Alternative Site Suggested (New Site)

16 - East of Solihull (between Lugtrout Lane and Hampton Lane). We should be regenerating existing areas especially on the outskirts of the town center, not destroying the few green belt sites which are so close to the over developed town center. This would help ease town center traffic and encourage residents to use public transport instead of adding more cars to the over populated town center roads. Once we lose these central green belts sites in the heart of Solihull they are gone for good.

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 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and 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 sites 2 and 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 causedelays 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) Sites 2 and 3 score 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 2 and 3. Given that the area is larger than site 2 and 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2 and 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time asHS2 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."

Further to the above

11) Loss of public open space by removing Holly Lane Playing fields from the greenbelt and adding it onto site 2 at Frog Lane. This public space is used by the whole community. Dog walkers, families with children, joggers, walkers and the Girl Guides and Brownies from The Scout Hut on Holly Lane, Local football teams and the nearby Holly Lane Nursery.

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 2 and 3 are 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 would like to request that the land put forward under the call for sites scheme (SHELAA site ref. 84, Land South of Houndsfield Lane) be considered as a housing allocation site, in particular for self-build development. The Plan currently does not propose to allocate this site for housing but I believe that it should. My reasons for supporting thin inclusion of this site are:

* potential to enhance the existing street scene (as stated in SHELAA report)
* therefore there is not much opposition to be expected from neighbours
* visual variety achievable through small scale development / self-build
* sustainability (just 1/2 mile from Whitocks End Station)
* direct involvement through keen local owners / self-builders.

When assessed by Peter Brett Associates within last November's report this site (84) scored high in almost all categories as being suitable. I understand the only weak point was that it did not lie within or directly next to a larger settlement. This is an irony as Dickens Heath is now proposed to be extended right up to Tilehouse Lane/ Houndsfield Lane by means of the proposed housing development site 4 (West of Dickens Heath)

The problem with mainly relying on such large areas of land becoming available for housing in a short space of time is that only the large house building companies are able to snap it up in order to add it to their 'land bank' and later potentially build on it if and when it suits their business strategy. This not only limits the predictability of the planning process but also finally results all too often in dull and monotonous developments with little variety in terms of design and appearance.

In contrast to such large areas being developed by a single source, small scale developments have much more potential to enrich the area with more diverse developments. This is evident in more 'organically grown' settlements like the areas adjacent to site 84 at Houndsfield Lane and Tilehouse Lane. Here residential development has taken place as ribbon development, largely dating back to the 1920s and 30s. This has resulted in a wide variety of types and designs which gives the area such a lovely character.

Currently any development along Houndsfield Lane is generally concentrated on the north side of the road. The land on the south side (site 84) is classed as green belt. The merit of this 'green' is rather doubtful as the plots are mainly overgrown largely formerly occupied by small holdings and do not present much of a visual amenity even to the occupiers of the houses on the other side of the street. I would argue that a total of around 20 houses along that side of Houndsfield Lane, individually planned and lovingly executed by self builders would certainly enhance the view in comparison to the existing 'green belt'.

My vision for the land south of Houndsfield Lane is for it to be released in particular for self-builders. This will reanimate the tradition of the 1920s and 30s and contribute to enriching the area further, just as it happened then. It is a well-known fact that the quality of self-build homes is generally superior in comparison with other new builds. Self-build also taps into unutilised resources that would otherwise remain unused but can make a valuable contribution in a situation when too few new homes are being built. Another strong argument for permitting development is this area is its sustainability. It is only around 1/2 mile south of Whitocks End Station which can easily be reached on foot or by bike.

