Question 4 - Site 1 - Barratts Farm

If we have to have the number of houses, using one site to house all the requirements for the village appears the best option rather than several sites across the village cause disruption all over the village.

This land interacts with the buried high pressure pipeline in this location, and the easement (3m each side) needs to be protected.

I disagree that this green belt land doesn't perform highly in the Green Belt Assessment. This land is quite clearly either farmed land or shrub.
With a total of 900 houses Barrett's farm land will be far to densely populated and more than the surrounding area.
Not enough park space for the size and numbers of houses.

Building a very substantial housing development on Barratt's Farm will totally alter the semi-rural feel of Balsall Common and would destroy large sections of green belt. Balsall Common simply does not have the capacity in its village centre or its amenities to deal with the extra population which would be created by such a large development.

My response now remains similar to that I made for draft 1.
I feel that unless detailed planning goes into the infrastructure problem in Balsall Common then the extra houses are not appropriate.
However if we are being told that the infrastructure is being planned, public transport improved , anew school and re;ief road then I must comment on the sites.
The Brownfield sites must be taken before greenfields.
Barretts farm is a suitable site if the design, green spaces and the and concept plans are agreed.
Sites 2 and 3 as I have stated previously are about as far from the facilities of the village as they can be. They are reasonably close to the schools but they are full. I do not support these two sites.
On site 2 it is because local residents have always thought of Ba;lsall st. and Balsall St East to be the bpoundary once you extend into the green belt here then Oakes farm, Fenleigh Court land and land further north will become vulnerable. Secondly it is virgin green belt and third there does not appear to be, according to the councils comments, a suitable main entrance or a secondary entrance. The concept plan does not respect the housholders along the main road where developers initially promised a green bund or similar..
With Site 3 there are large areas where the Greater Crested newts have to be protected and other areas that you state cannot be used for housing such as close to the windmill so why bother when the site is so inaccessible.

Our ref: HS2-SMB-PE-013

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for consulting HS2 Ltd on the above matter, we have the following comments and observations on the document.

High level references are made to the arrival of HS2 in the Borough and as such there are no immediate concerns in 'soundness' terms from a safeguarding planning perspective.

On a more detailed level it is noted that there are two sites proposed for allocation affected by the HS2 formal safeguarding direction for Phase 1.

Ref: Site 1 Barratt's Farm

HS2 Ltd welcomes the addition of text recognising the need to phase the delivery of the site until later in the plan-period so as to avoid conflict with HS2.

Ref: Site 21 Lavender Hall Farm

This site is referred to as Site 21 in the 'Solihull Local plan Allocations - Draft Concept Masterplans document', however, in the 'Reviewing the plan Solihull's future supplementary consultation 2019' the site is referred to as Site 23. Furthermore, while this site is also affected by the HS2 safeguarding direction, it is noted that there is no mention (similar to the text included for Site Ref 1) of a potential need to phase this development within the plan-period in order to avoid conflict with HS2.

In addition, in advance of preparing these comments, HS2 Ltd made contact with Charlene Jones (SMBC) regarding a cartographic issue relating to both of the sites referred to above. Site plans within the Solihull Local Plan Review Draft Concept Masterplans document present an area that is referred to as 'HS2 safeguarded land' using a purple shading. HS2 Ltd understands from discussions that the extent of the purple shaded area shown in these plans reflects land subject to formal safeguarding directions + a buffer which has been applied by the local authority to assist with its internal processes and procedures. Therefore, the area indicated as safeguarded by these plans is not consistent with that to which the formal safeguarding directions apply. To avoid potential confusion it would be appreciated if future plans and policies maps indicate the extent of land that is subject to formal safeguarding directions.

Below are links to published guidance relating to HS2 for Local Planning Authorities and where the latest safeguarding maps can be found:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/735577/Phase_1_SG_Directions_LPA_guidance.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-safeguarding-maps-solihull-birmingham-and-warwickshire

I accept the rational of moving the Green belt boundary to the new HS2 line, and with access off the Hallmeadow Road roundabout near the station. But losing this large open space needs substantial compensating measures within it to maximise green space areas within, provide additional footpaths throughout, and encourage safe spaces for all the community. New development on this scale should have an overall coherence. There need to be several points of minor access into the area so that it does not become an isolated enclave.

We oppose the inclusion of Site 1 because of its vital role in preserving the Meriden Gap and the significant heritage, landscape and ecological assets across the site.

