Question 3 - Infrastructure Requirements at Balsall Common

Showing comments and forms 31 to 60 of 191

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7016

Received: 05/03/2019

Respondent: Kate Riemer

Representation Summary:

The infrastructure requirements identified apply to the existing settlement of Balsall Common. Any attempt to justify meeting or financing them through the proposed overwhelming scale of development for the village is illogical and unreasonable.

Full text:

The infrastructure requirements identified apply to the existing settlement of Balsall Common. Any attempt to justify meeting or financing them through the proposed overwhelming scale of development for the village is illogical and unreasonable.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7024

Received: 05/03/2019

Respondent: Michael Watkinson

Representation Summary:

The southbound station platform (#2) will need improved covered waiting facilities as passenger numbers rise and more people commute to Coventry.

Full text:

The southbound station platform (#2) will need improved covered waiting facilities as passenger numbers rise and more people commute to Coventry.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7030

Received: 05/03/2019

Respondent: Mr James Henry

Representation Summary:

I would like to see provision for bicycling infrastructure (e.g. Cycle lanes, bike stands in the village centre, more stands at the station).
The medical facilities should be expanded to accommodate the bigger patient list.
Exercise machines in the parks would be welcome.
I am in favour of the planned eastern bypass. Measures should be taken to ensure that the bypass is used rather than Kenilworth Road (e.g. 40 mph speed limit on the bypass etc).

Full text:

I would like to see provision for bicycling infrastructure (e.g. Cycle lanes, bike stands in the village centre, more stands at the station).
The medical facilities should be expanded to accommodate the bigger patient list.
Exercise machines in the parks would be welcome.
I am in favour of the planned eastern bypass. Measures should be taken to ensure that the bypass is used rather than Kenilworth Road (e.g. 40 mph speed limit on the bypass etc).

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7050

Received: 05/03/2019

Respondent: Kate Riemer

Representation Summary:

The Plan correctly identifies the existing significant pressure on the village centre, station parking, traffic and community facilities. This must not be used to justify the proposed scale of development, Green Belt loss, increased population and traffic which would turn the village into a town. Such large scale development must not be permitted without undertaking a full analysis of its impact on the village centre and facilities.
If development is to be permitted then the infrastructure improvements to the village centre and the construction of the bypass must be completed before development of the Barratt's Farm site is commenced.

Full text:

