Question 3 - Infrastructure Requirements at Balsall Common

Showing comments and forms 181 to 191 of 191

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10415

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Roderick Hatton

Representation Summary:

Bypass should become the route for though traffic.
Local traffic only along Kenilworth Road and improved pedestrian facilities.
Larger village with more facilities required.
Earlier build should be on the Western side of the village whilst HS2 is under construction.
A line for a Western bypass should be established.
New development should be of high aesthetic value, giving Balsall Common a special character.

Full text:

These are my views on the Solihull Local Plan Review:

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN - SUPPLEMENTARY CONSULTATION

BALSALL COMMON

QUESTION 4 - SITE 1- BARRETTS FARM


Preservation of the Green Belt in the Meriden Gap:

* Barretts Farm is in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap between Balsall Common and Coventry. With the addition of HS2 it will almost be eliminated.

*Alternative sites for development to the North of Balsall Common should be considered, making use of Hampton in Arden rail station.


Preserving green space in the area covered by the development:

* To compensate for the loss of Green Belt large areas of open space should provided for public use.

* There should be sizeable areas of undeveloped land containing existing trees and hedgerows to allow for the movement of wildlife.

* Linear tracts of landscaped open space should run through the development following footpaths and cycleways.

* The location of new homes close to existing residences should be avoided as much as possible, and separated by green open space (as at Riddings Hill).


Protecting the property and quality of life of all residents affected by the development:

* Vehicular access to the new housing should be from the new bypass.

* Only pedestrian footpaths and cycleways should be connected to Meeting House Lane, Oxhayes Close and Barretts Lane.

* Barretts Farm development should only be commenced after the completion of HS2, to avoid the massive impact from the construction of two projects at once.

* Construction traffic should not be permitted along Meeting House Lane, it is narrow and has no footpath.

* The bypass should be built first to take construction traffic.


Concept Plan for Barretts Farm:

* All new development should be in accordance with an agreed Concept Plan, even small sites.

* The Eastern bypass should become the route for though traffic, and be part of the A452.

* The existing Kenilworth Road should be for local traffic only, with traffic calming to discourage through traffic. Pedestrian movement across the Kenilworth Road should be improved.

* The increased population will require a larger village centre with more facilities.

* Earlier build should be on the Western side of the village whilst HS2 is under construction.

* A line for a Western bypass should be established to take pressure away from from the Eastern bypass which acts as a feeder road for 900 houses at Barretts Farm.

* The new development should be of high aesthetic value, giving Balsall Common a special character.

* A Design Guide should be produced for developers to comply with. This should give some unity and 'Sense of Place' to the expanded village

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10429

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land Fronting Waste Lane

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

Broadly speaking yes. As noted in our response to question 7, we consider that the identified capacity of the allocation for site 21 of 100 dwellings is significantly underestimated and as such the increase in housing on this site should be considered by the Council in terms of the phasing of infrastructure required. Our Client's land is available now and can provide proportionate contributions to infrastructure early in the Plan period, as required.

Full text:

Please see covering letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10454

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Debbie Wylde

Representation Summary:

No proper thought has been given to how the village will cope with such a massive injection of residents and their motor vehicles into a village with already over loaded and busy roads.
Objects to destruction of lovely site which acts as a wonderful peaceful buffer to increasingly busy roads. Site has no sensible and safe access points for the number of vehicles which will be entering and exiting the site. Plans to build on the Catholic Church field and access via Oxhayes Close is irresponsible and unfair on residents of the cul de sac. Road isn't wide enough and along with the sharp bend and the fact that many residents park on the pavements makes this a dangerous and impractical idea.

Full text:

I am writing again to express how strongly I object to the current plans for the so called future development of Balsall Common and in particular the Barrett's Farm plans. I feel completely let down by SMBC.
We currently live in Oxhayes Close and moved here 16 years ago attracted by the situation of this peaceful cul de sac which is nestled on the edge of a beautiful swathe of green belt. For the last 16 years my family and I have enjoyed walking our dogs along the public footpaths through the beautiful fields that make up the Barrett's farm site. We walk there weekly and often daily in the summer months. I can't express how saddened and angry we all feel at the proposed destruction of this lovely site that acts as such a wonderful peaceful buffer to the increasingly busy bustle of the roads around the village.
I cannot see the sense of locating so many houses and a school on a site which has no sensible and safe access points for the number of vehicles which will be entering and exiting the site.
I also understand that there are plans to build on the Catholic Church field and access this plot via Oxhayes Close. This idea is irresponsible and completely unfair on the residents of this cul de sac. The road isn't wide enough and along with the sharp bend and the fact that many residents park on the pavements makes this a dangerous and impractical idea.
I feel no proper thought has been given to how the village will cope with such a massive injection of residents and their motor vehicles into a village with already over loaded and busy roads.
Sadly I feel that these current proposals in the development plan will be ratified by SMBC regardless of any opinion and emotional appeals expressed by concerned residents. I feel this consultation process is a 'box ticking' exercise and the village has been completely let down by its county council.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10462

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Onions

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 site 3 and copy of BARRAGE letter
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.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10480

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Dominique McGarry

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 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

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10486

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

Objection to scale of development proposed in Balsall Common:
1,700 dwellings to a single rural village appears completely disproportionate.
No discussion on how proposed new infrastructure such as school, bypass, station car park and improved public transport will be funded.
Bypass would draw trade away from the existing centre.
No capacity study carried out for the area.
Ability of the market to absorb and deliver multiple sites at any one time in a rural location should be reviewed.
Balsall Common will be acutely affected by HS2 - both in terms of the physical construction of the line and the disruption and uncertainty that this will bring; but also in terms of market desirability until such time as the line is constructed.
Site 1 in multiple ownerships adding to complexity.