The Green Belt Assessment is flawed. Site 1 is assessed as not performing highly even though it extends into Broad Area 4 which performs highly in Green Belt terms.
We would also refer you to the detailed comments and revised Green Belt scoring for this site (revising the GBA score of 6 to a score of 9) in the Berkswell Parish Council response to Draft Local Plan, p33-34.
The plan is insufficiently developed. It must be strengthened to cover the whole site by including all proposed small adjoining sites and to prevent inappropriate piecemeal development ahead of HS2 completion. There should be no development until HS2 is completed.
It must ensure the rural aspect of the land is maintained and preserved by retaining established trees and hedgerows and green space is clearly shown between existing and new development.
We strongly oppose the consideration of local access points onto Meeting House Lane p.15 either for construction work or new housing. This traditional lane is entirely unsuitable for additional traffic.

I think it important that a green strip is maintained between existing housing on Meeting House Lane and the new Barratt's farm development, similar to the gap/park between Riddings Hill Estate and the older housing to the west of it.

No comment

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

Given HS2 construction up to 2025 (and beyond?) before the construction on Barratts Farm can start (and the School and Parking spaces) will anything be built before the end of this plan period in 2028?

Any By-pass proposals or links between the A45/A46 will suffer the same delays.

Do you need alternative plans?

The imposition of 900 homes in one part of the village will significantly damage the rural aspect of the village.

The concept plan is too vague-hard to consult on a non verified picture.

Infrastructure improvements outlined will not address the increase of numbers of vehicles, people and movements.

Increase in emissions from increased vehicle movements will be significant, as recent developments have shown that car usage increases,even for short journeys.

If the Barratts lane development does go forward in some form,I support the bypass solution, with access to the site from there.I do not support access from the village side.

The fragmented nature of ownership will make the coordination of development difficult. It is currently unclear where the entry/exit roads to the development will be - will it be via Waste lane/Station road? The surrounding roads such as Meeting house lane, Sunnyside lane etc are not capable of dealing with additional traffic without impacting the quality of life of the residents. Clarification should be provided. If a primary school was to be included then this would increase traffic over and above the residents only traffic making entry/exit more important.

The scale of development proposed on Site 1 is unacceptable. There should be much less housing and much more open space. Access should be only from the proposed bypass and not from Meeting House Lane or other existing residential roads.

The proposed development is too large in scale, taking place at the narrowest part of the Meriden gap. Alternative sites in the area were put forward and the Council simply took them as additional housing, putting even more pressure on the community. Along with HS2, the pressure that would be put on the area should be unacceptable to the Council.
Access shopuld be from the 'bypass' and Station Road only and there should be open parkland between the development and the present housing which has worked well at Riddings Hill.

1. Over development and no allowance has been made for the the recent increase of noise projection
from HS2
2. The Catholic site should be retained for football as no other site available in south of village
3. The principal accesses have been defined but there should be a guarantee that no access will be
onto Barratts Lane, Oxhayes or Meeting House Lane

Erosion of green belt and weakening of the Meriden Gaps main purpose to stop urban sprawl. If developed all access to be from the bypass/feeder road thereby ensuring vehicle traffic is removed from centre of village.Land adjacent to existing properties Meeting House Lane Oxhayes Close should be preserved as an open recreational space for formal and informal use providing a buffer zone to be enjoyed by both old and new settlements as Riddings Hill. No piecemeal development of small sites around Barretts Farm. Concept plan so incomplete it is of little use to comprehend likely outcome needs more work

It is inappropriate to allocate the site for several reasons.

Firstly it is poorly related to jobs in the conurbation and whilst Balsall Common has a good level of services the employment balance is very poor. There is access to a station but the site is mostly remote from good quality bus services.

Secondly there is a problem of the affect on the Listed Buildings in and close to the site. It is established case law that Parliament's intention in enacting section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 was that decision-makers should give "considerable importance and weight" to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the balancing exercise. Barnwell Manor Wind Energy v East Northamptonshire Council and others, [2014] EWCA Civ 137

The Barratts Farm Development will have an impact on the setting of several listed buildings and the statutory duty means that the requirement to have good architectural standard does not satisfy the test established by the courts. The 'preserving' of the setting has been held by the Courts to mean doing no harm which indicates that the starting point means the whole of the area within the field of vision of each listed building could be sterilised thus pointing to at least a significant reduction in the number of dwellings achievable which may have an adverse impact on delivery of infrastructure.

Finally the site is ineffective as delivery of the primary education cannot be achieved. Solihull's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) scheme does not allow procurement via section 106 Agreements of Primary Education facilities in this location under Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.

