Alternative Site Suggested (Call for Sites)

No

Representation ID: 5925

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr J Stanley

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5928

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Tomkys

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5931

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr G Wilkinson

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5937

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs P Green

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5940

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr D Eustace

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5943

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Leslie Eustace

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5946

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs K Drakes

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5949

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs J Carpenter

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5952

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs J Vernon

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5955

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr R Vernon

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5958

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs J Bliss

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5961

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs M Edmonds

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5964

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr D Edmonds

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5967

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs C Cavigan

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5970

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr P Greasley

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5973

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs G Elson

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5976

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr T N Walton

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5979

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs N Walton

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5982

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Ken Hazlewood

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5985

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Anne Hazlewood

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5988

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Anna Walters

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5991

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr K Millican

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5994

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Derrick Walker

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 5997

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs June E Smith

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 6000

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Ronald A Smith

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 6003

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Darren Abreu

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 6006

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mr P Phillips

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 6009

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs P Phillips

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 6012

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs L Keene

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.

No

Representation ID: 6015

Received: 17/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Pam Marsden

Object to Site 3. Site 240 should be allocated as an alternative. It outperforms Site 3 in terms of SMBC criteria.
Balsall Common does not have good accessibility and there are limited employment opportunities.
Due consideration not given to the 14 Previously Developed Land (PDL) sites in Balsall Common. "Very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
Should be a re-assessment of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common. Consideration should be given to the re-use of all PDL falling within or adjacent to Balsall Common and these should be consulted on.