Therefore I would kindly request to include this site 84 in the council's proposal for new dwellings, in particular for self-builders.

see attached letter

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I have been advised by my local parish council (Berkswell) to address you directly, as well as to the former, re my concerns over the above report, where it applies to the housing development plans for Balsall Common.
May I first of all say that I fully appreciate the challenges that SMBC face over the next 5-10 years and thus commend you on the contents and presentation of the draft report. However, in relation to Balsall Common, whilst I am not against the need for additional housing in the immediate vacinity per se, I would urge SMBC to consider the following points before any final decision is made.
1) As you are no doubt aware, Balsall Common village will be blighted by the advent of HS2, especially during the construction phase, which may very well start within the next 2 years, with our section of the project lasting for anything up to 10 years. During this period, our village will be transformed into a 'building site' with storage locations dotted around the environs, the construction of a 'temporary' living facilities for HS2 employees and the endless movement of HGV vehicles. It therefore seems unreasonable and unfair to burden our community further with additional construction work within the same timeframe, when conceivably, this additional housing requirement could be accommodated elsewhere within the borough.
2) On the other hand, if Balsall Common has to be seen to be 'taking its share' of the extra housing requirements, then why could this not happen to the west side of the village, where there is plenty of land available. It would of course mean that these houses would be further from the village centre, but this would be a small price to pay to avoid the potential monumental 'bottle-neck', which would arise from the construction of 800 proposed houses on the Barratt's Farm area in such close proximity to HS2.
3) As I am sure many residents in Balsall Common will have already indicated, the present infrastructure in Balsall Common is already 'creaking at the seams', especially from a schooling, recreational, parking/shopping perspective. This has arisen directly from extensive house building projects within the village, both past and present - we need to learn lessons from this experience. Whilst infrastructure issues have been mentioned in the report, there are no specific details which address these problem and therefore it would be irresponsible to forge ahead with extra housing without addressing the same. I would respectively suggest that an integrated plan for the village is required, covering for example, additional housing (if required), schooling, maintenance of/addtional recreational areas/facilities, retail/parking amenities, road network system, public transport. If this was forthcoming, then not only would this engender a greater degree of goodwill from the local community, but equally importantly, would hopefully prevent the real risk of destroying the amenable characteristics of our village, which the present plans are in danger of doing.

I look forward to receiving further communication from SMBC on this important subject, via our parish council, and trust that common sense will ultimately prevail. Thank you for reading this correspondence, and I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to acknowledge receipt.

see attached letter received via email

see attached letter received via email

With reference to your Local Draft plan, it will affect myself and all residents in Major's Green, just over the border in Worcestershire in the following ways:-

1. The traffic situation will increase immensely and the road structure will not cope with the increased demand for space for vehicles.
2. The car parking facilities at Whitlocks End Railway station is just about sufficient at present.
3. Where will all the sports facilities go. 3 Soccer clubs and a rugby club. I thought we were to encourage youngsters to participate in sports not deny them the opportunity.
4. What about the Green Belt opportunities around Catherine-de-barnes, Hampton-in-Arden, Knowle and Dorridge, or is there an element of NIMBYism involved here?

Please find alternative sites for these houses as there are other Green Belt sites available in your Borough.

Comment on draft local plan - proposed housing allocation 4 west of dickens Heath
As I border the proposed development I'm personally concerned about development I'm concerned about size, scope of the development and type of housing that Will be built. The proximity of new housing to my home & garden and the potential loss of privacy and my house becoming overlooked to the point of it being overbearing. Will the new housing be in keeping with size, design and type of the existing local housing. What green provision, corridors and borders be kept / crested between existing and new developments?

This development has the potential to change my local area from a rural area to an urban area this has the potential to effect the value of my own house.

I am concerned about practical matters if building occurs such as noise & disruption, dust, early morning and weekend working, construction traffic and all over a lengthy period of time to build 700 houses.

The local infrastructure also concerns me schools, doctors, dentists are struggling with the current demands, and with new housing already being built this will only be under more pressure.

The roads /parking struggle to cope with current levels of traffic, small roads and affluent multi car house holds mean that 700+ house will Add significant additional cars, and at peak times the roads are already congested.

The building will damage The local environment merging dickens Heath with Shirley, tidbury green, withal and there will be little distinction. There will be less and less green belt taking away the rural character of the area increasing the urban sprawl.

As I border one of the proposed areas I believe the wildlife of the area should be protected. The loss of habitat will damage birds, bats deer all that live in the area.

Recent and ongoing developments have already increased the size of dickens Heath way beyond what was originally planned, this proposed new development increases the pressure on all aspects of infrastructure and community.

