Alternative Site Suggested (Call for Sites)
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6018
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Rita Perks
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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6021
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr H 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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6024
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Pamela Frost
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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6027
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr G Frost
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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6030
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs J A Gledhill
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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6033
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Clifford Gledhill
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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6036
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs E A Seal
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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6039
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs H Brookes
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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6042
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Surinder Teja
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.
see letter
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6051
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Solihull Ratepayers Association
SHELAA Site 206 is an example of small sub-standard Green Belt sites that would benefit from redevelopment.
Allocation of smaller Green Belt sites across the Borough could reduce concentration of housing in the South Shirley & Blythe Villages area.
Also opportunity for smaller builders to develop in line with the recent Government White Paper.
petition submitted by Solihull Ratepayers - 34 pages containing 361 signatures
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6065
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: P Benton & T Neary
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Potential to enlarge proposed urban extension at Site 16 to include land south of Hampton Lane. Could provide a realistic alternative to potential under-delivery of existing SLP sites.
(N.B. not explicitly mentioned but probably refers to SHELAA sites 16, 17 and 20.)
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at and to the rear of 146- 152 Tilehouse Lane, Whitlock's End, B90 1PW.
The submission comprises the
* letter of representations (10463 HRW LPR APP);
* a site plan (ref.no. 10463-01A) with the site edged red;
* an Illustrative layout (10463(10)M-101 prepared by Tyler-Parkes Partnership
* a Transport Statement prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering Ltd
* An updated Extended Phase I Habitat Survey prepared by Cotswold Wildlife Surveys
* Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy prepared by BWB
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6071
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Tidbury Green Golf Club
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Land at Tidbury Green Farm.
SHELAA Ref: 209
Meets objectives of Growth Option G.
Sites are deliverable and developable.
Development would extend existing settlement boundary of Tidbury Green.
Would result in clear, defensible Green Belt boundaries.
Compares favourably to proposed allocations: less Green Belt impact, less landscape character impact, higher accessibility, no loss of community facilities.
18.6ha site. Would not require on-site provision of community facilities and services; or loss of existing facilities.
Planning application approved 16/12/16 on PDL part of site.
See attached supporting evidence and studies.
Rejection of site not been justified.
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at Tidbury Green Golf Club, Tidbury Green.
The submission comprises
* The letter of representations (10171 LPA3 LPR APP)
* An existing site plan (ref.no. 10509(EX)01) with the site edged red.
* Schedule of accommodation (10509(SC)01)
* Illustrative Site Layout (10509(MP)01)
* Ecological Appraisal prepared by Crossman Associates
* Environmental Noise Report prepared by Sharps Redmore
* Flood Risk Assessment prepared by THDA
* Tree Survey prepared by Abbey Forestry
* Transport Statement and Travel Plan prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering
* Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Matters
* Site Investigation Report prepared by Georisk UK
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6098
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Tidbury Green Golf Club
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Potential to enlarge proposed urban extension at Site 16 to include land south of Hampton Lane. Could provide a realistic alternative to potential under-delivery of existing SLP sites. (N.B. Implied this would include SHELAA Sites 16 and 17).
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at Tidbury Green Golf Club, Tidbury Green.
The submission comprises
* The letter of representations (10171 LPA3 LPR APP)
* An existing site plan (ref.no. 10509(EX)01) with the site edged red.
* Schedule of accommodation (10509(SC)01)
* Illustrative Site Layout (10509(MP)01)
* Ecological Appraisal prepared by Crossman Associates
* Environmental Noise Report prepared by Sharps Redmore
* Flood Risk Assessment prepared by THDA
* Tree Survey prepared by Abbey Forestry
* Transport Statement and Travel Plan prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering
* Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Landscape Matters
* Site Investigation Report prepared by Georisk UK
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6101
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Curtis
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Land at RO Bakehouse Ln and Wheeler Close, Chadwick End.
SHELAA Ref: 19
Meets objectives of Growth Option F.
Sites are deliverable and developable.
Development would round off existing development accessed from Warwick Road and opposite ribbon development.
Would result in clear, defensible Green Belt boundaries.
Compares favourably to proposed allocations: less Green Belt impact, less landscape character impact.
