Question 3 - Infrastructure Requirements at Balsall Common

We act for the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (CCWMP) and are instructed to make representations on local development documents in respect of securing policy reference in such documents
see details in attached letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

See letter

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

To whom it may concern,

I wish to respond to SMBC's Draft Local Plan and, in particular, to the section on their intentions for Balsall Common - Barratt's Farm development.

I appreciate the need for additional housing in the borough and that Balsall Common will be expected to accomodate it's fair share of these. However, careful thought must be given to the preservation of the Green Belt in the Meriden gap to prevent further urban sprawl narrowing the areas of open land between Coventry, Solihull and Birmingham.

This is particularly an issue in the proposals for Site 1 - Barratt's Farm. Paragraph 96 of the Draft Plan states that the planned developments will enhance the Green Belt. How can this be the case when Barratt's Farm is the narrowest point of the Meriden Gap - only just over a mile wide at this point. Coventry have already made plans to build up to the Solihull Borough Boundary in Berkswell whilst Warwickshire are already building additional housing at Burton Green. SMBC's plans will further erode the Meriden Gap. Once land is released from the Green Belt (Paragraph 97) it can never be reclaimed and the benefit of the Meriden Gap will be lost for ever. SMBC's plan suggests the need for a strong defensible eastern boundary to the Green Belt which in effect narrows it. There are alternative sites for building rather than narrowing the gap at this point. Section 15 and Paragraph 405 for example show Sites - No.76 and No.212 at Cornets End Lane which could provide a new settlement without narrowing down the Meriden Gap.

Interestingly, there is no mention of the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan for Berkswell - something we have worked hard on to maintain and preserve the rural character of this area. Meriden's NDP and Hampton-in-Arden's NDP have been taken into consideration but not Berkswell's. Why not? The Riddings development is a prime example of how housing can be built so that rural character can be kept and the resulting traffic impact can be minimized by thoughtful road planning. The open park spaces are a great (and vital) amenity which are well used and bring together older and newer housing areas and people.

Relating to Paragraph 95 - The Concept Master Plan states an intention to develop a tract of open space running through the majority of Barratt's Farm to achieve the 'Riddings Hill' type of development. There doesn't appear to be clear evidence in the plan that this will be the case. The 'low density housing' proposals and the 'potential area for development' on the 'SMBC's Illustrative Emerging Concept Plan' (page 14) will completely fill the area between older and new housing - nothing like the exemplary Riddings Hill development. The proposed 'by-pass' runs right through the middle of this 'Tract of Open Land' too lessening it's recreational use. Unavoidable perhaps - more open parkland could be included in the development area to the west of the bypass to offset this.

Relating to Paragraph 95 - The Concept Master Plan also states the intention of incorporating the long-established use of playing field/recreational space into the broader aspect of informal and formal recreational facilities. Why then, for the Barratt's Farm proposal, has it earmarked the playing field behind the Catholic Church on Meeting House Lane as and area for 'low density housing'? On a personal note, this field (Very recently the Catholic Church has fenced it off) has been extensively used, for many years, by village residents for recreational activities - football, etc. I have lived in Balsall Common since 1996 (23 years) - my children (and many other local children) have grown up using and enjoying it. A real worry for me is that if the low density housing were to be built on the playing field, where would the access point to the site be. Suggestions I have heard show access through Oxhayes Close. This would be highly dangerous both for vehicles, pedestrians and residents. The junction between Oxhayes Close and Meeting House Lane has a very restricted line of sight making it extremely unsuitable for an increase in traffic. Detailed traffic analysis would need to be done on the junction?

Looking at the emerging concept plan for Barrett's Farm, it is insufficiently developed to enable a clear assessment to be made by myself as a resident. I find it difficult to fully assess it's impact and I have many concerns which it fails to address. I suggest that it is essential that any building work should be kept on hold until HS2 construction in the area is complete and the major access points (Station Road and Waste Lane) to the bypass constructed. With the massive disruption HS2 is likely to bring to this area it should be possible for SMBC to prioritize building in other areas within the Borough before development here. Any piecemeal development of Barratt's Farm must be avoided until a stronger concept plan for the whole site is in place.

It would make sense for all development on Barrett's Farm to only use access points onto the proposed bypass. Matching the Riddings Hill development and routing the bulk of additional traffic away from the con-jested Village Centre.

