Question 3 - Infrastructure Requirements at Balsall Common

The DLP correctly identifies the need for additional schools provision at primary and secondary level. However, the Local Governing Board of Balsall Common Primary School (BCPS) do not believe that a new 2-form entry primary school represents a cost effective or educationally optimal solution to the need for additional school places. It is imperative to have equitable delivery of education in the local area: Children must be afforded the same high standard of education, the same facilities and opportunities. We must not create a 2-tier system as a result of the DLP. In order to achieve this, we propose expanding the "outstanding" rated BCPS to a 5-form entry school on a new site at Barratts Farm. This solution is financially beneficial to the Local Authority and not educationally detrimental as all children would be able to access the same "outstanding" level of education.

The school leadership team have undertaken an assessment, in conjunction with many of the interested parties, to develop a workable plan to deliver a 5-form entry primary school. It would be necessary to relocate the school to a larger site. We propose the best location would be Barratts Farm. This site is not prime land for residential development due to its proximity to HS2. A well-considered 2 storey development would provide the required amount of "free space" for pupils at a 5-form entry school, with the added benefits of a similar footprint to a 2-form entry school as well as providing an enhanced sound and visual barrier to the HS2 work. The current BCPS site is prime real estate and the monies raised from the sale would contribute to the development cost of a new school. It would also benefit residents by relieving the increased traffic and parking pressure at drop off and pick up times. There could also be consideration given to using some of the land to develop a separate 6th form centre for Heart of England School, thereby relieving some of the capacity pressure that already exists, and which will inevitably increase with the new housing.

Crucially a 5-form entry school delivers significant efficiencies. 2 primary schools require 2 head teachers, 2 sets of teaching staff, 2 sets of support staff as well as the running costs of 2 buildings. BCPS is an exceptionally well-run school. The on-site facilities afford children weekly swimming classes from nursery age, a newly developed forest school curriculum is enabling children to learn in new ways. Two schools in Balsall Common is not cost effective. BCPS is 106-year-old and is consequently becoming expensive to maintain. In over a century there have only been 5 head teachers (including the current headteacher, GT Burgess). Staff retention is well above average and this is reflected in the outstanding quality of education. It would be unrealistic for a new school without the facilities and without BCPS's pedigree to compete. It would be second choice. The second primary school would be being set up to fail, a situation our proposals would avoid.

Currently, there are few modern amenities for the residents. Part of the scoping exercise undertaken by the BCPS Leadership team over several years has been to consider how the school can further contribute to the Balsall Common community. One compelling concept was to include a state-of-the-art leisure centre as part of the school build. This would include a pool, gym, studios and a coffee shop, accessible to both the pupils and local people. Careful design, timetabling and flexible opening hours would allow pupils to continue to benefit from the swimming and sport provision (which is already part of the BCPS curriculum) as well as providing these facilities to the local community. With the current uncertainty around the pool at Kenilworth, the availability and accessibility of swimming pools is becoming increasingly important. The leisure centre would also provide a good, sustainable income stream for BCPS whilst building of the vision of the school playing a greater role in the community.

Attached is a business plan written in 2016 providing further detail on the proposal outlined above. At this time, it was believed that a 4-form entry school would be sufficient to meet local need. However, as per the DLP, it is now apparent that the Balsall Common area requires 5-forms at primary level. We firmly believe a single 5-form entry primary school would best serve the needs of the Balsall Common community.

The DLP correctly identifies the need for additional schools provision at primary and secondary level. However, the Local Governing Board of Balsall Common Primary School (BCPS) do not believe that a new 2-form entry primary school represents a cost effective or educationally optimal solution to the need for additional school places. It is imperative to have equitable delivery of education in the local area: Children must be afforded the same high standard of education, the same facilities and opportunities. We must not create a 2-tier system as a result of the DLP. In order to achieve this, we propose expanding the "outstanding" rated BCPS to a 5-form entry school on a new site at Barratts Farm. This solution is financially beneficial to the Local Authority and not educationally detrimental as all children would be able to access the same "outstanding" level of education.