A stated aim of the Draft Local Plan is to"identify land where development would be inappropriate because of its impact on, for instance, environmental or historic assets" (para6). We would strongly argue strongly that that it fails in this aim with regard to the proposed development on the eastern edge of Balsall Common.
Balsall Common
If the Local Plan is to deliver "sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities"(para 1) then it has a duty to act on their views. We are very concerned that the Draft Local Plan does not mention the Berkswell Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan despite it having reached the Submission Plan stage after extensive consultation with residents. SMBC must take into account and act upon the content of that Plan and the outcome of the consultation; specifically, it must respond to the strong opposition expressed to the 'overwhelming scale of change' proposed. The selection of Balsall Common to meet much of SMBC's housing needs is not supported and it is not a sustainable location for large amounts of new market and affordable housing, which should be focussed in the main urban cores and areas.
With regard to the village infrastructure requirements (Q3, paras87-94) the Plan correctly identifies the existing significant pressure on the village centre, station parking, traffic and community facilities. However, this must not be used to justify the proposed scale of development with its consequent loss of Green Belt Land and the increase in population and traffic which would turn the village into a town. Such large scale development (900 houses on the Barratt's Farm site alone) creating a potential 50% increase in population with the associated increase in traffic and infrastructure requirements must not be permitted without undertaking a full formal analysis of the additional impact it will have on the village centre and facilities.
If development is to be permitted then the infrastructure improvements to the village centre and the construction of the bypass must be completed before development of the Barratt's Farm site is commenced.
Concerns about the Preservation of the Green Belt
Para 97 - Once this historic landscape is removed from the Green Belt it can never be reclaimed. The importance of protecting the Meriden Gap cannot be too highly emphasized. To extend the Green Belt boundary at its narrowest point to the east of the village (only 2 km) and build on Barratt's Farm will defeat its primary intention of restraining urban sprawl between Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull.
We would urge you to adhere to the findings of The SMBC Solihull Borough Landscape Character Assessment (Dec 2016) which states
LCA5 Balsall Common - Eastern Fringe "is an attractive largely rural landscape with urban influences, being in close proximity to Balsall Common. It is characterised by its historic field pattern and pastoral fields. * Overall, the area would be able to accommodate only small areas of new development, which would need to be of an appropriate type, scale and form, in keeping with the existing character and features of the landscape. Any new development should not result in the loss of the historical field patterns or facilitate the further expansion of Balsall Common into the countryside."
Para 96 discusses land taken up for development as providing"an opportunity for not only additional accessible open space, but also for wider Green Infrastructure improvements (e.g. parkland/woodland). This is especially important in the context of the Barratt's Farm development and provides an opportunity to link up with the Greenway (which is now to be extended further to link to the station). Before, and in addition to, any additional accessible open space provided it is essential that any permitted development on the wider Barratt's Farm site preserves the existing playing field/recreational space off Meeting House Lane as well as the significant footpath network. Both of which are of major importance to the community and routinely used by walkers, dog walkers and runners.
Concept Master Plan Barratt's Farm
We believe that the Concept Master Plan for Barratt's Farm is inadequate and insufficiently developed. In its final version it must be strong enough to ensure that from Day 1 it protects the whole site.
The final version of the Concept Master Plan must:
1. ensure the rural aspect of the land is maintained and preserved by retaining established trees and hedgerows and that green space is clearly shown between existing and new development
2. include a strengthened version of Para 103 to prevent piecemeal development taking place before the completion of HS2 and its full impact is clear.
3. cover the wider site and include all small sites adjacent to Barratt's Farm itself, especially those adjoining existing properties, to prevent piecemeal planning permission to be granted ahead of building on the main area.
4. specifically exclude development of Site 169 Blessed Robert Griswold Site, the Recreation Ground off Meeting House Lane which is a long established and valuable recreational space. In the First Draft Plan consultation of the NDP 92% of respondents (846 in total) supported the designation of the area as a Local Green Space. A detailed description of the site's history and public use was been prepared as part of the NDP evidence base and is provided on the NDP website.
5. specifically exclude the development of Site 30 Land rear of 67-95 Meeting House Lane because of its ecological (see below), landscape and historical importance.
a. We note that p 12 of the Masterplan details concerns that "included the impact of the built form on the heritage assets such as the listed buildings and hedgerow network. The Council's Ecologist also highlighted that Great Crested Newts were known to be on the site and that findings from survey work were likely to have an impact on the layout of the site."
b. This is echoed in the Berkswell NDP p24 Figure 7 - Habitat Distinctiveness (shows land off MH Lane medium-high) , p.29 Figure 10 protected Species Map Presence of Great Crested Newt, p.30-31 including Figure 11 Barratt's farm Constraints Map.
6. specifically exclude Meeting House Lane as an access point to any new developments (e.g. Site 30 & Site 102) and most importantly as access for a first phase of building prior to the completion of HS2. Meeting House Lane is an important cycle and pedestrian route, narrow and without pavements with traffic calming measures already in place, all characteristics which make it unsuitable for any additional traffic both during and after completion of any building development. Any such access would permanently change the character and feel of this traditional lane.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7065

Received: 06/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Graham Thomas

Representation Summary:

The By-pass was taken OUT of previous Plans. Hall Meadow Road is a site access road provided by a housing developer and already has several roundabouts.
Any By-pass MUST consider the future provision of the A45/A46 link which has potential of by-passing Balsall Common AND Kenilworth, and actually being attractive to through traffic. Rather than a back road.
There is no justification for extending two site access roads to meet the A452, and cutting more Green Belt land out decades before it is needed or agreed for use for more houses not in this Plan period.