I would question if other sites should be given increased priory over this development and if the council has truly researched other non developed area in the borough. Considering a genuinely new development rather than further extending dickens Heath.

Overall I believe the location, size and scope of this proposed development will adversely effect the community and surrounding area, it will adversely effect local residents and will become overbearing and detrimental. It will remove precious green belt, a wild life haven and a natural corridor between local communities, removing it will damage the local character of the area. In my view this is an inappropriate development that will harm residents.

"Consideration be given to explore the possibilities of closing golf courses situated in urban areas of Solihull and encouraging relocation to new facilities constructed elsewhere in keeping with approved planning policies. Adoption of this strategy could provide significant areas of non green belt land available for housing development."

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

The key facts of why we are opposed to the plans are:
* They're unfair: 41% of the houses in the plan are in 4 sites that neighbour our community
* They will have a negative impact on our community: aside from the loss of green space around our homes and the benefits to the community and health that brings, the proposed housing would create transport problems along Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane, Tamworth Lane, Blackford Road and many of the roads that run between them. It could also have a detrimental impact on schools and doctors.
* It won't help HS2: the Draft Local Plan Review makes a lot of reference to the benefits to the borough from the HS2 interchange at the airport, but Shirley will be one of the worst places in the borough to get to the new station. Areas to the east and north of the borough are more natural access points that won't need to contend with the congested A34 and M42.
* My mental health will suffer as I bought this property in the location it is as I suffer with PTSD and CANNOT live on or near a main road. I can give you access to my medical records to prove this if required.
* Shirley Golf Club wants to sell some of their land which is not bordered by any current propertys - build these houses there!

I am surprised and disappointed to see that in the current incarnation of the Draft Local Plan an area adjacent to Damson Parkway, Pinfold Road, Hampton Lane and Lugtrout Lane has been identified for housing development.

At a councillors' workshop a few months ago I pointed out that the staggered junctions of Yew Tree Lane, Hampton Lane, Marsh Lane and the Solihull Bypass cause significant traffic congestion (with concomitant noise and air pollution and delays to journeys) particularly back along Hampton Lane towards Catherine de Barnes, and not only at peak times. Traffic congestion along Damson Parkway/Yew Tree Lane will inevitably be exacerbated by the opening of the JLR logistics operation and traffic flow through Hampton Lane is likely to increase with the eventual development of UK Central. A housing development opening out on to any of the adjoining roads/lanes could only make matters much worse. Some of the land is used for children's sports and the football pitches, the need for which would increase with the influx of new families, would be lost.

I suggested the alternative proposal of developing instead land to the south of Catherine de Barnes, along and between Henwood Lane, Berry Hall Lane and Ravenshaw Lane. Catherine de Barnes, which already has some community infrastructure in the shape of a village hall, pub, shop, restaurant and some small businesses, could then be enlarged into a sustainable settlement with the addition of a school and health centre if there were sufficient new homes. Upgrading Ravenshaw Lane to provide direct access on to the A41 Solihull Bypass near Junction 5 of the M42 would not only serve the new development but actually alleviate some of the existing congestion along Hampton Lane. This proposal has the added advantage of preserving the green space between Damson Parkway, Lugtrout Lane, Field Lane and Hampton Lane as a buffer against urban sprawl.

This alternative proposal, which seemed the obvious solution when the local maps were scrutinised, was well received at the workshop by my fellow Councillors. I would like to know why it has not been incorporated into the current version of the draft Local Plan and I advance it again.

