Alternative Site Suggested (New Site)

see attached letter

see written response attached

Further to a number of conversations with the Council on behalf of the Land Owner Mr Nigel Curtis I would like to put forward the land at New Holly Farm, Holly Lane, Balsall Common, CV7 7EB to be considered as an alternative or additional site as part of the current Local Plan Review.
As can be seen from the attached plan the land which is bounded by a red line and shown hatched in green is roughly rectangular in shape and totals around 41.83 hectares. On the west side the site is bounded by Holly Lane and the southern boundary is Table Oak Lane. The northern boundary is by the Police Dog Training Centre and is very close to the existing centre of Balsall Common and two other sites proposed by the Council. (Frog Lane and Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road)
The Holly Lane site is very well situated being centrally located between Balsall Common and the 200 acre Jaguar Land Rover site on the former Honiley Airfield with the long rectangular shape of the New Holly Lane Farm site almost linking Balsall Common and the former Airfield. This factor is part of its Previously Developed Land history which we have previously discussed during our telephone conversations.

HISTORY OF PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE
- During the Second World War the New Holly Lane Farm land was built on to create the accommodation and service centre for the Honiley Airfield. The site included a network of roads and various buildings which provided accommodation and sleeping quarters for the airmen, ground crews and all other staff. It included the canteen and kitchen facilities and storage facilities for supplies and munitions. The buildings covered much of the site which had been selected so it was outside the main airfield and was less likely to be hit if the airfield was bombed by enemy aircraft whilst at the same time it was easy enough for the people stationed there to walk to the airfield or to Balsall Common. For obvious reasons the site like the airfield and many other such sites nationally did not appear on ordinance survey plans at that time but the previous owner Mr Norman Moore did have a copy of a Ministry of Defense Plan plan layout of the site which showed a network of roads and pathways on a grid with a large number of mainly rectangular buildings which provided the wartime accommodation. From what I recall the site was accessed from two entrances off Holly Lane. One access point was in the same location that currently serves the site and New Holly Farm and this was closest to the airfield with the second access located midway between Holly Grange and the Police Dog Training Centre which was closest to Balsall Common. As I understand it sometime after the war was over the buildings were demolished (in the 1950's) but even now when the land is ploughed debris can be brought to the surface from the roads and buildings which to some extent blights the land.

-In the 1990's planning consent was granted for an agricultural dwelling (New Holly Lane Farm) which has been built. The dwelling is located close to Holly Lane and is hidden from the lane by the existing hedgerow and a small wood to the north and this sits just outside the redlined land proposed as a housing development site.

-In the early 2000's the agricultural tie on New Holly Farmhouse was removed.

-In around 2007/2008 the Council granted consent for a new golf course which included a clubhouse and other facilities. The planning conditions associated with this approval were all discharged and following the submission of a Building Regulation Application to the Council foundations for the Clubhouse were installed and inspected by the Council. Unfortunately the last recession came shortly after that work was carried out and the completion of the golf course has not taken place although the consent is still live.

In general terms the site is located on the southern side of Balsall Common as are the adjacent Frog Lane and Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road sites so the Holly lane site is in the right general area on the side of Balsall Common which the Council are considering for new housing. The other larger site the Council are considering is at Barrett's Farm on the eastern side of the settlement.

The alternative site proposed at New Holly Farm has land divided by hedgerows and includes some wooded areas and there are hedgerow boundaries to Holly Lane and Table Oak Lane. This would allow any development to be carried out in stages if required and with the retained hedgerows as was proposed with the approved Golf Course application would settle the development within the existing landscape in a sensitive way. There is a power line situated at the northern end of the site but this would have little or no impact on any development proposals.

The land as noted above does meet a number of key points which the Council have suggested as tests when considering potential sites. The land is in a good location and is in the general area of growth to Balsall Common which the Council are promoting. It is previously developed land as described above and has a live planning consent in place and would be well suited for new development and could deliver over 1000 new homes if required which could be built in phases over the plan period if not all built at one time. The site is situated very close to the Jaguar Land Rover site and could deliver houses in walking distance of that site as well as Balsall Common. It would present a good opportunity for the Council and on behalf of the landowner and I would ask it be seriously considered as land to be included in the Local Plan for future development.