Full text:

We are instructed by our client, David Wilson Homes Ltd, to submit representations to the supplementary consultation on the Draft Local Plan Review in relation to their interests at their site at Tidbury Green Golf Club (known as Arden Green).

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10490

Received: 08/02/2019

Respondent: Ms Natalie Moss

Representation Summary:

I support the development but do not support the developer proposal of gaining access through the existing Elysian Garden development. Its already very busy and hard to get out onto the Kenilworth road. The access would also go along the front of my house (No 43) which was not identified as potential development when I purchased.

Full text:

I support the development but do not support the developer proposal of gaining access through the existing Elysian Garden development. Its already very busy and hard to get out onto the Kenilworth road. The access would also go along the front of my house (No 43) which was not identified as potential development when I purchased.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10507

Received: 21/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Gill

Representation Summary:

Surrounding road infrastructure is not suitable - Hob Lane and Waste Lane are country lanes. Countryside should be protected at all cost.

Full text:

This area of land provides countryside and walks for Balsall Common residents that is rapidly disappearing in other areas. It provides a boundary between Balsall Common and Kenilworth. Housing in this area would be very close to the HS2 with possible noise problems.
Surrounding road infrastructure is not suitable - Hob Lane and Waste Lane are country lanes. Countryside should be protected at all cost.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10520

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Richard Onions

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 site 3 and copy of BARRAGE letter
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.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10532

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

Representation Summary:

Severn Trent Water response:
Results of our high level sewer capacity assessment highlights some possible risks - of the proposed development on the sewerage and surface water network.
For most developments we do not foresee any particular issues. Where we consider there may be an issue we would discuss in further detail with the Local Planning Authority. Once detailed developments and site specific locations are confirmed by local councils, we are able to provide more specific comments and modelling of the network if required. We will complete any necessary improvements to provide additional capacity once we have sufficient confidence that a development will go ahead.
High impact sites in Balsall Common:
- Field Between Waste Lane and Old Waste Lane
- Frog Lane
- Pheasant Oak Farm
- Barretts Farm
- Windmill Lane - Kenilworth Road
Medium Impact Sites in Balsall Common:
- Trevallion Stud

Full text:

see attached document

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10562

Received: 18/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Christina O'Sullivan

Representation Summary:

I feel you have totally omitted a new doctors surgery. It serves 9000 people at the moment - with extra homes in Balsall Common it will increase the population by half again, which will all need to use the surgery - A big omission not including a new surgery on one of the new housing sites.

Full text:

I agree a bypass for Balsall Common is well overdue, as quoted in your plan 80% of the traffic goes straight through Balsall Common on the A452. The stress on that road being used for HS2 and housing construction traffic will cause grid lock in Balsall Common. We already experience this on many occasions if the M6, M40 or the M42 are closed, all traffic gets re routed via the A452.
Your focus on the HS2 construction traffic is applauded which I focused on in my HS2 petition on December 1st 2014 at 2.57pm. The destruction to our lanes and lives would be overwhelming and totally destructive so the Haul Route is a welcomed addition to the management of the construction for HS2 and the housing invasion.
Whilst reviewing your plans for Barretts Farm in particular, I realised although you have taken into account that 1600 more dwellings means we cannot accommodate pupils in our existing schools, which already have waiting lists, with the inclusion of a new primary school, I was dismayed that you had not included a new shopping centre. I welcome your intention to set up a "Village Centre Master Plan" to improve our existing village centre. We have already proposed plans for shared space and changes to the library car park which SMBC have been included in consultation and we have pavements that are dangerous and trees half cut down which although we have informed SMBC nothing has been done.
Station Parking improvements are a must which you have included. This will accommodate the overflow of vehicles we already have that park on Station Road and Hall Meadow. If you add to that the lorry movement of 400 lorries a day down Meadow Hall for 3 years this is essential.
Phasing Barrett's Farm and using the bypass for construction vehicles is a must as you have suggested.
I do however believe you have not shown us any plans on how you will accommodate another 1725 houses, which will at an estimate of all the houses being 3 beds will mean another 5175 residents, needing to use the surgery. At the last census in 2011 which does not include recent house builds in our area such as Elysian Gardens there were 9050 residents in Berkswell and Balsall Common. So you are going to add more than half our population again without building another surgery.
You cannot get an appointment at the surgery now without a long wait and I cannot see how 8 doctors will be able to accommodate this. I believe this is a serious omission to your plans.