see attached letter from agent

I am writing to you regarding the recent news of the proposed developments in Balsall common and the potential 1100 homes you are planning on enforcing on Balsall Common village. In particular I would like to confirm how Solihull Council has chosen the 3 proposed sites - out of a potential 40 - in particular the Frog Lane development.
The Frog Lane site was seen as an unlikely option when all 40 sites were initially submitted due to the issues and limitations related to the proposal. I was therefore surprised to hear the Frog Lane site has been selected and would like to request that Solihull Council reconsiders the selection based on the following issues related to the site:
* The Frog Lane is 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?
* 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. I've spoken to several people living around Frog Lane who have previously had planning permissions for building work rejected due to Green Belt restrictions that will be requesting reviews of these decisions if the council approves the Frog Lane development. This will be in addition to developers using Frog Lane as the precedent when putting Solihull Council under pressure to approve future plans on the Green Belt in the area surrounding Balsall Common
* 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 so adding up to another 300 cars into this congestion every day will only increase this 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 issue. I would be happy to send you a video of it, if a visit is not possible
* 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 irreversible impact on the surrounding countryside.
* 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 goes against government planning guidelines on the subject
* On a more general point proposing 1100 homes for the Balsall Common village - at least a 30% increase on the current population - will have a fundamental and irreversible impact on the village and change the way we live. Most of us chose to live in Balsall Common due to it's village status and adding 1100 homes will not only add unprecedented pressure on an already creaking infrastructure but have a negative impact on the current population of the village - without them having any say. 1100 homes is simply too much for the village and a short term move by Solihull Council to push the housing shortage issue onto an easy target such as Balsall Common
The selection of the Frog Lane site by Solihull Council is made even more surprising by the fact that one of the owners of the Frog Lane land told me that the Consultants they have used to submit their plans said it was extremely unlikely the site would be approved due to the limitations related to the proposal. Please can you confirm the specific reasons why you have gone against all of this logic to select the Frog Lane site? I would urge you to consider a more suitable option.

Further email 13/2/2017:
Further to the instructions given by SMBC at the planning consultation meeting at Balsall Common library on the 7th January, I am writing to you to regarding the proposed development plans for Balsall Common and in particular the Frog Lane proposal.
As per my discussion with Gary Palmer on the 7th January there seems to be no clear reason why SMBC has selected the Frog Lane site other than to benefit directly from the Recreational Fields conversion to brownfield site and subsequent sale for development. The issues with The Frog Lane site are numerous - as listed below - and I would like to take this opportunity to suggest suitable alternatives that I would urge SMBC to consider
Issues with Frog Lane Development:
* The Frog Lane site is green belt land on the very edge of the village and has been selected over far more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why?
* It is too small a development - at only 150 homes it will not solve the housing shortage problems in the village and only add to the infrastructure challenges we already face (congestion, oversubscribed doctors, 4th class intake at school etc)
* The proposal comes with zero infrastructure additions so will only add to the severe congestion we already experience in the South of the village - only the developers will benefit and none of the existing residents
* The development is on the wrong side of the village and too far away from the railway station and shops forcing the potential residents to drive everywhere, further increasing congestion
* 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
* 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.
* The selection of the Frog Lane site by SMBC is made even more surprising by the fact that one of the owners of the Frog Lane land told me that their planning Consultants said it was extremely unlikely the site would be approved due to the limitations related to the proposal.
Based on the above issues it seems to any reasonable person that the Frog Lane site is clearly unsuitable for development. Why have you selected it from more than 40 planning sites in the village - in particular alternative brownfield sites - when there are so many challenges with the site? It seems the only reason SMBC would select it is to profit directly from the conversion of the playing fields to brownfield status which would allow you to sell the site for a huge profit in the short to mid term. This would be a scandal and something we would rigorously challenge as residents should you proceed with the Frog Lane development

Alternative Proposal
I understand there is a need for additional housing in all areas of the countryside and that we as a community need to play our part. However, I would urge SMBC to select a more suitable alternative plot to Frog Lane that benefits both SMBC and the Balsall Common residents, based on the following criteria:

* Select one large development with infrastructure included by the developers instead of 3 small sites and ideally select a brownfield or semi brownfield site (of which there are several in the village)
* Make the developers pay for the vital infrastructure the village will need to accommodate the expansion - with a large enough proposal the developers will pay for the infrastructure we need (shops, gym, community centre etc)
* Pick a site near the railway station and existing amenities so people can walk to the station and shops, reducing congestion in the village
* Leave greenbelt sites alone when there are alternative brownfield sites available as once you approve any plans on greenbelt you are negatively impacting the countryside forever and can't be reversed in our lifetimes
The selection of a single large site based on the criteria above will keep SMBC and the Balsall Common residents happy and satisfy the need for additional housing whilst minimising the negative impact on the existing residents of the village.