Village has some range of facilities, but now no Banks, and the health centre, shops and parking/traffic arrangements are not fit for the village which is already twice as big as it was. (para84)

The Secondary School will soon be overcrowded too and the Catchment Area will need to be adjusted.

Full text:

The By-pass was taken OUT of previous Plans. Hall Meadow Road is a site access road provided by a housing developer and already has several roundabouts.
Any By-pass MUST consider the future provision of the A45/A46 link which has potential of by-passing Balsall Common AND Kenilworth, and actually being attractive to through traffic. Rather than a back road.
There is no justification for extending two site access roads to meet the A452, and cutting more Green Belt land out decades before it is needed or agreed for use for more houses not in this Plan period.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7107

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: The Ramblers, warwickshire Area

Representation Summary:

Warwickshire Ramblers are deeply concerned about the proposed By-Pass, which is part of a far wider damaging scheme for a proposed A46/A452 Link Road from Balsall Common to the Stoneleigh Interchange on the A46; with a possible link to A45 from Burton Green. The wider route would sever some 15 or so rights of way in the Borough. The by-pass is close to the HS2 line and would impact on environmental mitigations already hard won from HS2 Ltd and the Kenilworth Greenway. At grade pedestrian crossings would be extremely hazardous and SMBC ROW Improvement Plan provides no protection for pedestrians.

Full text:

COMMENT FROM THE RAMBLERS - WARWICKSHIRE AREA

Balsall Common By-pass: Warwickshire Ramblers are extremely concerned about this so called 'By-Pass'. It should not be seen as just a By-Pass for Balsall Common, but for what it really is - part of a far wider damaging scheme for a proposed A46/A452 Link Road from Balsall Common to the Stoneleigh Interchange on the A46; with a possible link to the A45 from Burton Green. The majority of both proposed routes would be within Solihull and between them would cut some 15 or so Public Rights of Way (PROWs) in the Borough. The route proposed for this Link Road closely follows the line of HS2 and would impact on both the environmental mitigations already hard won from HS2 Ltd and the Kenilworth Greenway - with the Greenway becoming trapped between HS2 and the new 'By-Pass'!

It is obvious that this Link Road would be designed as a fast through commuting route and that attempting to cross it at grade would be extremely hazardous - for, while PROW crossings on that portion of the Link Road falling within Warwickshire would be protected by the policy protecting PROW crossings at grade on fast new roads contained in the Warwickshire County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP), your SMBC ROWIP provides no such protection for pedestrians!

As this Link Road will inflict such immense damage on an already beleaguered stretch of countryside, Warwickshire Ramblers will strongly oppose any planning application to construct it.

Concept Master Plans: While having no comments to make on the other smaller housing allocation sites in Balsall Common, Warwickshire Ramblers do feel that the Barretts Farm Allocation is a development too far! From our own point of view the fact that the Barretts Farm Site would obliterate or subsume within urban development some 2.5 kl of public footpaths is sufficient cause for deep concern - but, coupled with the fact that by your own admission the proposed Balsall Common 'By-Pass' would be expected to provide the main vehicular access into the Barratt's Farm development, then we feel that this really is a drastic over-development of poor old Balsall Common, and must express our opposition to the development of the Barretts Farm Site!

Green Belt Enhancements: No possible enhancements would be able to compensate in the slightest for the extreme damage that taking Barretts Farm out of the Green Belt (with the resulting over-expansion of Balsall Common) will cause. As for 'an opportunity to link up with the Greenway', the rural setting of the Greenway will become permanently destroyed by being trapped between HS2 and the A46/A452 Link Road - a valuable green asset reduced to a mere urban cycle track!

Michael Bird
Footpath & Countryside Secretary
The Ramblers, Warwickshire Area

The Ramblers' Association is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company registration number: 4458492. Registered Charity in England and Wales number: 1093577. Registered office: 2nd floor, Camelford House, 87-90 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TW

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7132

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Jennifer Cayley

Representation Summary:

Lack of a phasing plan to show how growth will be managed across the settlement, alongside the construction of HS2. Primary school is full with no further capacity until new school is provided, and public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of highway infrastructure has been undertaken to show how it will cope until a by-pass is provided. No ecological assessments have been published.