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common)

My husband and I attended the consultation at Balsall Common library and were disappointed that despite a large number of valid objections and useful points being made, I didn't notice any members of the council actually making a note of anything the residents had said. I wonder what the point was of having such a consultation if it was not to gain information to be shared with other members of the planning committee? The man from the council that we spoke to said that he didn't even live locally and was only ever in Balsall Common about once a month, so how could he possibly know what it is like to live here when he doesn't know the areas as well as the residents do and clearly has no idea how bad the traffic and congestion already is and how stretched to the limit all of the current local services are.

It also concerns us that the potential site options may not have been researched thoroughly - an example of this is the fact that our garden, along with 2 of our neighbours gardens, were included in the proposed plan, along with a shared paddock too. We can only hope that this has been done in error, but of course you can understand our worry that someone has just looked at a map and highlighted anything that looks like a field.

I hope that before any more development occurs in Balsall Common, members of the council will drive through the village either at the end of a school day or during rush hour and see how congested this stretch of road already is (and will be further increased once the new homes on the Kenilworth Road have reached completion) and how an increase in the number of vehicles and cars racing down side roads to find alternative routes, will pose a greater risk of an accident, particularly to the children from the primary and secondary schools, not to mention the nursery, that is also along the same road.

As a Mum and a teacher, I have huge concerns about the pressure on the local primary school, which is already over-subscribed (as are all of our other potential school options). I was told by a member of the council that new schools will be built but I wonder which action will come first - surely the infrastructure must be developed first in order to accommodate the many children that would move into any new homes?

I 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 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."

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.

Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane development

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 thecongestion 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 driverstrying 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 allaccessibility 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 wish to object to the development of site 3

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 thecongestion 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 driverstrying 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 allaccessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties


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


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


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



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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

see attached letter

see detailed response to policies and 4 supporting documents supporting proposed sites

Objections and Comments on Shirley allocation plot 13

I 100% agree with what Shirley Heath has put. We won the battle years ago when they wanted to build a football stadium and will most certainly try our best to win this battle too. If there wasn't many people coming into this small country we would not have this housing crisis. I mean how many people per square mile in this country compared to other much larger countries than ours.
We can't just keep taking away our green belts. What's going to happen once they are all gone????


I am writing to register my objection to the development of Shirley South. Particularly Allocation number 13 which is designated green belt land.

Shirley South is to receive approximately 41% of the new housing in the borough. This is disproportionate and unfair. The effect will be to completely change the character of the area from a semi-rural location to an urban sprawl.
Under the government white paper "Fixing our broken housing market" it states that "
Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements".
I believe that there are numerous options yet to be explored and have yet to see the exhausted list of alternatives that have been investigated.

The document also states that new housing allocation should be developed to compliment current and new infrastructure. In this case HS2, this will be running to the North of the borough and not stopping anywhere near to the proposed developments.
The Shirley area is already subject to a huge amount of congestion which affects the whole of the Stratford Road from the M42 junction and all arterial routes, including Dog Kennel Lane, Tanworth Lane, Shakespeare Drive, Blackford Lane (which has structural issues), Haslucks Green Road and Bills Lane. In addition, the main route out of Dickens Heath to the Miller and Carter is like a racetrack. As are some of the local rat runs such as Stretton Road which constranly has drivers coming along the road at ridiculous speeds, in an area with two schools and a large elderly community.
The addition of thousands on new homes will compound congestion and traffic flow to a catastrophic level and also increase rat run traffic.

I drove down Marshall Lake Road today into the centre of Solihull and it took 35 minutes to travel just over a mile, the new traffic lights have made the situation worst the routes into the town centre are already creaking.

In terms of other public transport, the local rail stations are not fit for purpose, being very small and not large enough to serve the additional requirements of these large scale developments. There is inadequate parking at Whitlocks End, Shirley, Earlswood and Solihull Stations.