I urge you to reconsider the Frog Lane and Windmill lane proposals on this basis.

see attached letter

see letter

see attached letter

Response to Draft Housing Plan
I have attempted to respond to Solihull Council's draft housing plan using the online portal this afternoon. However, I have found the website to be very confusing and circular in nature. I could not access the online form for responses, despite clicking on hyperlinks for 'direct access to the online form'. As a result, I am emailing the key points that I wish to make instead. However, I would be grateful if the Council would review the approach that it takes to consultations in the future and consider the accessibility and clarity of its webpages.

Question 1 - I believe that the following key challlenges should also be included:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 2 - I believe that my responses to question 1 should also form part of the vision for the plan, namely:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 3 - I agree that brownfield sites should be selected ahead of greenfield sites. However, the distribution of planned new homes within the plan does not seem to reflect this strategy sufficiently. For example, greenfield sites in Balsall Common seem to have been allocated a very large number of new homes, particularly relative to its current size when other more developed areas of the borough that may benefit from regeneration or be better able to absorb expansion have not. I believe that this will be damaging to the character and attractiveness of Balsall Common and that it would be better for all communities in Solihull for new homes to be built in smaller numbers per development but in more locations spread throughout the borough. The present plan seems to place the burden on a small number of locations.

The current spatial strategy does not take sufficient account of the disruption that will be caused in communities by HS2 and how building new homes in the same areas may compound the difficulties experienced. Balsall Common will I expect, for example, experience significant issues from HS2 such as construction traffic, potentially at the same time as disruption from the building of a large number of new houses and infrastructure to support them. This needs to be taken into account when making final decisions on sites so that particular parts of the borough are not shouldering the burden of multiple developments at the same time, whilst other areas remain undisturbed. All areas need to make a fair contribution to the sustainable development and success of the area.

Please see response to question 15 for further comments on considerations for the spatial strategy/choice of locations.

Question 7 - Balsall Common should be listed as a town centre requiring a masterplan. Now, even before new homes are developed, the centre suffers from significant traffic problems (speeding, congestion, parking problems) and too few facilities. If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceed, a master plan is vital to ensure that the area remains a pleasant, desirable and prosperous place.

Question 15 - I believe that the locations selected should include consideration of ease of access to employment. For example, it seems strange that there are not more sites in or near the Dickens Heath/Monkspath/Blythe Valley area to enable ease of access to jobs at the business park and in the area south of the airport and east of Land Rover to enable ease of access to the jobs at both of those sites. The proximity of significant numbers of employment opportunities and transport links are much better in those areas than some of the sites selected (e.g. Balsall Common, Knowle). I also believe that those areas would be better able to absorb expansion without damage to the character of the area. For example, Dickens Heath features modern housing developments already and additional similar developments would be in keeping with its current design/character.

If the number of new homes cannot or is not spread more evenly around the borough and plans for Balsall Common to have the number of homes suggested proceed, I would welcome these being in smaller numbers across more developments. I believe that this would allow the town to expand in a more managed way that is in keeping with its character, limits the amount of green space and natural habitat being lost in each part of the town and manages the additional traffic more evenly. I am quite concerned about such a large number of homes being planned for Barrett's Farm for a number of reasons, including:
* This will create a large volume of additional traffic for a small number of routes
* The nearby town centre will not be able to cope with the additional demand and has little room to expand
* The location is a beautiful natural habitat for a range of wildlife and the public footpaths are a well-used and well-enjoyed feature of the area
* Having such a large estate of new build houses is not in keeping with the unique and semi-rural character of the area
I would welcome some of these being located in other parts of the borough or, at least, other parts of the town. For example, I believe that a developer owns land near Oakes Farm Shop off Balsall Street East and that this would be a good location for some of the homes currently planned for Barrett's Farm because:
* This part of Balsall Common is less congested
* It is serviced by a main road that could take the additional capacity
* There is a farm shop/cafe and a pub within close proximity
* There is space for the development of additional facilities, unlike in the town centre which is close to Barrett's Farm
* Pressure would be taken off the town centre, which is currently very busy with traffic and people relative to its size
It also would seem to make more sense in terms of ease of access to road and rail networks, as well as the health centre, for new developments in Balsall Common/Berkswell to be nearer to Hallmeadow Road, Truggist Lane, Riddings Hill, Lavender Hall Road etc.