The school leadership team have undertaken an assessment, in conjunction with many of the interested parties, to develop a workable plan to deliver a 5-form entry primary school. It would be necessary to relocate the school to a larger site. We propose the best location would be Barratts Farm. This site is not prime land for residential development due to its proximity to HS2. A well-considered 2 storey development would provide the required amount of "free space" for pupils at a 5-form entry school, with the added benefits of a similar footprint to a 2-form entry school as well as providing an enhanced sound and visual barrier to the HS2 work. The current BCPS site is prime real estate and the monies raised from the sale would contribute to the development cost of a new school. It would also benefit residents by relieving the increased traffic and parking pressure at drop off and pick up times. There could also be consideration given to using some of the land to develop a separate 6th form centre for Heart of England School, thereby relieving some of the capacity pressure that already exists, and which will inevitably increase with the new housing.

Crucially a 5-form entry school delivers significant efficiencies. 2 primary schools require 2 head teachers, 2 sets of teaching staff, 2 sets of support staff as well as the running costs of 2 buildings. BCPS is an exceptionally well-run school. The on-site facilities afford children weekly swimming classes from nursery age, a newly developed forest school curriculum is enabling children to learn in new ways. Two schools in Balsall Common is not cost effective. BCPS is 106-year-old and is consequently becoming expensive to maintain. In over a century there have only been 5 head teachers (including the current headteacher, GT Burgess). Staff retention is well above average and this is reflected in the outstanding quality of education. It would be unrealistic for a new school without the facilities and without BCPS's pedigree to compete. It would be second choice. The second primary school would be being set up to fail, a situation our proposals would avoid.

Currently, there are few modern amenities for the residents. Part of the scoping exercise undertaken by the BCPS Leadership team over several years has been to consider how the school can further contribute to the Balsall Common community. One compelling concept was to include a state-of-the-art leisure centre as part of the school build. This would include a pool, gym, studios and a coffee shop, accessible to both the pupils and local people. Careful design, timetabling and flexible opening hours would allow pupils to continue to benefit from the swimming and sport provision (which is already part of the BCPS curriculum) as well as providing these facilities to the local community. With the current uncertainty around the pool at Kenilworth, the availability and accessibility of swimming pools is becoming increasingly important. The leisure centre would also provide a good, sustainable income stream for BCPS whilst building of the vision of the school playing a greater role in the community.

Attached is a business plan written in 2016 providing further detail on the proposal outlined above. At this time, it was believed that a 4-form entry school would be sufficient to meet local need. However, as per the DLP, it is now apparent that the Balsall Common area requires 5-forms at primary level. We firmly believe a single 5-form entry primary school would best serve the needs of the Balsall Common community.

Items for consideration regarding schooling - both current sites are already inadequate with BCPS being dangerously overfull. Inadequate space for the current number of pupils. Certainly not able to take numbers of children associated with planned new housing numbers. Roads surrounding BCPS cannot cope with traffic as it is. Move the entire Secondary School to a new site this would assist with vehicles parked on the roads and volume of traffic entering and exiting the current site. More suitable for 11-18 year olds to get to new site, than primary school age children who must be accompanied by an adult. A possibility would be to turn the entire site over to primary education, providing adequate parking for all staff members, thereby releasing residential roads of all day parking by staff.. A properly planned turning point and drop off and entrance/exit on Gypsy Lane. Consideration to be given to facilities management vehicles which are already numerous. IT IS ENTIRELY UNSUITABLE TO HOUSE A 6TH FORM ANNEX ON THE CURRENT BCPS site with access from Asbury Road due to more and irregular hours of lectures, cars/motorbikes, anti social behaviour from congregating youths on a small residential road. Should BCPS site remain it should be reduced to cater for a maximum of 250 children more suitable for size of site. This would mean two primary schools in the village. ROADS currently servicing BCPS cannot take any further traffic or disruption than they are currently enduring 6 days a week from 7am in the morning until well into early evening most days.