Full text:

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.

I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".

Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.

Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.

Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.

All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.

Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.

In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7136

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Joanne Bellamy

Representation Summary:

Lack of a phasing plan to show how growth will be managed across the settlement, alongside the construction of HS2. Primary school is full with no further capacity until new school is provided, and public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of highway infrastructure has been undertaken to show how it will cope until a by-pass is provided. No ecological assessments have been published.

Full text:

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.

I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that anygrowth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hourduring peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".

Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect onnocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly puttingthe lives of the newts at risk.

Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Roadresidents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.

Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.

All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.

Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.

In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7139

Received: 08/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Ross McKinnon

Representation Summary:

There is no indication of how the centre can be enhanced or where the land required to do this could come from. The current station parking facilities are inadequate and more housing will increase this pressure, the current plans do not specify the number of additional spaces to be provided. I am unsure how the current secondary school could be expanded to cater for increased numbers given that it is currently surrounded by residential properties and a primary school. Overall the plans seem devoid of details and need much more information to be able to support them

Full text:

There is no indication of how the centre can be enhanced or where the land required to do this could come from. The current station parking facilities are inadequate and more housing will increase this pressure, the current plans do not specify the number of additional spaces to be provided. I am unsure how the current secondary school could be expanded to cater for increased numbers given that it is currently surrounded by residential properties and a primary school. Overall the plans seem devoid of details and need much more information to be able to support them

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7141

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Carole Beattie

Representation Summary:

Lack of a phasing plan to show how growth will be managed across the settlement, alongside the construction of HS2. Primary school is full with no further capacity until new school is provided, and public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of highway infrastructure has been undertaken to show how it will cope until a by-pass is provided. No ecological assessments have been published.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7158

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Ferdous Gossain

Representation Summary:

Lack of a phasing plan to show how growth will be managed across the settlement, alongside the construction of HS2. Primary school is full with no further capacity until new school is provided, and public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of highway infrastructure has been undertaken to show how it will cope until a by-pass is provided. No ecological assessments have been published.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7164

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Jean Fleming

Representation Summary:

There is no timing plan. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of road network to ensure growth can be managed, at least until bypass built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. No ecological assessments published. The only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane.

Full text:

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.

I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council do not appear to be truly listening to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that anygrowth will be managed.


There is a lack of infrastructure to support such growth.


School


The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built.


Public Transport


Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hourduring peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built.


Along the road I live on, Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents.


Environment


Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".


The Proposed Site

Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area.


The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school.


We have already had to endure the development of two housing estates now built in the vicinity. I do not believe a further one taking away the remaining green space should be considered.


The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect onnocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.


Road access

Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Roadresidents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.


Berkswell Windmill

Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.

All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.

Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.

In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7169

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Tony Mann

Representation Summary:

Lack of a phasing plan to show how growth will be managed across the settlement, alongside the construction of HS2. Primary school is full with no further capacity until new school is provided, and public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of highway infrastructure has been undertaken to show how it will cope until a by-pass is provided. No ecological assessments have been published.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7178

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Kat Mann

Representation Summary:

Lack of a phasing plan to show how growth will be managed across the settlement, alongside the construction of HS2. Primary school is full with no further capacity until new school is provided, and public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of highway infrastructure has been undertaken to show how it will cope until a by-pass is provided. No ecological assessments have been published.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7187

Received: 08/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs ML Marsden

Representation Summary:

Dismayed to see that 25% of Borough's new housing is in Balsall Common.
Relieved to see that SMBC intends and enhance the village centre and infrastructure.
Welcome the bypass as the increased number of houses will exacerbate traffic problems. Bypass could enable enhanced entrances to the village along the A452.
A new primary school is badly needed
The station has been improved but not the parking.
Public transport is almost non existent.
Hopeful that plans will include a retirement village style complex in the centre of the village.
Need green spaces.
Infrastructure should be in place before house building commences.