The concept plan has a number of areas which I support, most notably the graduated density of housing and the designation of areas of ecological importance which if preserved would maintain a vital green buffer for local wildlife and act as protection for existing residents amenity.
It is therefore disappointing to note that I have been told that at a recent drop in event, attendees were being invited to dispute the site classification whereas I was previously informed that the designation was confirmed.
However the plan as presented makes no reference to the draft Berkswell Neighbourhood development plan. As with other localities plans, this should be taken into account when reviewing any future concept plans for this site.
As noted in my response to Question 3 (Infrastructure) I am strongly opposed to the creation of vehicular access from the proposed estate into Meeting House Lane.
i. Meeting House Lane is a rural location with no pavements on its southern section (a route used by many school children and parents when walking to school). Speeding traffic is already a challenge and any new access from the development could introduce a significant number of new car journies destroying the nature of the lane for ever.
ii. In addition the junction between Meeting House Lane and Kelsey Lane is already dangerous with its partly blind corner. Significant additional traffic would require significant upgrade of this junction.
iii. Further traffic on the lane could also serve to further isolate the new community from the existing village.

This latter concern could be addressed though allowing combination of pedestrian and cycle paths which whilst preventing increased traffic flow, enable increased green travel opportunities within the environs of the enlarged village.

Housing Proposals for Balsall Common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are better alternatives to releasing such a large area from Green Belt in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap. Will not be available until HS2 is complete.
Concept Master Plans are welcomed but we've major concerns that, over the long term, pressure from multiple landowners/developers will result in significant changes to the detriment of both new and existing residents.
No notice has been taken of Berkswell's NDP especially regarding the concept plan. This states no access to new development off residential roads (MHL, Oxhayes Close, Barretts Lane) and requires open public spaces between existing and new settlements.

The concept plan has a number of areas which I support, most notably the graduated density of housing and the designation of areas of ecological importance which if preserved would maintain a vital green buffer for local wildlife.
It is therefore disappointing to note that I have been told that at a recent drop in event, attendees were being invited to dispute the site classification whereas I was previously informed that the designation was confirmed.
However the plan as presented makes no reference to the draft Berkswell Neighbourhood development plan. As with other localities plans, this should be taken into account when reviewing any future concept plans for this site.
As noted in my response to Question 3 (Infrastructure) I am strongly opposed to the creation of vehicular access from the proposed estate into Meeting House Lane.
i. Meeting House Lane is a rural location with no pavements on its southern section (a route used by many school children and parents when walking to school). Speeding traffic is already a challenge and any new access from the development could introduce a significant number of new car journies destroying the nature of the lane for ever.
ii. In addition the junction between Meeting House Lane and Kelsey Lane is already dangerous with its partly blind corner. Significant additional traffic would require significant upgrade of this junction.
iii. Further traffic on the lane could also serve to further isolate the new community from the existing village.
This latter concern could be addressed though allowing combination of pedestrian and cycle paths which whilst preventing increased traffic flow, enable increased green travel opportunities within the environs of the enlarged village.

The Plan demands a huge 45% increase in size of Balsall Common (1750 habitations on top of 3900), which will have a disproportionate and damaging effect. The green belt will be severely reduced, while the quality of life, well-being and lifestyle of existing residents will be greatly changed. It is not clear that sufficient and timely resources will be in place for the benefit of such an influx of population (who will need extra amenities for health, education, transport, jobs, shops, living-space etc etc). I once lived in a place massively-expanded under a Plan, and things did not work out as expected. Sustainability, accessibility, effect on the environment are difficult to quantify, but what effectively the concreting-over of an already-full village pressurise the infrastructure to the extreme.
I have elaborated these points in the attached file, which also covers my answers variously to Questions 4 to 10

Please see my attachment

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

This a is a beautiful part of greenbelt, and the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap.
It beggers belief it is being considered for housing! Isn't it enough that HS2 is destroying the greenway?
How can a "bypass" with 2 exist, cater for 900 houses, say 1800 cars..?
A huge fuel pipeline is being installed through these fields right now, how can that be built upon..?
The village will be ruined.
The village centre is crazy busy now, little scope to enlarge.

The roads cannot handle the current load so how can they handle any more cars. These are all country lanes not suitable for what is proposed. Dickens Heath is already gridlocked in the mornings and Haslucks Green Road is unbelievable.y busy so traffic won't be able to go either way. To think that all the residents of the proposed site will use the train is just fantasy. The schools are already over subscribed and health care is over stretched already. We have already had to put up with Dickens Heath and all the add ons that are still being built and Tidbury Heights.

The following comments are made by those that have an interest in the development of the land at Meeting Housing Lane adjacent to Blessed Robert Grissold Catholic Church. This compromises the Catholic parish of Blessed Robert Grissold, the Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham and Restful Homes, a provider of a range of retirement living that enables effective down-sizing for the over 55's and provide the level of support and care necessary to provide for their personal care, thereby adding a social dimension to our proposed development

Provision of car parking for station is essential
Provision of affordable housing is essential
Adequate areas for recreation including sport, dog walking etc should be provided
Control of parking near new school is essential