Question 3 - Infrastructure Requirements at Balsall Common

I started to complete the online consultation document but soon realised that was designed to frustrate and ensure no objections were received by you so I have resorted to email.

The infrastructure proposals do not meet the current needs let alone the needs of a significantly increased population if all your proposed houses are built.
1. Interconnected cycleways are required to assist in reducing the number of cars used to drive from Balsall Common to surrounding cities and workplaces.
2. Some of the new development is proposed for roads with no footpath, with increased traffic the risk to pedestrians would be significantly increased
3. The bypass you have proposed would appear to be flawed. It would either cut the proposed Barrats Lane development in 2 or have a 90 degree bend at the point where it would meet the existing B4101 near Little Beanit farm and it would then follow the line of the exiting road down to Catchems Corner. From Catchems Corner to the junction by Evesons fuels, will it would then appear to replace the existing Windmill Lane. That does not appear to be new infrastructure but is actually re-purposing existing infrastructure which is already inadequate for the current traffic volumes.
4. Existing properties within some of the proposed developments do not have access to public sewers, but your plan does not include provision of public sewers for existing properties.
5. The current primary school seems to be full to capacity, a new additional primary school is required before any new house building commences.
6. Existing public transport is inadequate, additional public transport is required before additional house building commences.

The Windmill Lane proposed development is completely out of character for the area at present. This area is rural and undeveloped, it is largely still 'proper green belt' in keeping with what green belt was supposed to provide when originally designated 80 years ago. This green belt should be protected from current and future development, the proposed development does not do that.
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, which were built on green belt without any consultation to remove those sites from greenbelt, 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. Windmill Lane is already used as a rat run and has no footpath meaning residents already take their life into their hands to walk along it, additional development on Windmill Lane will only make this situation worse. 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 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 is totally unacceptable. 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 justification to build here.

Housing Proposals for Balsall Common

I refer to your document for proposed housing in Balsall Common, plus the meetings organised in the village, where representatives from SMBC were present.

1. The overall presumption that the Green Belt must be sacrificed to the extent your plan assumes is contested. Gavin Barwell and now James Brokenshire have, in public broadcasts, stated that every option must be explored before Green Belt is removed.
The latest suggestion was that sites should be explored to create a completely new village/town.
Solihull have consistently refused to do this. As the Berkswell Parish Council have pointed out there is such a site on the old quarry near Cornet's End. This site comes into a different category because it is not brown field , and Solihull's argument always is that it must be restored to its original character before the quarry work was done. This is not acceptable, and would certainly be preferable to invading so much of the Green Belt surrounding Balsall Common. It is highly likely that developers would resist it, yet Andy Street has set aside large funds to allow this sort of project. The most crucial point in one of the above meetings was that developers MUST NOT be allowed to take precedence over every decision.

2. Your proposals for Balsall Common are far too highly weighted in one spot - Barretts Farm. The only other proposal for the other side of the village is Holly Lane. There is no cogent reason why you rejected building on the field next to Oakes Farm. This would be one field only, with good access to a main road. The additional advantage would be that the developer who is keen to build there could be made to create a full width road as access to Oakes farm shop and restaurant. With the popularity of the facilities there the current narrow road is totally unsuitable.

You also rejected any building near Grange Farm. Again, there would be good access to the A452.

3. The decision to place the vast majority of the housing on Barretts Farm would make the huge increase in traffic, and pollution, so lopsided in terms of the whole village that there would be a risk to health, at the very least, to mental health since you would be robbing this side of the village of all its footpaths. Footpaths round fields, with hedges, trees and ponds is very different for wildlife from a park.

4. The realistic situation is that some building may take place on Barretts Farm, but not to the extent proposed. Certain objectives should be required :-
a) the countryside, with footpaths and ponds, should be retained and the housing restricted to fields where there are no footpaths. In this way, the community will still be able to enjoy walking on the land.
b) if there is to be a new school, it should be given a playing field so that this facility can be used during school hours by the children, and out of school hours, by the community. There may also be space inside the school which could be for community use - this happened at a Birmingham school where I was a governor.
c) HS2 does not seem to be mentioned in your consultation document, but this is having, and will continue to have, a devastating affect on this side of the village. Therefore, no building on Barretts Farm should begin until this section of HS2 is completed.
d) the other stipulation should be that a new access road running parallel with the Greenway should also be completed before any development begins. It is essential that the narrow lanes of Meeting House Lane, Barretts Lane, Sunnyside Lane and Oxhayes Close keep their character by making all access to the development on Barretts Farm to and from the new access road.
e) the Council and developers should look at other estates in the village to copy the good features (footpaths through the houses, as on Kemps Green) and (curving paths, as on Grange Park), avoiding the completely straight path on Lavender Hall Park.
f) an earlier promise, which seems to have disappeared, was to create screening for the current surrounding houses. This was done by wooded areas on Lavender Hall, Berkswell Gate and Grange Park. This would not only make life more pleasant for the current owners, but would be more attractive for new house buyers.