If the whole area proposed to be released from the Green Belt were to be developed fully it could result in over 2000 homes (stated in the SMBC 2013 Local Plan) being built on Barrett's Farm alone. A huge increase in cars in the village and overwhelming pressure on village infrastructure not to mention pollution worries.

Enhancements to the Village Centre are mentioned in the Plan but a thorough analysis of the impact of new housing on the centre and village as a whole needs to be undertaken to look at the effect of increasing the population of our village by 50% before committing to additional housing.

Finally, what is SMBC's justification for selecting Balsall Common for much of the Council's housing needs?

See Letter

See Letter

see attached document

see letter land South Broad Lane Berkswell

This is the response of Generator Group and Minton to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site on land adj Harpers Field, Kenilworth Road Balsall Common for inclusion as a housing
allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order. Whilst we have
responded to each question, the detailed points in relation to our site are set out under question 39 and your attention is specifically drawn to this part of the response. It should be noted the site is developer owned and delivery of the site can therefore come forward early in the plan period

This is the response of Rosconn Strategic Land to the supplementary consultation by
Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the
response is to comment the draft Plan and promote three sites for inclusion as
housing allocations within the plan. The response is by question order.
The 3 sites are:
Land at Three Maypoles Farm Shirley
Land at r/o 2214 Stratford Road Hockley Heath
Land adj 161 Lugtrout Lane Solihull

The responses on the three sites to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation
are attached and which highlight the reasons why the sites should be allocations
within the Local Plan.

This document should also be read in conjunction with the Ecology Report and
Heritage Assessment in relation to land adj to 161 Lugtrout Lane, Solihull.
Your attention is also drawn to the attached Masterplan for land r/o 2214 Stratford
Road Hockley Heath.

Not withstanding that this is an informal consultation we consider that the document
should be accompanied by an up to date SA.

This is the response of Stonewater to the supplementary consultation by Solihull
Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is
to comment the draft Plan and promote the site at the Firs Maxstoke Lane (west of
Meriden proposed allocation site 10) for inclusion as a housing allocation within the
Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the site should be an allocation within the
Local Plan (Site Ref 137).

see detailed comment in attached letter

This is the response of Mr Taj Khan, Sid Kelly and John Green to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site at 15,
59, & 61 Jacobean Lane Knowle for inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan
and land north of Jacobean Lane being removed from the Green Belt and to support
the removal of land from the Green Belt to rectify anomalies and for consistency.
See detail response in attached letter and appendices

This is the response of Minton to the supplementary consultation by Solihull Council
on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is to
comment the draft Plan and promote the site at Oak Farm Catherine de Barnes for
inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the full Oak Farm site should be an
allocation within the Local Plan. We have also carried out our own Green Belt
Assessment a copy of which is attached

see attached letter

Please find attached my objection to the allocation of Site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common for consideration

BARRAGE letter of objection

I have just attended the presentation in Balsall common held by the Berkswell parish council. I have attempted to answer the online questionnaire - but it does not allow answers to more than one question and deletes comments to earlier questions!

However - my objection lies in the fact that residents in Balsall Common and Berkswell - we live in both parishes - chose to do so because it is surrounded by green space and countryside. While I recognise that new homes are needed I object to the significant number proposed for our area. While this may be recognised as nimbyism you ask if as residents we support the plans and I do not. Such huge changes to our area will drive current residents away and change significantly the character of our village.

The residents of the new homes will endure limited green space and infrastructure pressure. The current infrastructure is already under pressure - medical services, schools and roads are under strain and I fail to see how this an be adapted to cater for such proposed growth. Cycle paths are short and end in major roads, in Windmill lane ( where I live) there are no footpaths , nor mains sewers or gas - is it realistic to think the village can be transformed to provide all these service to a much larger population when it cannot do so at present ! The windmill on our lane is an ancient historic monument and yet its importance seems to have been overlooked as it will be sandwiched between new homes and the by pass!

Your questionnaire asks for comments on individual sites - this only achieves a situation where individuals object to development in their area and agree to other site development. This is not an appropriate or reasonable approach, as residents are generally not sufficiently technically knowledgeable about developmental arguments and leads to emotional responses which will no doubt be ignored.

Please think again about the significant number of homes planned for my area - it is unreasonable and unrealistic

see full details in attached response

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.