Infrastructure needs to be in place before significant building occurs
Much of the housing planned will need to be phased after HS2 as the primary school site can only be developed after HS2
Secondary school capacity needs to be considered, I find it hard to believe that will not need to increase; I don't believe in limiting the secondary school catchment area to Balsall Common: children benefit from diversity at school.
Bypass allows more scope for village centre redevelopment.

Improvements in Balsall Common infrastructure. My concerns relate to how soon improvements in infrastructure will occur, as the village centre, parking and primary school are already under huge strain before any increase in population.

And following on from this I feel it's important that local residents are consulted as to what infrastructure improvements are important to them, and that consultation reaches a cross section of residents, not just those who usually engage with local government. I'd be keen to see some focus groups in the village, perhaps linked to some of our existing community activities

I strongly object to the building of a bypass along hallmeadow road. Residents on the Riddings Hill estate already have HS2 on their doorstep - why should they also have to tolerate significantly increased road noise and traffic on their doorstep too? It will devalue homes, increase pollution and noise and is simply unfair. An alternative needs to be considered.

see attached letter

In the next 10 years or so, building 1,755 new houses within a short distance of Balsall Common centre will mean a 45% increase in the existing 3,900 homes in the area. It also seems likely, since more land has been identified than is required by the current plan, that further housing development will take place after the initial phase.

My wife and I believe that these new homes will cause a significant change to Balsall Common and it will become more akin to a commuter town than a village.

Assuming that the Government's Affordability target will be applied to the new houses it is likely that a higher proportion of lower-cost properties will be built than at present. This will obviously attract younger families than at present. The population in Balsall Common is also likely to contain a higher proportion of young people because during the next 10 years the relatively high proportion of older people currently living in the area (ourselves included!) will either no longer be alive or will be in care homes.

We believe that the availability of lower cost homes and influx of younger families will lead to a major change in the demography of the area.

Far from being a threat to the current way of life (as may be seen by some in the community) we believe that the Local Plan presents an ideal opportunity to develop the essential infrastructure that a well-balanced and vibrant future community will require.

Key infrastructure elements, many of which are currently below par and will need improving, include schools, transport, shops and leisure facilities.

Balsall Common Schools
Balsall Common Primary School (BCPS) and the Heart of England School (HoE) are both high quality academies but we believe are unlikely to have the capacity to support the expected increase in the number of children. Both schools are completely hemmed in by residential housing and have no room to expand.

In particular, BCPS has been extremely overcrowded for many years and it would be highly undesirable to try to add more pupils. (The head teacher said recently that to comply with current educational standards BCPS would need to have another 10,000 sq metres of usable space. Several years ago Cllr Peter Lea also famously remarked that if BCPS was a zoo, the Council would close it down!)

In our opinion the proposed two-entry form Primary School on the new Barratt's Farm development will be inadequate to meet increased nursery and primary demand.

We feel that the sums to accommodate between 45% and possibly up to 60% more children in the area simply do not add up.

A further factor is that road-side parking for the BCPS and HoE schools, plus drop-down and pick-up by parents, is a source of unending misery for the surrounding residents. It also causes major congestion on the east-west and north-south commuter routes through Balsall Common, especially during the morning rush-hour.

One option would be to relocate both the BCPS and HoE schools and release the combined area for building. The two schools currently occupy approximately 6.5 hectares of adjacent land which we understand is owned by the SMBC and could be worth up to £24m. Using a density of 24 homes per hectare, the joint site would accommodate upwards of 150 new houses. Given assurances that adequate access roads would be provided, we are sure that local residents would be happy with this option. It would also remove a major cause of congestion in the wider Balsall Common area.

Ideally the two new academies would be built on land adjacent to the green belt with proper provision for traffic access, drop-off points and parking. It is essential in planning any new schools that onsite parking is provided for teachers and visitors. A possible location would be the Barratt's Farm site with access from the proposed new bypass. The question of course is the likely cost of this solution and the timescale.