5. We were told, at the meetings, that Balsall Common is highly desirable
because of its good infrastructure. I can only point out that the station carpark is so inadequate that cars use Hallmeadow Road, and now Station Road as overflow car parking. There are only two trains an hour; the bus service is very limited in times and destinations and the centre of the village is rapidly declining in variety of shops since all the banks closed. The parking in the village is so bad that almost every week there are small collisions between cars, made worse by the huge delivery lorries which obscure vision. Also, the vans which use the parking outside the shops and where the vehicle projects into the road are another hazard.

I apologise for the length of this response, but it is our lives at risk.

No infrastructure improvements have been made over many years and the village is already at capacity. Before further development key facilities need to be fully assessed.
Parking, at the station and in the centre, needs improvement.
While a by-pass may be welcomed, traffic analysis east/west and north/south needs to be undertaken. Viability (and air-pollution) of a route to the west as well as the east must be considered. There is concern that the route through Barratt's Farm is not a by-pass but a feeder road for housing. The latter might be welcomed to ensure no access from existing residential roads.

This is my response to the above document. I have presented my comments it in the order of the sections and paragraphs in the Draft. I have restricted my comments to those sections that particularly relate to me.
see letter for full text

1. Neighbourhood Development Plans. Whilst the NDPs for other areas are referenced there does not appear to be an acknowledgement or recognition of the Berkswell and Balsall Common NDPs. Whilst both are still in draft form at present, these will need to be reflected in subsequent iterations of the plan.
2. Village Centre. The plan underestimates the need for a fundamental redesign of the centre it's poor variety of provision and often dangerous parking situation. Many of the properties are old with a poor selection of facilities available when compared to Knowle or Dorridge, a situation which an overwhelming expansion of Balsall Common can only worsen. This necessitates a greater degree of change than implied by the term "enhancement".
3. Clear measures will need to be taken to force traffic onto the by-pass route as it is much longer in distance than the Kenilworth Road and Sat-navs may most likely still route traffic through the village.
4. Have the infrastructure requirements re car parking and school provision been adjusted to reflect the increase in housing build against earlier plans?
5. The Green Belt around Balsall Common is vital in preserving a distinct boundary with Coventry and plays a valuable role within the community both in supporting a vibrant range of wildlife and in providing many paths for recreation,walking etc. The major Barratts Farm development will severely impact this and plans must reflect this by retaining trees and hedgerows and preserving green corridors for wildlife, potentially through the creation of substantial green buffers or tree belts to protect existing residents from new build.

6. I support the creation of a bypass in principle but as a quid pro quo there should be no "vehicular access" from the proposed Barratt's Farm development to Meeting House Lane which cannot accommodate additional traffic flows.
a. Meeting House Lane is a rural location with no pavements on its southern section (a route used by many school children and parents when walking to school. Speeding traffic is already a challenge and any new access from the development could introduce a significant number of new car journies destroying the nature of the lane for ever.
b. In addition the junction between Meeting House Lane and Kelsey Lane is already dangerous with its partly blind corner. Significant additional traffic would require significant upgrade of this junction.
c. Further traffic on the lane could also serve to further isolate the new community from the existing village.

7. Infrastructure improvements will need to be delivered well in advance of any new build given the existing situation to assist this it is critical that any council funds obtained from the development (sale of land or new build premia) must also be retained solely for the benefit of Balsall Common given the size of the infrastructure challenge.

1. Neighbourhood Development Plans. Whilst the NDPs for other areas are referenced there does not appear to be an acknowledgement or recognition of the Berkswell and Balsall Common NDPs. Whilst both are still in draft form at present, these will need to be reflected in subsequent iterations of the plan.
2. Village Centre. The plan underestimates the need for a fundamental redesign of the centre it's poor variety of provision and often dangerous parking situation. Many of the properties are old with a poor selection of facilities available when compared to Knowle or Dorridge, a situation which an overwhelming expansion of Balsall Common can only worsen. This necessitates a greater degree of change than implied by the term "enhancement".
3. Clear measures will need to be taken to force traffic onto the by-pass route as it is much longer in distance than the Kenilworth Road and Sat-navs may most likely still route traffic through the village.
4. Have the infrastructure requirements re car parking and school provision been adjusted to reflect the increase in housing build against earlier plans?
5. The Green Belt around Balsall Common is vital in preserving a distinct boundary with Coventry and plays a valuable role within the community both in supporting a vibrant range of wildlife and in providing many paths for recreation,walking etc. The major Barratts Farm development will severely impact this and plans must reflect this by retaining trees and hedgerows and preserving green corridors for wildlife, potentially through the creation of substantial green buffers or tree belts to protect existing residents from new build.