See attached supporting evidence.
Rejection of site not been justified.
Inclusion of site would accord with Government White Paper.
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at the rear of Bakehouse Lane and Wheeler Close, Chadwick End
The submission comprises the letter of representations (6439.LPA1.HMG LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 6439 site plan) with the site edged red.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6133
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs A Curtis
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Potential to enlarge proposed urban extension at Site 16 to include land south of Hampton Lane. Could provide a realistic alternative to potential under-delivery of existing SLP sites.
(N.B. Implied this would include SHELAA Sites 16 and 17).
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for land at the rear of Bakehouse Lane and Wheeler Close, Chadwick End
The submission comprises the letter of representations (6439.LPA1.HMG LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 6439 site plan) with the site edged red.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6137
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Landowners Wootton Green Land Balsall Common
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Land at Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common.
SHELAA Ref: 1017
Meets objectives of Growth Option F.
Sites are deliverable and developable.
Development would be adjacent to existing settlement boundary of Balsall Common and presents a natural extension of the village.
Would result in clear, defensible Green Belt boundaries.
Compares favourably to proposed allocations: less Green Belt impact, less landscape character impact, higher accessibility, no loss of community facilities.
Greater local support.
Would not result in loss of community facilities.
See attached supporting evidence and studies.
Rejection of site not been justified.
Allocation would accord with Government Housing White Paper.
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review on behalf of the landowners at the sites at Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common.
The submission comprises
* the letter of representations (10607 LPA2 JD LPR APP);
* Site plan (10607(OS)01) with the site edged red;
* Illustrative layout (10607(MP)01);
* Transport Assessment prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering; and
* Landscape character assessment response prepared by Landscape Matters
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6164
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Landowners Wootton Green Land Balsall Common
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Potential to enlarge proposed urban extension at Site 16 to include land south of Hampton Lane. Could provide a realistic alternative to potential under-delivery of existing SLP sites.
(N.B. Implied this would include SHELAA Sites 16 and 17).
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review on behalf of the landowners at the sites at Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common.
The submission comprises
* the letter of representations (10607 LPA2 JD LPR APP);
* Site plan (10607(OS)01) with the site edged red;
* Illustrative layout (10607(MP)01);
* Transport Assessment prepared by ADL Traffic Engineering; and
* Landscape character assessment response prepared by Landscape Matters
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6167
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: the Client
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Land at south of Hampton Lane.
SHELAA Ref: 16 and 17
Meets objectives of Growth Option G.
Sites are deliverable and developable.
Logical extension of Solihull Town Centre, would support its continued success.
Would result in clear, defensible Green Belt boundaries and/or safeguarded land.
Compares favourably to proposed allocations: less Green Belt impact, higher accessibility, no loss of community facilities, less impact on ecological or heritage assets.
Would not result in loss of community facilities.
See attached supporting evidence.
Rejection of site not been justified.
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land south of Hampton Lane, and west of Ravenshaw Lane/ South of Hampton Lane, Solihull.
The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 SHL LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 9263 Site Plan) with the site edged red.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6194
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: the Client
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Potential to enlarge proposed urban extension at Site 16 to include land south of Hampton Lane. Could provide a realistic alternative to potential under-delivery of existing SLP sites.
(N.B. Implied this would include SHELAA Sites 16 and 17).
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land south of Hampton Lane, and west of Ravenshaw Lane/ South of Hampton Lane, Solihull.
The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 SHL LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 9263 Site Plan) with the site edged red.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6197
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Cosmic Fireworks Directors Retirement Fund
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Propose to put a smaller part of the original SHELAA Site 64 as a Rural Exception Site. Should be noted that whole of site is available.
Important to specifically allocate sites that do not site close to the villages identified for housing growth as the lack of such allocations will leave a good deal of the Borough where the affordable housing requirement will not be addressed.
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR
The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6198
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Cosmic Fireworks Directors Retirement Fund
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Land at Barston Lane/Oak Lane.
SHELAA Ref: 64
Meets objectives of Growth Option F.
Sites are deliverable and developable.
Development would be compatible with adjacent residential uses and would ensure protection and facilitate enhancement of services and facilities.
