Arden