6. I support the creation of a bypass in principle but as a quid pro quo there should be no "vehicular access" from the proposed Barratt's Farm development to Meeting House Lane which cannot accommodate additional traffic flows.
a. Meeting House Lane is a rural location with no pavements on its southern section (a route used by many school children and parents when walking to school. Speeding traffic is already a challenge and any new access from the development could introduce a significant number of new car journies destroying the nature of the lane for ever.
b. In addition the junction between Meeting House Lane and Kelsey Lane is already dangerous with its partly blind corner. Significant additional traffic would require significant upgrade of this junction.
c. Further traffic on the lane could also serve to further isolate the new community from the existing village.

7. Infrastructure improvements will need to be delivered well in advance of any new build given the existing situation to assist this it is critical that any council funds obtained from the development (sale of land or new build premia) must also be retained solely for the benefit of Balsall Common given the size of the infrastructure challenge.

While welcoming infrastructure improvements, the proposals are too vague and do not give confidence that they will be adopted and in what form. Many believe a by-pass is necessary, but the concept plan shows it to be simply an access road for the Barratts Farm development, and to be an effective by-pass through traffic must be regulated to ensure it is not permitted to still use the A452 through Balsall Common. This in turn would enable the Centre to be properly enhanced to become a destination of choice.
Infrastructure requirements should be implemented before any mass housing development takes place.

Please see my attachment

The Plan demands a huge 45% increase in size (1750 habitations on to 3900), which will have a disproportionate and damaging effect upon Balsall Common. The green belt will be severely reduced, while the lifestyle, well-being and quality of life for existing residents will be greatly changed. It is not clear that sufficient resources will be in place for the benefit of such an influx of population (who need extra amenities for health, education, transport, jobs, shops, living-space etc etc). I once lived in a place massively-expanded under a Plan, and things did not work out as expected. Sustainability, accessibility, effect on the environment are difficult to quantify, but what is in essence the concreting-over of an already very full village will pressurise the infrastructure to an extreme. I have elaborated these points in the attached file, and my view covers several of the questions below.

see attached letter

see attached letter

I think the amount of houses proposed is unsustainable for the village - upto 200 new houses??! Why all in this village?
A "bypass" would be a nightmare as it would run through new houses - not really a bypass - 900 houses, 1800 card, 2 exits, morning madness.
The existing primary has too many pupils - hte existing year 2 has an extra class already, an old art room had to be sacrificed... this will run through all school years... how can the secondary school be expected to take in another primary school?

I agree with the infrastructure requirements identified for Balsall Common. In addition I believe it appropriate to make allowance for an area of employment land as part of the village settlement. This would minimise the need for local inhabitants to travel to and from work and make a contribution towards engendering a more complete and balanced community.

Methodology.
I do not agree if Balsall Common station is counted as equal to Dorridge.
Infrastructure
We need infrastructure. Green spaces, sports facilities, parking,improvements to very limited.centre.

Site 1 Barrett's Farm
I reluctantly agree to its inclusion.
Site 2 and 3
I do not agree to their inclusion as they are do far from amenities.my neighbour has to get a taxi to the shops.also they have considerable worth as greenfield and wildlife havens.
Trevallion Stud and Pheasant oak Farm.
Yes to being included as
Used as part brownfield.
Concept plans. Good idea but need much more work especially in guarding development from existing gardens

Additional matters to be included
More frequent bus services to Coventry as well as evening services
Bus services to Kenilworth (providing links to Warwick/Leamington also
Development of village centre and avoidance of dangerous carparking in front of shops is essential
Single carriageway bypass will not be sufficient to deter traffic through village centre. More crossing points and traffic calming along Kenilworth Road required
Parking outside/near schools needs to be addressed especially Balsall Street
Holly Lane Park must be retained and developed
Development of business/light industry opportunities would support village growth and services

Balsall Common town itself is not an attractive place, but to live in Balsall Common is attractive thanks to the surrounding countryside. Building on all available land means that the British countryside is losing to yet more ugly houses.

If you look at the town of Balsall Common itself, which is currently quite grotty, there is more opportunity for better development - above/behind shops/unnecessarily large car park by Co-op. Instead of choosing the easy option of building on greenbelt and farmland, you should use more imagination to maximise the use of the existing town.

Kenilworth road is a wide road and it's only busy during rush hour. There is no need for building yet another large road. Instead of accommodating the ever increasing amount of cars in this country, local councils and the government have a responsibility to make it easier for people to use fewer cars, travel by public transport and leave as much valuable nature for the next generation. That's at least what we are trying to do and the government is being an obstruction to achieve such a legacy.