Would result in new defensible Green Belt boundaries.
Compares favourably to some proposed allocations: less Green Belt impact, less landscape character impact.
See attached supporting evidence.
Rejection of site not been justified.
Allocation would accord with Government Housing White Paper.
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR
The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6231
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Cosmic Fireworks Directors Retirement Fund
Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Potential to enlarge proposed urban extension at Site 16 to include land south of Hampton Lane. Could provide a realistic alternative to potential under-delivery of existing SLP sites.
(N.B. Implied this would include SHELAA Sites 16 and 17).
Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the land at Barston Lane/ Oak Lane, Barston B92 0JR
The submission comprises the letter of representations (10445 LA3 GC LPR APP) and a site plan (ref.no. 10445-01A) with the site edged red.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6236
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Trustees of the Berkswell Estate
Agent: Richard Cobb Planning
RE: SHELAA Site 90, Land at Coventry Road, Berkswell Village.
SHELAA indicates the site performs well against suitability, availability and achievability criteria.
Phase A is currently being promoted for starter homes, could deliver around 20 units.
3.2ha. Site is available, suitable and deliverable for meeting rural housing needs in Solihull.
Outside the Conservation Area. Allocation would not breach Green Belt principles. Fulfills Housing White Paper requirements.
Generally performs well in Sustainability Appraisal.
Should be considered for allocation.
Please find attached letters prepared on behalf of the Trustees of the Berkswell Estate in respect
1) land at New Mercote Farm, Balsall Common.
and 2) land at Coventry Road, Berkswell.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6266
Received: 13/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Judith Thomas
More housing could be created by Berkswell PC proposals for use of reclaimed land at Cornets End Lane for new settlement as alternative to Balsall Common proposals.
1215 new houses in Balsall Common (1350 with current permissions) is wholly inappropriate due to: 1. use of greenbelt in priority to available PDL sites 2. disproportionate level of build when compared to other borough locations with better transport links 3. combined with HS2 and developments planned for Coventry places unacceptable pressure on existing green belt 4 delivers housing in south east when employment opportunities are in North and West with an absence of reliable sustainable transport options. 5. More housing could be created by Berkswell PC proposals for use of reclaimed land at Cornets End Lane for new settlement
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6314
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: IM Land
Agent: Turley
SHELAA Ref. 141. Land around Earlswood Station.
51ha site crossing boundary with Solihull and Stratford upon Avon district.
Could deliver up to 3000 dwellings, shop, school, extension to Earlswood station carpark.
Will help encourage use of rail network and reduce need to travel by private vehicle.
Accords with 'Public transport corridor' spatial option in SHNS Stage 3 report.
Location performs poorly in Green Belt Assessment.
SA impacts would be mitigated by on-site shop.
Key opportunity for land release in this and next plan period.
Stratford have signed MoU with Birmingham to look to contribute 3,300 dwellings towards Birmingham's shortfall.
In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Land.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6342
Received: 12/02/2017
Respondent: Peter Wreford
SMBC should look again at the proposal to develop Grange Farm and land to North West of the village (sites 142/198 in the Call for Sites).
Both of these sites are substantial, and score far higher than either Frog Lane or Kenilworth Road / Windmill Lane. They provide a greater opportunity for contribution to much needed village infrastructure, and could be accessed from a Northern bypass route, which would in turn form a defensible boundary. More than the existing 1150 units required in Balsall Common could be achieved at the same time as providing a bypass around the village.
Comments on sites specific to Balsall Common
Allocation 1 - Barretts Farm
Overall view is in FAVOUR of this site.
This is the key site in BC, which has potential to shape the future of the village / settlement for years to come. As noted earlier the context of the proposed bypass line for BC is needed to fully exploit this opportunity - the bypass should be a dual carriageway to the North East of the proposed site along the corridor, blighted by HS2 development, and continue to rejoin the existing A452 where it forks to go to Kenilworth / Honiley, known as Gambols Corner.
Access to this development should be exclusively off the bypass route, connections to the existing village infrastructure should be by way of foot and cyclepath only. The most adjacent village road, Meeting House Lane used heavily by car traffic and narrow.