We understand that the BCPS Governors and Head Teacher have proposed a halfway-house to the above option which would involve building a new five-form entry Primary School on the Barratt's Farm site and releasing their current the land and buildings to the HoE School for use as a sixth form annex. As local residents, we are not in favour of this option because we feel that over time the sixth form annex will develop into a fully-fledged six form college which would be open for long hours each week day and possibly at weekends. This would result in even more traffic, parking and congestion problems than at present. Additionally, it would open the possibility of anti-social behaviour among groups of 16 to18 year-olds congregating in various areas of the otherwise peaceful Kemps Green estate. Primary school teachers have also said that they feel that a five-entry form school would be too big and very intimidating for young children.

We feel that a better solution would be to build a new three-entry form Primary School on the Barratt's Farm site but continue to run the existing BCPS school and nursery with a reduced number of children. Ideally the HoE school would be relocated as well, leaving the rest of the land available for housing. Either way, we believe that a small Nursery and Primary school should remain on the eastern side of Balsall Common to cater for younger children in the immediate area.

No matter which option is taken it is highly recommended that moves to build a new Primary School are made straight away because whilst it has been said that house building on the Barratt's Farm site will have to wait several years until the main HS2 work is over, it is likely that the development of the other sites, for example, Ridding's Hill and Frog Lane will start much earlier.

Transport
It is likely that a younger Balsall Common community will be much more attuned to using public transport than the current older population. They will demand better and faster local transport, including links to main-line trains and the airport for work, shops and leisure.

Much has been said about the proximity of Berkeswell Station as a good reason for expanding housing in the Balsall Common area, but in truth it is unlikely that the current two or three trains per hour will be adequate. Having single lines in each direction and the need for the local trains to be interspersed with faster London trains, means the service cannot be expanded without major cost.

As a matter of urgency, much enlarged parking facilities should be provided at Berkswell Station, but whilst the local train service currently gives reasonable access to Birmingham, Coventry and the Airport it does not address access to other parts such as Solihull centre, and in our opinion will not suffice in the medium and long term.

We feel that a much better solution would be to start development of a comprehensive tram network throughout the Solihull Borough, linking all major centres, including the airport and new HS2 station, as well as places further afield such as Kenilworth and Warwick. This would provide rapid, frequent and relatively cheap access to work, shops and leisure.

In our opinion such a network would totally revolutionise the area and should be seriously considered. The tram services between Birmingham and Wolverhampton are a good example of what can be achieved in relatively few years. For example, to have a tram very six minutes and be able to get from a place like Bilston, directly into Birmingham City centre in less than 20 minutes is proving very popular and is re-energising these areas.

We agree that the proposed Balsall Common bypass will greatly relieve traffic through Balsall Common centre, but feel that it should be a dual carriageway and have bridges at the more heavily-used intersections instead of roundabouts. Hallmeadow Road should be widened, with slip roads provided for the Medical Centre and what will be the enlarged Ridding's Hill Estate. As above, it is essential that more parking is provided at Berkeswell Station because the eastern side of much of Hallmeadow Road is currently taken up by all-day station parking.

Roads on most of the recent estates built in Balsall Common are far too narrow.
In many cases there is also inadequate off-road parking for residents. When planning the layout of the new sites, where possible it should be ensured that off-road parking for two cars per household is available. Also that roads are wide enough to allow kerbside parking and access for service and emergency vehicles. This particularly needs to be the case where homes are close to schools, community centres and shops.

Local Shops
With one or two exceptions, local shops and other services in the Balsall Common area are woefully lacking. In the short term, urgent attention should be paid to improving parking in Balsall Common centre. It would also be very advantageous to allow one of the major supermarket chains to build a centre on the outskirts of the area.

Leisure Facilities
In our opinion there is a great opportunity to provide better leisure facilities and make the Balsall Common area much more attractive, especially to younger people.
Arrangements should be made for a sports hall and an indoor swimming pool in the proposed new Primary School to be shared with the local community outside of school hours.

On the periphery of Balsall Common the SMBC and Parish Councils should work together with other authorities to provide public access to the River Blythe and various lakes in the area. These should be landscaped and opened up with footpaths, cycle paths and picnic areas, and nature reserves should be created.
In our opinion there is little point in having wonderful green belt land nearby if it can't be seen, appreciated and protected. One suggestion would be to enlist support from organisations such as the National Trust and Woodland Trust.