Full text:

See attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7214

Received: 08/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Ross Collins

Representation Summary:

The Bypass for Hall Meadow is unacceptable
A. 6/8 Islands will cause more congestion
B Environment, This will cause more pollution and a risk to health for all that live on the Riddings estate also endangering the wild life there are deer, pheasants, all kinds of wild birds hence the wild life area at the end of Hall Meadow road
C Move the bypass the other side of Kenilworth Road I am sure Gallaghers would be only too pleased to be consulted and there more houses can be built
Hall Meadow is also taking the brunt of HS2

Full text:

The Bypass for Hall Meadow is unacceptable
A. 6/8 Islands will cause more congestion
B Environment, This will cause more pollution and a risk to health for all that live on the Riddings estate also endangering the wild life there are deer, pheasants, all kinds of wild birds hence the wild life area at the end of Hall Meadow road
C Move the bypass the other side of Kenilworth Road I am sure Gallaghers would be only too pleased to be consulted and there more houses can be built
Hall Meadow is also taking the brunt of HS2

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7227

Received: 09/03/2019

Respondent: Bob Harris

Representation Summary:

There is a need for such infrastructure, but it should be provided before any significant housing development takes place. Solihull MBC should commit to all the CIL being spent in Balsall Common.
The proposed infrastructure - a bypass, increased car-parking, a new primary school, enhanced village centre - should be provided at an early stage, and not left to the whims of developers.

Full text:

There is a need for such infrastructure, but it should be provided before any significant housing development takes place. Solihull MBC should commit to all the CIL being spent in Balsall Common.
The proposed infrastructure - a bypass, increased car-parking, a new primary school, enhanced village centre - should be provided at an early stage, and not left to the whims of developers.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7229

Received: 09/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Kennedy

Representation Summary:

The proposed bypass will be inadequate to cope with all of the demands. A west side bypass is inevitable and should be built now to move the traffic away from the village.
The station parking problems are caused by NEC visitors and Tile Hill overflow; the proposal does not address this.
Public transport is and will remain inadequate; the proposal puts forward wishful thinking as a policy.
The centre is in decline and requires radical and expensive rebuilding; general 'improvements will be ineffective. All of the CIL money should be spent in the village.

Full text:

The proposed bypass will be inadequate to cope with all of the demands. A west side bypass is inevitable and should be built now to move the traffic away from the village.
The station parking problems are caused by NEC visitors and Tile Hill overflow; the proposal does not address this.
Public transport is and will remain inadequate; the proposal puts forward wishful thinking as a policy.
The centre is in decline and requires radical and expensive rebuilding; general 'improvements will be ineffective. All of the CIL money should be spent in the village.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7271

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Angela Walton

Representation Summary:

Historically houses in Balsall Common have commanded a good price and I presume that allowing development here provides a better CIL for SMBC than developments in North of the borough? But the proposed bypass is ill thought out and there is no acceptable firm commitment to provide extra leisure facilities, shopping centre or safe access to shops for both cars and pedestrians.
Secondary school expansion should be planned at the same time as housing.

Full text:

The proposed Hall Meadow rd &its extension cannot be classed a bypass.It is the only vehicular access to Riddings Hill, & the Medical Centre and will be have access roads for Barratts farm.
There is already a bottleneck at station roundabout because of access to the health centre, station, shops and coventry. Use of all these will increase with extra houses and in addition access TO A NEW SCHOOL AND EXTRA CARPARK SPACES is in this area.
No attention appears to have been given to pedestrian access to the proposed new primary school eg how village residents coming by foot will cross what the current proposals suggest will now be a busy through road.
There is limited additional choice for access to Barretts farm. Meeting House Lane has no pavements and there are already bottlenecks at either end.The plan quotes numbers of house but not number of additional carpark spaces.
The current road surfaces throughout the village are in poor repair.
There are no public leisure services eg swimming pool, gym.There is currently a fairly good train service but only an hourly bus service.Neither service gives easy access to public leisure facilities such as swimming pool, gym, and there are no facilities in the village. A round trip to Tudor Grange by public transport requires significant planning and at least half a days free time. Councils must have responsibility for reducing the carbon footprint. Lack of local facilities and public transport forces residents to use private transport not including such facilities in the plan is irresponsible.
Access to open green field spaces is being reduced not just for the able bodied but also for the disabled.