I am sure that there are also other locations in Balsall Common and neighbouring villages/towns (e.g. Berkswell, which appears to have not been earmarked for any expansion) where the homes could be spread out in smaller numbers to make growth more manageable and easily absorbed.

Question 16 - If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceeds, I believe that the following infrastructure is required is addition to new schools and GP surgeries:
* Traffic calming measures in and around the town centre, including Station Road, Kenilworth Road and Meeting House Lane to counteract the volume and speed of traffic that already exists and will be exacerbated by new developments. I live on Meeting House Lane and the speed bumps and chicane that are there already are already ineffective at discouraging people from using the road as a 'rat run' and driving at high speeds to and from the town centre (e.g. because the speed bumps are very small and very spaced out). My cat was recently killed as a result of a speeding driver on my road. I am very concerned about the number of houses that may be built on Barrett's Farm and make the noise, volume and speed of traffic on the road even worse. I would ask that the Council would consider not having a vehicle access point from Meeting House Lane to the Barrett's Farm development (or off other similar residential roads) and instead ensure that access points are from main roads designed to manage this sort of capacity. I would also welcome Meeting House Lane being made a no-through route (e.g. being blocked off half way down near the Catholic Church/Tennis Club) or at least having more chicanes/single file traffic and more frequent/higher speed bumps , pavements being built all of the way down and any other appropriate traffic calming measures.
* More green spaces e.g. nature reserves, parks, play areas, cycle tracks, walking routes/public footpaths
* Extension of the by-pass (Hallmeadow Road) so that it provides ease of access to new housing (e.g. the Barrett's Farm development) and takes pressure off other routes in the area. At the moment, this road is underused and does not provide much of a useful route to anywhere
* Extension of the Kenilworth Greenway and the ability to access this by bike from Balsall Common (at the moment, it is not possible to access the Greenway on a bike without having to lift this above stiles/gates, which is very frustrating)
* More frequent and later night rail services from Berkswell to and from Birmingham New Street and International
* Additional bus routes and more frequent services
* Supermarket on the outskirts of the town (e.g. off the by-pass)
* Additional shop, bar and restaurant premises (but not all in the current town centre)
Question 22 - I understand that there may be good reasons why the Council may want/need to divert some of the CIL payments, new homes bonus and profit on the sale of Council land to areas other than those where the new homes are built in order to support prosperity and growth across the borough. However, I think that it is important that those communities who experience the disruption of new homes being built, their local area being changed (e.g. loss of natural habitats and greenfield sites, change in area character) and the impact of additional people/traffic in the area are compensated through sufficient additional infrastructure and facilities for managed and sustainable growth before the profits relating to those developments are used elsewhere. Diverting profits to areas of the borough which have not had new developments should be in exceptional cases only and where the minimum required needs of those in the development areas to manage the impact on their community effectively have been met first. I would also say that if developments were more evenly spread across the borough, it would be easier to justify sharing the benefits across the borough, too.

I hope that this response is helpful.

Shirley Conservatives newsletter response

see letter and proposed alternative site Land at Old Station Road Hampton in Arden

see letter and site map

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 2 (Frog Lane, Balsall Common) and 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 sites 2 and 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 causedelays 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) Sites 2 and 3 score 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 2 and 3. Given that the area is larger than site 2 and 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2 and 3.



10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time asHS2 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 bothinfrastructure 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."


Further to the above


11) Loss of public open space by removing Holly Lane Playing fields from the greenbelt and adding it onto site 2 at Frog Lane. This public space is used by the whole community. Dog walkers, families with children, joggers, walkers and the Girl Guides and Brownies from The Scout Hut on Holly Lane, Local football teams and the nearby Holly Lane Nursery.


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 2 and 3 are 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 documents

see letter

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

see attached letter re: Hatton Station (Warwick District)

see attachments

see attached letter