In addition to the problem of infrastructure, the area is not set up to facilitate a large number of potential new families. It is already veirtually impossible to get your child into the secondary school of your choice. What will happen to the catchment area of schools in the borough. In my particular area, residents have been bounced back from Alderbrook and Tudor Grange over the years by the Monkspath and Hillfield developments and latterly Dickens Heath. If this development were to go ahead, there would need to be provision for either school extensions or new schools. This again would require more space to be taken up.

Solihull hospital has been downgraded over the years and no longer has a paediatric department, the closest hospital being Heartlands. The trip to Heartlands is an absolute nightmare in traffic and can take over an hour.

In terms of Allocation 13. This is an area that has over the years has become a is a very popular recreation and amenity area, popular with families, dog walkers, ramblers etc.

The area has a number of eco systems that range from grass land to marsh and heath land and even evergreen forest. There is a network of drainage ditches and well-established farm ponds and also a sink area which is effectively bog land. The area is very wet and for the most part of the winter is very boggy and forms a flood plain due to the very high water table and the constituent soil composition.
This results in heavy flooding across most of this low lying area. Many of the houses that back onto the fields in Langcomb Road experience flooding in their back gardens on a regular basis. A phenomenon that has reduced to an extent following the intensive planting of Christmas trees in the field adjacent to the gardens.
The network of ditches and ponds provides a varied eco system and I have seen frogs, toads and newts, along with Muntjac Deer, Cuckoo, Woodpecker and birds of prey. In addition in the meadowland and the marshy areas there are numerous wild flowers, I am not qualified to identify them but I feel you should carry out an in-depth wildlife and ecosystem survey at the correct time of year before a decision is made

In addition part of the area was granted to the stewardship of the Laker Centre on the completion of the Woodlands Estate. I am led to believe that the Layca Committee purchased the fencing around this area and also contribute to its upkeep. I would argue that the whole of area 13, by custom and practice over the last 40 years is by default a very important amenity area. On only has to look at the well-worn footpaths. This is indeed the lung of Shirley, the place to which people from many surrounding areas come to breath. Also, I am led to believe that any developments that affect a local communities quality of life should be offset. I feel that Allocation 13 should become a recognised conservation and public amenity area serving Shirley South. Shirley Park is woefully small and dog owners now are restricted to a tiny fenced in dog area.

I am also concerned about the nature of housing in this area. It is a well-known fact that houses in the South of the Borough command extremely high prices. I do not believe that the houses build will be affordable by the young people. They will be 3, 4, 5 bed houses with a small contingent of affordable houses that will probably be bought up by wealth buy to let landlords and exacerbate the issues with high rents etc.

The government have stated that housing should concentrate on high density smaller, affordable homes, such as terrace, mews and flats. The footprint of these is much smaller than large detached houses.

Slightly further south of allocation 13 the loss of a number of sports fields will deprive the local community of the opportunity of recreational activities and again reduce open space, this gives further argument to Allocation 13 being designated a conservation and amenity area.
In addition, the government states that the housing contracts should go to smaller companies using innovative methods, and promote self build and housing associations. Is this in the plan.

Alternatives to developing green belt sites are numerous and I am not convinced that all possibilities have been exhausted, both in smarter use of land and also locations

Thinking outside the box, flat areas of car park such as NEC and airport could be converted to multistory and the land save could be developed right on the door step of HS2 and also to compliment the recent resort World Complex.

This would alleviate pressure on south to north traffic flow. In addition, this would be the use of brownfield sites.
In addition to this, the proposed JLR site on Damson Lane, is purely a financial gain for the company to reduce freight costs. Why not build houses in that area instead. That would mean that the houses were in the right area. That is north of the town centre on the main arterial route of the A45, which has been developed to handle a large amount of traffic. The cost of JLR distribution is not the taxpayers concern. Or alternatively, why not build on the Land Rover Sports field as a trade off with the company, very few employees actually use the sports field.