Heart of England has very limited sports facilities given the size of the school, and there is limited space for expansion. It must be anticipated extra classrooms and sporting space will be needed for extra secondary school pupils.
Importantly policing has been reduced, even with the existing population. Drug use in the village centre carparks is evident from the number of dropped gas canisters. Anti-social behaviour is a problem now and likely to increase with a vastly increased population. No mention of additional policing is made in the proposals.
The village centre is already congested and dangerous. Parking is frequently full and visibility on station road spaces in front of the shops is poor. The current buildings appear to leave no scope for improving traffic flow or parking or providing additional supermarket/ shopping facilities for the increased population.

Mention is made of the money available from the CIL which will be available for community projects but no indication of the scale of this sum is given. Providing leisure facilities and extra secondary school places should be in place as part of the plan. How much money will be available to the Parish Council? How much will Solihull get? And to which purpose(s) will it be put?
A proper bypass (dual carriage with limited disruptive junctions) on the Western side of the village linking to the Land Rover site would appear a better option, given that Hall Meadow Road, whether or not extended, is not a bypass.
Mention

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7304

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Davis

Representation Summary:

All development should be phased.
1 Construct Village car park off Green Lane (Through Gardens) into southern part of Lavendar Hall
Park
2 Get the bypass constructed & HS2
3 Allow parking along Kenilworth Road
4 Next the development West of Kenilworth Road
5 Pedestrianize the shop area
6 Make Meeting House Lane single track with passing places
7 Start work on Barratts Lane

Full text:

All development should be phased.
1 Construct Village car park off Green Lane (Through Gardens) into southern part of Lavendar Hall
Park
2 Get the bypass constructed & HS2
3 Allow parking along Kenilworth Road
4 Next the development West of Kenilworth Road
5 Pedestrianize the shop area
6 Make Meeting House Lane single track with passing places
7 Start work on Barratts Lane

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7412

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Maria Morris

Representation Summary:

Inadequate reference to parking for the station, currently cars park along route of the proposed bypass and this will grow.

There is nothing in the requirement involving sporting options, which falls short of the government obesity strategy of 2018.

The plan states improvement in transport links but no guarantee or plan for this

I think response times for Police, ambulance and Fire should be considered with such an increase in population

There are no plans as to how the village centre may be improved, where we are going to find parking for the increase number of cars in the centre.

Full text:

There isn't enough mention of parking for the station, currently at least 30 cars park daily along the route of the proposed bypass and obviously with a larger number of people living this will grow. I also feel that no consideration for the sports in the village. We have an obesity problem in the country, we already have a hockey team that has to play in Coventry and no access to local gym / swimming facilities having to go to Solihull / Coventry or Kenilworth for this. The government own obesity strategy from 2018 states: Local figures suggest 30% of year 6 children in Solihull are overweight, the plan does not help this at all.
Where we live also has a huge role to play in tackling childhood obesity, whether it is the way our towns and cities are designed to ensure greater active travel or safe physical activity, or how many fast food outlets can operate near schools. Each local authority already has a range of powers to find local solutions to their own level of childhood obesity but while some are already taking bold action, others are not. We want to make sure that all local authorities are empowered and confident in finding what works for them, whilst learning from local authorities both here and international examples such as Amsterdam that have tackled the problem. To do this we will:

* Develop a trailblazer programme with local authority partners to show what can be achieved within existing powers and understand "what works" in different communities. * Develop resources that support local authorities who want to use their powers. We will help set out the economic business case for a healthy food environment and provide up to date guidance and training for planning inspectors

This has not been taken into consideration at all.