There is no master plan for Balsall Common and it is not clear about who will fund the infrastructure.
No guarantees that more local trains would be provided.
Only two trains per hour at moment.
Sporting facilities should be provided by the existing Lant facilities.

See attached document

No infrastructure improvements have been made over many years and the village is already at capacity. Before further development key facilities need to be fully assessed.

See attached File Question 3

The bypass is not necessary and is a complete aside to the traffic issues in and around Balsall Common. Local routes - specifically the B4101 to Knowle and the road through Hampton in Arden are key routes for those living in Balsall Common. As it is necessary to travel for all work and services (apart from the very basic level of provision in Balsall Common) these routes could not possibly cope with the extra traffic created by the housing proposals regardless of whether a bypass is created.

Other key matters of services which have not been considered are a lack of hospital (specifically A&E) to support such an increase in population and lack of supermarket.

Instead of increasing the population of Balsall Common by the size of a small village - a new village should be selected (using the lessons learned from the Dickens Heath development) where infrastructure can be developed to the needs of that village. Balsall Common services can never by altered sufficiently to meet the needs of such an increase in population

If developments on the scale proposed are undertaken it is imperative that infrastructure is in place beforehand. This needs to include:
- Schools as the existing ones are full
- New roads if required as well as traffic management and calming to avoid local roads becoming rat runs and/or parking for station
- Village centre improvements
- Parking in village centre and at station

As you are aware your draft proposals in relation to Balsall Common and Berkswell are taking place at the same time as the HS2 construction work is under way which will impose huge implications for the neighbourhood.

Your proposals don't take this into account, especially where you have allocated even further greenfield development such as areas between Catchem Corner and Hob Lane. Why is this even being suggested at this time?

Also, do you realize that the 'Masterplan' for Balsall Common village centre is dependent on the village byepass being completed. This byepass would need to be used for ALL through traffic but from indications it would, as well as being an indirect route for vehicles include 6-8 islands, hardly an enticement for vehicle users!

We in Berkswell including the Windmill, recently agreed to keep the existing boundaries alongside Balsall Common as they were. The Waste Lane area leading towards the historic Berkswell Village is a most attractive area to the many visitors and your proposals, as well as the HS2 construction, would decimate this countryside. What, apart from the housing, would be the attraction for local residents and visitors to the area.

The Draft Plan is in its concept is misconceived. There is no mention of the Berkswell Parish NDP that was passed recently despite much of the earmarked land being within that parish.

If the experience of Dickens Heath is anything to go by, please take note of my comments above.

There is no evidence a bypass is needed. However, new sites will require access directly to major roads not minor one.
Other improvements need to be in place before development not afterwards

The aim of providing an enhanced centre for Balsall Common is noted. However, there are significant constraints operating to limit the extent to which the centre or its immediate environs can accommodate any more than a very modest scale of additional development. The scale of new development planned at Balsall Common is likely to give rise to new investment interest from retail operators whose requirements cannot reasonably be accommodated within or on the edge of the existing centre. Therefore relevant policies should be sufficiently flexible to enable such development to be properly assessed.

There is no objective justification for a bypass using traffic statistics and no rationale for the decision change since December 2013. There has been no significant change in traffic volumes. Providing a bypass will encourage commuter traffic which is currently constrained by the traffic lights at Kelsey Lane.

Schools provision looks inadequate given that Balsall Common primary school is beyond it 3-form capacity for 2 year groups.

The centre of needs radical change to accommodate additional housing. There needs to be a commitment from SMBC to spend CIL money raised to improve the public realm and provide more car parking

The proposed huge expansion of Balsall Common brings with it an urgent requirement for infrastructure able to support the increased population, traffic, educational and medical needs. Another 3-entry primary school is needed to accommodate new families plus pupils from that side of the village currently at BCPS to address the worsening traffic congestion around the current school. Much better public transport is needed, plus adequate parking for the station. It is vital that the surrounding green belt is not lost to inappropriate soulless development and that the village centre becomes a more attractive destination for shopping, leisure and services.

The Barratts Lane plan will mean our property (Dragonflies) on Waste Lane becomes surrounded by houses and the new bypass, I therefore ask you INCLUDE our property in the development proposal. This will mean more houses and easier access to Waste Lane.

No.
Contradictory in may ways. . . Single road as a by pass, but with access off for Barrets Farm, (homes for 900 properties, with potential 1.5 car owners)
How can the village have "enhancements" to the center? When there is no scope for any new builds.
Station parking would still be a problem, not looking at the parking as it is now. Yes Barretts Farm can walk, but not the rest.