The appropriate development of this site gives a number of recreational amenity opportunities: the proposed provision of a new Junior School could enable shared an All Weather Sports pitch and Swimming Pool to be provided, as long as it was ensured that the school would provide community use on evenings and weekends.
The location of the sports / recreational amenities and associated school should be positioned on the western side of the site (known as the "Catholic Field"), as this could then be joined with the existing Village Sports Association site, the Lant, which hosts cricket, tennis running and hockey clubs. This would enable most of the village sports facilities to be concentrated and leverage / extend the existing Community Centre infrastructure, as well as providing a green hub to Balsall Common - parking for the facilities could also be extended on the developed site, as the current Lant provision is inadequate for the needs of four vibrant and expanding clubs. The provision of a Green centre to BC would also be supported by allowing this to span the current Meeting House Lane, by preventing through traffic on this route.
Allocation 2 - Frog Lane, BC
Overall view to OBJECT to this site
This site seems to only have got this far by virtue of erroneous analysis of the proximity to the primary school, and limited bus connections. The detailed plans currently being exhibited by the developer show no community amenity on the site whatsoever.
The site cannot benefit from a 100 score for accessibility (of a total of 225!) to primary schools when the school to which it refers is well known to be full to bursting point, and causes significant traffic issues. If as I have suggested elsewhere the BC bypass is finally put on the map to the North East, this site is a long way from it, and will only add to congestion within the village. Overall access to other village amenities is poor - station, shops and surgeries are all at the other end of the village, and so this location will add to short journey car traffic in the village, as well as having to cross the A452 artery to reach any of these facilities.
Access from Balsall Street East is also a concern, traffic on this route is already considerable at morning peak, and this will add to the West-East flows in the village. Access proposed is a single lane road on the apex of a bend where driving speeds are frequently in excess of the limits. If this site is seriously considered it should be mandated for the developer to provide a reasonable roundabout to calm traffic at this point.
The village can get far better benefits from developing elsewhere.
Allocation 3 - Kenilworth Road / Windmill Lane
Overall view on this site - OBJECT
This site also lacks the critical mass to contribute significantly to the village - either in terms of supporting a bypass, but also significant distance away from all of the key amenities - reiterate - the junior school is full so should not be considered! The current walking routes back to the shops / station in BC are all along the very busy A452, and are both unattractive as well as potentially hazardous.
If on the other hand the intention is that this development should be inhabited largely by commuters, there would be more sense to provide direct access to the proposed bypass line on the North East of the site, rather than further traffic on to the existing A452, and through the existing traffic lights.
I am somewhat at a loss to understand how permission was granted for the ongoing development of the adjacent site, it would be doubly unfortunate if the same "errors" were allowed to permit this further development of this site.
Alternative opportunities in Balsall Common
I feel SMBC should look again at the proposal in the Call for Sites to develop Grange Farm and land to North West of the village (principally sites 142/198 in the Call for Sites).
As stated in your Atkins Accessibility report, both of these sites are substantial, and score far higher at 310 and 285 than either Frog Lane (225) or Kenilworth Road / Windmill Lane (150!). They provide a far greater opportunity for contribution to much needed village infrastructure, and could both be mainly accessed from a Northern bypass route, which would in turn form a "defensible boundary" that these sites are currently deemed to lack. This provides SMBC with a means of meeting more than the existing 1150 or so units required in Balsall Common, but at the same time fulfilling the stated objective of providing a much needed bypass around the village.
As proposed in their current form, with access from Denegate Drive the sites are not attractive.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6343
Received: 06/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Kennedy
Developed land, for example, to the north of Balsall Common has been ignored. The west of Balsall Common has more room to accommodate development sensitively.
I believe that the propsed large development in Balsall Common, does not meet the criteria from question 3. Over 800 homes are planned on green belt at the narrowest point of the Meriden gap, closing the distance with Coventry. Developed land, for example, to the north of Balsall Common has been ignored. The west of Balsall Common has more room to accommodate development sensitively. The largest site chosen has poor public transport and worse car access than other sites. Increased car numbers would add significantly to the congestion in Balsall Common itself.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6349
Received: 07/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Gillian Dale
Several potential sites (some partially brownfield) were identified to the north of the village, and they all scored more highly than Frog Lane in terms accessibility, so why were they excluded? As a matter of urgency, we ask you to consider them now.