In summary, we feel that emphasis should move away from simply building a prescribed number of houses, to planning what type of community will be in the area in the future and therefore what kind of accommodation, schools and other facilities will be required to make Balsall Common and the surrounding area a really attractive place to live.

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

Proposals for residential sites (1,2,3,21,22,23) in Balsall Common are all allocated within green belt land. Draft plan proposals for 1,690 additional homes increases existing population (census 2011) by more than 57%.
State funding for a new primary school and expansion of Heart of England School should be financed through government not section 106 agreements.
Impact of HS2 development should be assessed on proposed housing.
No consideration has been given to main services to proposed housing, including electricity, gas, water supply, mains drainage, telecommunications.
Some land areas may be located within a flood zone, and should not be built on.

I would like to express our deep concerns about Solihull Council's development plans regarding Balsall Common.

Generally we would like to point out that the government has continuously stated that green belts are to be preserved, which seems to be completely ignored by the Solihull authorities and planning departments.

We are afraid the proposed development will effect the village and its people, as there seems to be in effect hardly any coordination and structure, how this huge development shall be erected. The infrastructural requirement to integrate it into the village structure are simple not thought about sufficiently and such advance activities need to be timed and thought through. I stress that the village centre has no chance to cope with this development.

The development will take away a recreation area including the benefits for dog-walkers and joggers; it will harm the bio-diversity of the Meriden gap.

Parts of the development shall be directly linked to Meeting House Lane (i.e. lead into MHL), which constitutes a fundamental irresponsibility in regards to additional traffic and pedestrians' health and safety, as most of the lower end of Meeting House lane has no pedestrian walkway and children would be especially at risk.

The development Barretts Farm appears to suit big developers; in the attached areas small developers may piecemeal the area without any strategic planning.

There is no proper concept as to how the bypass may help the situation in the village unless also Kenilworth Road is completely restructured and be made a non-through road. In the abundance of such a concept the bypass will be a waste of money (although apparently already equipped with sufficient funds ...).

Please consider to the above and act accordingly.

see attached letter

- SMBC should reconsider the Frog Lane Development, a smaller greenfield developments that does not add new infrastructure or intrinsic value to the village. The Frog Lane developments should not be prioritised over larger developments that address all the infrastructure issues stated above.
- In considering this 'settlement first' approach, your paragraph 97 to amend the Green Belt boundary would support the maintenance of the existing Green Belt boundary to the southwest of Balsall Common and so negate erosion of that boundary by the greenfield development proposed.
- The long term strategic plan should also address the issue of Primary Care/GP services in Balsall Common. NHS data shows that the average GP is seeing 41 patients a day, 60 % more than recommended under European safety guidelines. An additional 1700 homes will put increased pressure on a system already working over capacity.

The requirements listed are insufficient for the needs of the existing area, without the additional houses (in excess of 1,700) planned.

Balsall Common Primary School was built as a two form entry Primary School, and at that time was considered one of the best in the Borough. Since then it has doubled in size - despite assurances from the current headteacher, there are now three academic years at the school that have admitted four forms, and it breaches modern educational and safety standards in every way.

Heart of England is now admitting 8 forms, with student numbers of 34-36 per form, representing 280 children per year. This means that at any one time there are over 1,400 young people trying to move around a school built for less than 800 - and that does not include the Sixth Form.

Accidents happen in the village on a daily basis, whether it is drivers impatiently forcing their way through Balsall Street East and Gypsy Lane and hitting other cars due to the school-run traffic chaos; people speeding up the Kenilworth Road and failing to obey the rules of the road at traffic lights, or backing out and hitting cars at the shops, the infrastructure here cannot cope with the current circumstances, with the latest builds. Bringing so many additional residents will make the area unlivable without a comprehensive full Community Development Plan that looks at the entire current needs, and then plans for the increase of another 4,000 people, rather than a "make do and fix" approach as outlined here.