There is also the possibility of buying larger houses in Solihull which have huge gardens and developing small estates with mews or flats as opposed to the exclusive developments that are cropping up along Blossomfield Road

Along with these ideas I have come up with a number of alternative areas which are more suitably located and are smaller pocket developments as per the governments' requirements. They are for the most part also in more affordable areas of the borough, see below

Land Pockets between
A452 / A45 / M42
A452 / Coleshill Heath Road / M42
Bickenhill Lane / B4438 / Westerly direction
B4438 / M42 / A45
Hampton Lane / A41 / M42

Finally, I am led to believe that the borough is to take an additional 2000 houses from the Birmingham Allocation. This is regardless of the fact that there are many brownfield sites and public open spaces that should be used before greenbelt as per the previously mentioned government document. I would urge you to push back to Birmingham City Council on this matter.

As an example I walked along Fazeley Street last week, I saw a number of brownfield sites being used as cheap car parking and also overgrown areas with rubble etc and a large grassy area devoid of natural life Public space). Can you please ensure that Birmingham City Council fully research and address all of their brownfield sites before Solihull rolls over and gives away our green belt.

Please bear my points in mind when making your decision.

see attached letter

see attached letter

written response site 4 Dickens Heath

Firstly can I please say how difficult the process of forwarding a response on the above plan has proved to be. I am certain that most people will have given up trying to use the online portal and the complexity of all the items which have been included in the draft, far too many items for us all to digest and give appropriate responses to.

However, in my case I would like to address the possibility of the release of green belt land to the west of Dickens Heath, Site No 4, but would also add that some of my comments apply to the whole of the proposed developments within Blythe ward.

Whilst I am aware that Solihull Council are looking for sites for some 15,000+ houses, it would appear that a great deal of this housing is being 'patched' onto existing settlements, what I do not understand is why when roads throughout Solihull are full to bursting with traffic, do we not look to create a new village with all the infrastructure, close to or with good roads to access motorway. If this was built somewhere along the M42 - whilst I appreciate it would most likely have to come from greenbelt, at least there would not be such significant impact on existing roads and factilities. Also with sufficient space for extending this new village should the future require even further housing. When you look at how much countryside/greenbelt in large swathes we have within this borough, surely a stand alone village is the way to move forward. I am sure most people would rather a new village than continual erosion of the greenbelt that protects our villages and their character.

If this is option is not viable then surely any further housing should have direct access to Motorway or main/major arterial roads, in order to eliminate further congestion on our minor roads.

The site which has my most concern is No 4, west of Dickens Heath - Birchy Leasowes, Tileshouse Lane, Tythebarn Lane with the possibility of 700+ houses. Firstly this site which has scored a high 7-8 in greenbelt analysis, does not fall into the exceptional circumstances as directed by the government for releasing from greenbelt, you have had many other sites offered for development of which do not have 7-8 greenbelt rating. This site protects the urban sprawl from Whitlocks End, Tidbury Green and Shirley and is the natural boundary for Dickens Heath, it should be protected. Any development of this site would mean further strain on the existing gridlock around Dickens Heath, and also would not provide easy access to the Dickens Heath amenities, so residents would have to drive to the library, school, shops etc. Although I appreciate there is some assumption that most of the residents would use the train????????? most homes now have 2 cars and not everyone works in Birmingham, infact most people I know actually head for the M42, which is the other way.

Dickens Heath as a village cannot sustain any further development, our facilities cannot cope at present, so a further 700 houses is unbeleivable, particularly this site as it does not have any direct access to major arterial roads, and the roads surrounding the site cannot cope at present.

Dickens Heath will completely lose its identity and become an urban sprawl, which is against the guidelines which the government states.

Notwithstanding the fact that Blythe ward is being made to take a disproportionate amount of housing.

Lastly, as a resident of Dickens Heath, site No 4 was given greenbelt status in order to protect the 'new village' how can you therefore substantiate releasing it for development?

Please see attached the following submission to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation.