Dear sir/madam,
I am writing to express my views on the proposed development in Balsall Common ( BC)I understand the need for more housing, I work with homeless teenagers. I also understand that when large developments are being proposed the infrastructure of the area needs to be considered, schools, access, health,etc. I am aware the potential building sites across Solihull have been weighted.
I am therefore confused as to why SMBC have chosen Frog Lane for development in BC given its lower scoring in relation to other sites around the borough.
Is there any awareness in SMBC as to the traffic congestion twice daily around the Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Alder Lane and Gypsy Lane junction? This junction is an accident hotspot and has been for the last 19 years. I have witnessed and helped casualties from these accidents on many occasions. I have voiced my concerns to SMBC in the past regarding this issue.
May I suggest SMBC visit this junction during school opening and closing times to witness the chaos. This area is a danger to the pedestrians and vehicle users at these times . Surely potential development sites need such matters to be considered. Please inform me of how this traffic/ accident hotspot is weighted in comparison with other sites?
Several potential sites (some partially brownfield) were identified to the north of the village, and they all scored more highly than Frog Lane in terms accessibility, so why were they excluded? As a matter of urgency, we ask you to consider them now.
Does the proposed development of Frog Lane still include the playing fields?
I am interested to hear where the children of primary school age will be accessing their schooling given that BC Primary School tends to run at full capacity most years ( I was a school governor in the past) following the proposed development in BC.
I look forward to your response.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6357
Received: 08/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Leslie Noble
I would support a plan where one housing site catering for all the housing needs and incorporating a school and shops is built. I understand that land is available to the north of the village (Balsall Common) for such a proposal.
I object to the Local Plan proposal for Balsall Common under references 1at Barratts Farm, 2 at Frog Lane & 3 at Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road.
All these plans for Balsall do not give sufficient consideration for the infrastructure of Balsall Common; the impact on the local primary school, GP surgery and village centre etc. I would support a plan where one housing site catering for all the housing needs and incorporating a school and shops is built. I understand that land is available to the north of the village for such a proposal.
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 6361
Received: 10/02/2017
Respondent: John and Mary Maguire
Agent: Colliers International
These representations therefore promote land to the west of 227 Lugtrout Lane as suitable for residential development and it is requested that the Council consider its release from the Green Belt. The site was considered a suitable site for development which was available and achievable, scoring highly on all matters considered in the Council's SHELAA (site ref 28) and in accordance with the recent White Paper on housing, local planning authorities should be looking to allocate sites for smaller developme
The emerging draft Local Plan Review has found it necessary to release land from the Green Belt in order to meet the Council's housing targets. Given the shortfall within the wider Housing Market Area and the potential requirement for Solihull to accommodate further dwellings within the plan period, particularly to address Birmingham's significant shortfall, it will be necessary to identify further sites for development within the Borough and further Green Belt land release is likely to be necessary.
These representations therefore promote land to the west of 227 Lugtrout Lane as suitable for residential development and it is requested that the Council consider its release from the Green Belt. The site was considered a suitable site for development which was available and achievable, scoring highly on all matters considered in the Council's SHELAA (site ref 28) and in accordance with the recent White Paper on housing, local planning authorities should be looking to allocate sites for smaller developments to meet up to 10% of their housing targets. This site would suit that purpose.
The site is currently located in Green Belt and the Local Plan Review is an appropriate place to review Green Belt boundaries to identify land to meet need, which, as discussed above, this would do. The Council's own Green Belt Study identifies the land as lower performing when considered against the objectives of including land within the Green Belt for all purposes except one, where it is considered to perform 'moderately' in preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The release of this land from the Green Belt would not result in the merging of any settlements. It is a well contained piece of land which has development surrounding it and its release would not adversely affect the role or objectives of the Green Belt.
In summary, it is evident that further land will need to be identified for housing to meet the full need, once fully identified through the Local Plan Review process and joint working, particularly with Birmingham City Council. The site promoted in these representations would assist in meeting the Solihull housing need and also the Government's direction in the White Paper stating that local planning authorities will need to provide 10% of housing targets as smaller size allocations.