I do not agree entirely with the infrastructure requirements.

I do not support the Balsall Common By-pass
Whilst I appreciate that some road construction can offer temporary relief to traffic problems, it is ultimately a
"hair of the dog", or "similar similibus curantur" solution. This doesn't work long term. Solutions would be providing genuine alternatives to car travel along congested routes.


I support enhancements to the centre of Balsall Common.
Enhancements do not just help to improve the quality of life of those living in a place, they also raise esteem and create identity. There are however consequences to diverting traffic away from a centre. Through traffic can play an important role. There are alternative means of addressing the detrimental impacts of traffic volumes and speed. Traffic calming, average speed cameras, Traffic Regulation Orders to change speed limits, create one-way routes are all alternatives to a By-pass.

Car parking is not the only problem affecting train usage.
Whilst limited car parking is presenting an issue at most stations around the borough, it is not the only problem, nor is increasing parking provision the only solution.
Most stations around the borough have poor facilities for bike storage. Bike commuters want their bikes to be kept secure and dry. In addition, providing more options for cyclists to accommodate the elements and still drive at work looking 'professional' is a further barrier, that can be overcome. Learning from the places that do this successfully is key to devising solutions to this problem.


I support additional bus services.


I support the creation of a new primary school
There is clearly a need for additional school places and proper spatially planned schooling contributes significantly to promoting sustainable travel and reducing road congestion. This can also contribute towards enabling greater economic productivity of the parents.

Secondary Schools have limitations.
There has been a continual expansion of existing Secondary Schools. I recognise how and why this has happened. The number of students required for a secondary school is significantly greater than for a primary.
Whilst that explains why we have ended up in the situation we are in, with overcrowding in some of our Secondary's, it is not a justification.
I accept that Heart of England appears to have decreased in total number of pupils when comparing academic year 2007-2008, with 2017-2018. Notwithstanding this, I am concerned of a general approach across the borough of funding schools to expand.


Self-contained settlement with limited economic activity.
Whilst the absence of economic employment is limited within Balsall Common, there are hubs within sustainable travel distance from the settlement.
By bike, the airport, NEC, UK Central, Resorts World are all in reach. In the direction of Coventry, there is both the University of Warwick and Network Rail in cycling distance (20-30 minutes).
By train, Coventry and Birmingham are easily reached in reasonable commuter times. Trains from Berkswell to Birmingham take 17 minutes and to Coventry they take 11 minutes.
This makes the possibility of modal shift eminently viable. The limitations more pressingly exist on bus services, though this is a common complaint across the region. Few locations are blessed with such good transport links to two major economic hubs of the region.

See Letter

Please see covering letter

Please see covering letter

The bypass is poorly thought out. Waste Lane Hodgetts lane duggins lane will become rat runs without for thought of any traffic management to prevent this. The building of new houses with no additional employment opportunities will just mean more commuter traffic as nobody can walk to work. 're public transport why not just build houses near current employment hubs people can then walk to work.

See Letters

The infrastructure needs identified are good but do not take into account that due to the maximum capacity currently experienced in the primary school, village centre (at peak times), roads and car parking the infrastructure needs will have to be addressed up front to meet the required needs. There are major issues with some areas of infrastructure e.g. rail services

Green infrastructure refers to the living network of green spaces, water and other environmental features in both urban and rural areas. It is often used in an urban context to provide multiple benefits including space for recreation, access to nature, flood storage and urban cooling to support climate change mitigation, food production, wildlife habitats and health & well-being improvements provided by trees, rights of way, parks, gardens, road verges, allotments, cemeteries, woodlands, rivers and wetlands.

Green infrastructure is also relevant in a rural context, where it might additionally refer to the use of farmland, woodland, wetlands or other natural features to provide services such as flood protection, carbon storage or water purification.

A strategic approach for green infrastructure is required to ensure its protection and enhancement, as outlined in para 171 of the NPPF. We encourage the provision of green infrastructure to be included as a specific infrastructure requirement, for example biodiversity, green space, flood risk, climate change, reflecting the multifunctional benefits of green infrastructure.