The bus service doesn't run on a Sunday which means when young people want to go out they have to be driven. It is almost impossible to get to Kenilworth on public transport. I think before the plan is accepted there needs to be more consideration to how this new centre is going to be created, including enough parking and variety of shops / restaurants.

According to the BBC the average wait for 999 life threatening ambulance in CV7 (Balsall Common) is 9mins 5 sec as opposed to only 6min 48 or the rest of Solihull. There is no mention in your strategy of how ambulance services will cope, I assume the same is for the police and fire and I would expect this should be considered with such an increase in population

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7416

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Eileen Lamb

Representation Summary:

Lack of a phasing plan to show how growth will be managed across the settlement, alongside the construction of HS2. Primary school is full with no further capacity until new school is provided, and public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of highway infrastructure has been undertaken to show how it will cope until a by-pass is provided. No ecological assessments have been published.

Full text:

I attended a meeting in Balsall Common Library on Saturday 16th February. I was disappointed to find that the representatives from Solihull Council were not able to answer many of the questions satisfactorily. There were many 'unknowns'. I moved into Meer Stones Road in October and am lucky to have a view over fields which I understand would be obscured by the proposed building on green field land in Windmill Lane. The thought of extra traffic having to use Meer Stones Road if the plans go ahead is frightening as the road outside my house is very narrow and on a sharp bend and an accident could easily occur. Have the planners visited this site before making such proposals?
I entirely endorse the views expressed in the attached letter from BCBARRAGE and trust that the points made in it are considered very carefully before permission to build on Site3 is given.
Balsall Common does not have the infrastructure to support such development and the disruption, together with that caused by HS2, would be intolerable. The effect on the environment caused by extra roads and traffic pollution would be great and not a legacy I would like to leave to future residents.
I trust that serious consideration will be given to the points made in the attached letter from BCBARRAGE. I am not usually a protester but feel very strongly about this issue.


See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7432

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Rebecca Clare

Representation Summary:

There is no timing plan. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent services. No assessment of road network to ensure growth can be managed, at least until bypass built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. No ecological assessments published. The only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane.

Full text:

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.

I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".

Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.

Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.

Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.

All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.

Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.

In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7436

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Simon Clare

Representation Summary:

There is no timing plan. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. Public transport is inadequate. No assessment of road network to ensure growth can be managed, at least until bypass built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. No ecological assessments published. the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane.

Full text:

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.

I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".

Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.

Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.

Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.

All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.

Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.

In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7442

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mark Irvine

Representation Summary:

The proposed plan appears to take into account come mixed use transport. There is no comment around cycling. The main cycle commute routes between Coventry and Solhull have to cross the A452 at some point. The route of the bypass should take into account the fact that cyclists will need to cross it and facilitate this.

Full text:

The proposed plan appears to take into account come mixed use transport. There is no comment around cycling. The main cycle commute routes between Coventry and Solhull have to cross the A452 at some point. The route of the bypass should take into account the fact that cyclists will need to cross it and facilitate this.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7461

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Wendy Cairns

Representation Summary:

Proposed bypass merely moves existing congestion 500 metres to east of village a true bypass would be to the west. Village centre difficult to improve without major demolition and needs more parking needs a concept plan now not in 5 years. agree more parking needed now. Needs more local trains and buses but unlikely to be sustainable here cars will remain main form of transport. Schools will only cope if non borough pupils are excluded. Solihull needs to spend some of the CIL in Balsall Common. Concept masterplans great idea but longevity and ability to resist modification is suspect

Full text:

Proposed bypass merely moves existing congestion 500 metres to east of village a true bypass would be to the west. Village centre difficult to improve without major demolition and needs more parking needs a concept plan now not in 5 years. agree more parking needed now. Needs more local trains and buses but unlikely to be sustainable here cars will remain main form of transport. Schools will only cope if non borough pupils are excluded. Solihull needs to spend some of the CIL in Balsall Common. Concept masterplans great idea but longevity and ability to resist modification is suspect

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7521

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council

Representation Summary:

We would welcome the opportunity to work with Solihull MBC to understand the implications of this proposal for traffic in the A452 and A4177 corridors generally, but specifically within Kenilworth town centre and on the section of the A452 between Kenilworth and the County boundary
The County Council would also welcome a continued dialogue with Solihull MBC regarding potential longer term strategic road and rail initiatives in this area to ensure these opportunities are not lost as a result of wider decision making within the planning system.