We have produced the following documents to form part of our submission:

* Solihull Draft Local Plan Representations (Framptons, February 2017)
* Appendix A - Green Belt, Landscape and Masterplanning Report (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix B - A Vision for Tidbury Green (LDA, February 2017)
* Appendix C - Review of SDLPR Sustainability Appraisal - (JAM Consult Ltd, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 1 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Part 2 (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix D - Transportation Note Figures (WSP, February 2017)
* Appendix E - Infrastructure and Utilities Note (WSP, February 2017)

two emails re: Balsall Common sites - both received 13th February
The Solihull Plan -Windmill Lane - Save its Greenbelt status

I would strongly recommend that you listen to the voice of the residents of Balsall Common and have the proposed building of new houses on Brown belt sites and not destroy what is left of the green belt in Balsall Common.

You have stated in this consultation that you are open to suggestions from the residents 'if not here where?' but there are strong beliefs amongst the local people of Balsall Common that the property developers are dictating the sites so they can get a 'bang for their buck'.

There are plenty of alternatives to Windmill Lane and Frog Lane so why cannot these be used to meet the build program ?

Balsall Common has had it's fair share of new builds in that last 20 years and the infrastructure -: schools/Doctors and the roads cannot cope with a further increase as suggested in the Local Plan.

Furthermore, to surround a iconic monument like the Berkswell Windmill with modern housing is sacrilege, we should protect our heritage not destroy it.

I do hope that common sense prevails, once we have destroyed our greenbelt and monuments it is the irreparable .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

I have made a very late decision to respond within the consultation period. I had decided that as a resident of Knowle, any comments would be dismissed as "Nimbyism". However this decision is perhaps defeatism at its worst, so I request that you please give consideration to my views in the attached document.

Green belt devastation Whitlock's end, Shirley Heath Light Hall Farm

Although I recognise that it is pointless to complain I am nevertheless
doing so about the destruction of green belt land around Shirley.

An alternative plan would be to fill in the space between Solihull and
Coventry along the A45 corridor, in and around the NEC and beyond.

Why is it pointless? Planners ignore the views of residents (though they
call it 'taking residents' views into account'} as they have done with
respect to Parkgate, the Powergen site the relocation of the library, the
Sainsbury site and KFC all of which contribute to making Shirley a less
pleasant place in which to live.

Already the roads are crowded, Tanworth Lane Bill's Lane, Shakespeare Drive
and the Stratford Road but planners are never there early in the morning or
at school/work going home times - the traffic surveys they carry out are
mostly done in work time hours where the problem issues are not evident.

see attached letter and supporting annotated map

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

"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 ALL Greenbelt land where there are alternative PDL sites available; especially those in Balsall Common known as Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane. The latter is an historical site in which no development should be allowed to encroach into and ruin.
The reasons for my objection are below.

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. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

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".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself and its surrounding hamlets is often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village and surrounding area of Berkswell is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The local primary schools are already oversubscribed and bursting at their seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing. Traffic around the schools is a huge danger to the young children.

These sites are all considerable distance from the schools and amenities, and there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.
Balsall Common is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car.

Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous.

These sites 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

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) These sites 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 response and supporting documents

see response and supporting documents

see attached response and supporting documents

GL Hearn has been instructed by Severn Trent Water Limited to submit representations to the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Local Plan Review Consultation in respect of its landholding at Land at Barston Sewage Treatment Works ('the site') as shown edged red on the attached Site Location Plan.

I trust that these representations will be taken into full consideration in the preparation of the next stage of the Local Plan Review

On behalf of the forum, I am submitting the attached document as the considered view of the Neighbourhood Forum members in response to the consultation to Solihull Council's Draft Local Plan. The response relates in particular to the implications for the KDBH area.

In order to capture and then reflect the views of forum members and residents, the forum has held three public meetings; in December 2016 and January and February of this year. Feedback has been gathered on each occasion and we have also invited and received comments via e-mail.

We also have a body of evidence that reflects residents' general views, concerns and aspirations for the area from the residents survey conducted in 2016.

In addition, we have reviewed the proposed housing allocations, for the KDBH area as outlined in the draft plan against the Council's published methodologies and evidence base to try to understand how they were determined.

We believe that the document is a balance and objective representation of the Forum member's views.

We have also encourage members to submit their own individual responses, following the instructions on your website. This should ensure that you have the full spectrum of views.

see letter

see letter received post closing date