The massive upheaval caused by HS2, combined with the worry and uncertainty relating to the potential location of new housing development(s) is a major concern for all residents of Balsall Common. The possibility of a FURTHER swathe of greenbelt being swallowed up by a bypass will totally devastate the remaining green and rural areas to the east of the village forever.

The cost of constructing a bypass along the proposed route to serve the potential Barratts Farm development would be exorbitant. Instead, new homes could be constructed in a combination of the smaller proposed sites in the Solihull region which would reduce the infrastructure spend and distribute any increase in traffic more evenly across the area.

Significant improvements to the nearby A46 have now commenced which are likely to negate the need for a bypass. Phase 3 of the improvements incorporating the proposed link road from the A46 to the A452 is likely to deliver a much better traffic relief solution for Balsall Common and Kenilworth than the proposed expensive bypass by downgrading the A452 through Kenilworth and Balsall Common town and the village centres respectively. This means that there is a very strong economic case to defer any bypass decisions until the these improvements are finalised.

Construction of a bypass would indirectly support increased car usage which in turn would significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions. This directly contradicts the commendable statement made in the 2013 local plan - 'Transport policy is now focused more towards the management of travel demands, encouraging a shift away from car use and towards public transport, walking and cycling.'

If the bypass was built and used as a new green belt boundary, there would be nothing to stop further housing developments in the future on the beautiful area of open countryside to the west of the boundary line. By NOT building the proposed bypass and thereby retaining the existing greenbelt boundary this potential catastrophe will be avoided.

Page 34 of the 2019 Local Plan (Site 23 Pheasant Oak Farm) states that any housing development in this particular area should 'safeguard the rural character of Hob Lane and Windmill Lane'. Whilst this statement is to be applauded, it does raise the question how the rural character of Hob Lane in particular could be maintained if a bypass was constructed that crossed directly over this road?

The bypass (in its currently proposed form) would cut directly through (or extremely close to) existing homes on both Waste Lane and Hob Lane, permanently destroying the rural character of the area for existing residents, a number of whom have invested their life savings on their properties. The construction of the bypass would also cause a significant reduction in the future sale-ability of these properties.

Both Waste Lane and Hob Lane are narrow country roads, totally unsuitable as access points for a bypass due to the additional traffic that would be generated. Hob Lane, in particular is completely unable to handle any additional traffic due to the hazardous tight turns located by the primary school further up the lane.

Recent bat surveys carried out in connection with roofing works to our property in Hob Lane confirmed the presence of a summer roost for a number of male common pipistrelle bats in the roof of our property and also clearly showed bat foraging activity in the surrounding area of Hob Lane. Current legislation and National Planning Policy that protects bats in England makes it illegal to deliberately disturb bats, whether at roost or not and/or damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts. The construction of a bypass across Hob Lane would be entirely inappropriate from both an environmental and a legislative perspective because the natural habitat of bats and other wildlife would be destroyed.

The bypass will cause irreversible damage to our countryside and destroy the unique character of Berkswell and Balsall Common for its residents.

For the above reasons I feel very strongly that any plans for the bypass should be scrapped and the proposal to safeguard the line of the bypass should be permanently removed.

Infrastructure should include the requirement to provide new leisure facilities and to enhance existing sports facilities in the immediate area.
There is no mention of the need to expand rail capacity. Peak hour trains already leave people behind at Berkswell station, additional housing will make this problem worse and so it should be mandated that additional capacity is provided at peak times to and from Birmingham and Coventry

We welcome the much needed infrastructure improvements for Balsall Common, but the proposals are too vague and do not give residents the confidence they will be adopted effectively. The proposed primary school must be built before the housing as the existing school is at breaking point and cannot cope with any more pupils.
The by-pass has received mixed response, and appears to be merely an access road for the Barratts farm site. Through traffic must be regulated to ensure its directed on to the by-pass away from the centre of Balsall Common to also enable the Centre to be improved.

Balsall Common will become unrecognisable if this plan goes ahead.

See Letter

See letters 1 & 2

See Letter