Full text:

We have no observations to make on the specific of the review. However, on strategic transport matters we have the following comments to makes (see Letter)

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7534

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Burton Green Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Burton Green Parish Council are primarily concerned with the impact of traffic on Burton Green from housing development. Particular concern about Hob Lane, which is in need of improvement. Proposed by-pass will increase traffic using Hob Lane to access University/Science Park through Burton Green. Infrastructure requirements should include improvements to Hob Lane before new housing built, to avoid putting road users in danger.

Full text:

RESPONSE OF THE BURTON GREEN PARISH COUNCIL TO THE SOLIHULL DRAFT LOCAL PLAN SUPPLEMENTARY CONSULTATION 2019
As a neighbouring Parish Council, we are very sensitive to the changes taking place in Berkswell and Balsall Common. Consequently councillors responded to the Draft Local Plan of 2016. We showed our concerns for the loss of Green Belt and the incursions into the Meriden Gap but, above all, we were worried about the impact of traffic on Burton Green. The building of 220 houses at Windmill Lane had serious implications for traffic and road safety on Hob Lane whilst the 900 houses at Barratt's Farm put more pressure on the junction between Hodgetts Lane and Waste Lane.
The publication of the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation has intensified our concerns about Hob Lane. As you well know Solihull Highways is responsible for Hob Lane even though some of the land and properties, including our Primary School, are within Warwick District and the Parish Council of Burton Green. It is a narrow, winding lane with dangerous bends. There have been serious accidents on the bends and the lane is not gritted. There is, perhaps, a case already for improvements to Hob Lane and certainly the early construction works at Red Lane by Cala Homes have highlighted the problems. Verges have been torn apart and School safety compromised by construction traffic.
The decision to create a by-pass from Catchems Corner, crossing Hob Lane and Waste Lane, before entering the Barratt's Farm development has serious implications for Hob Lane. It is almost inevitable that, in addition to some of the residents at Windmill Lane, many more will leave the by-pass at Hob Lane to approach the University and the Science Park through Burton Green. Councillors note that the by-pass will be "pursued in a timely manner" but how will Solihull Council address the issue of Hob Lane? Hopefully the Metropolitan Authority will show foresight, making sure that the proper infrastructure is in place before new houses are built but councillors do worry that the concerns of Burton Green will be a low priority against the demands of Solihull's own constituents.
The Parish Council recognises the difficulties Solihull faces in meeting its housing targets but we are disappointed that the development at Barrett's Farm is such a large development of 900 houses. However we are pleased that you have decided to phase this development later. Hopefully Solihull Councillors will show the same foresight with Hob Lane making sure that changes are made right at the beginning of the process. If not, of course, motorists will be put in danger.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7551

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: N Birtley

Representation Summary:

Any expansion of thye village would need cobdsiderable improvement to all services, difficultto see how this is cacievable in nconfines of existing centre.

Full text:

Any expansion of the village would need considerable improvement to all services, difficult to see how this is conceivable in the confines of the existing centre.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7561

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: N Birtley

Representation Summary:

Hard to see how the current village centre could be redeveloped within its current boundaries to provide sufficient facilities , retail, leisure, medical, traffic pressure,utilities, parking etc. to meet needs of a vastly increased population.

The frequently mentioned concept of a totally new village / settlement with dedicated services seems much more sensible.

Full text:

Hard to see how the current village centre could be redeveloped within its current boundaries to provide sufficient facilities , retail, leisure, medical, traffic pressure,utilities, parking etc. to meet needs of a vastly increased population.

The frequently mentioned concept of a totally new village / settlement with dedicated services seems much more sensible.