Question 4 - Site 1 - Barratts Farm

Balsall Common town itself is not an attractive place, but to live in Balsall Common is attractive thanks to the surrounding countryside.
Building on all available land means that the British countryside is losing to yet more ugly houses. So many years down the line, what kind of quality of life is the next generation going to have?

There is more opportunity for (better) development in town centre. There is a need for more accommodation but building hundreds of individual houses sounds very inefficient. If you need to tackle the housing deficiency, build more flats in the town centre.

There are no clear accesss routes. Oxhayes Close, Barratt's Lane and Meeting HouseLane would be unsuitable for access.
There should be a clear green space between existing and new developments as per The Grovefield Estate.
Any development should not start until HS2 is completed.
This is true green belt land where crops grow and cows graze. Once lost it is gone forever.
There are several oak trees all with TPOs .

Too much meriden gap greenbelt, I agree housing is required but not this much. Needs to be phased, and no building until HS2 is complete. Balsall Common is taking on an unreasonable about of housing compared to the rest of the borough. It's simply not fair and the village can't cope. Traffic is horrendous at the best of times so with this many extra houses and people, the village will be a constant traffic jam.

See attached document

There must be a better alternative to releasing such a large area from Green Belt in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap which will not be available until HS2 is complete.

See attachment Question 4

re SMBC,"s Draft Local Development Plan for Balsall Common

Firstly the Meriden gap is being eroded by this development.
The Meriden gap was made as a prevention to restrain the urban scrawl in the West Midlands conurbation between Birmingham and Coventry. (Paragraph 96 ) states that this plan will enhance the Green Belt! It is clearly under threat with these plans of urbanisation. How is this enhancing it by building Balsall Common 1/2 as big again!
Coventry have already made plans to build up to the Solihull Borough at Berkswell boundary. Coventry are already constructing at Burton Green in Warwickshire ,
SMBC "s plans will erode it further. It is only 2km at this point.

Once land is released from the Green Belt (paragraph 97) it cannot be reclaimed, the benefit of this lovely countryside will be gone forever. Looking at map of areas planned for development Balsall Common and especially Berkswell will no longer be a village and a rural area, which is why we enjoy living here with easy access to walks across the fields and countryside

Barratt"s Farm which is right next to where I live is at the narrowest point of the Meriden Gap. All those beautiful fields will be lost especially with HS2 and the By pass as well in this area and side of village!

There are possible alternative sites for building away from this valued piece of Green Belt section 15. & Paragraph 405 e.g site numbers 76 &212 at Cornets End Lane which could be used for a new settlement.

Secondly Green space must be preserved within the area covered by the development.
In the NDP it seeks to maintain and preserve the rural character of the area , which the existing residence would like to keep. No mention has been made of the NDP for Berkswell unlike those of Hampton and Meriden.
Paragraph 95 Concept Master Plans should:
- develop a tract of open space running through the majority of Barrett's Farm, much like Riddings Hill, with recreational amenities, play areas and retention/ development of nature reserve areas.
- There are some magnificent oak tree in Berkswell Parish these have preservation orders on them and must be retained along with established hedgerows and must be incorporated into any development in keeping with the rural area.
- long established use of playing fields and recreational spaces must be incorporated and new areas established.
- it is also very important to establish safe pathways and cycle routes away from traffic to the village centre as there certainly won't be any room to park with the housing being increase by 59%,!

The protection of existing residents property and quality of life of all residents must not be affected by the development.
- As a long time resident of Balsall Common (33 Years) I am looking for vision and not the reproduction of another standard lookalike housing estate and village centre. That is why we choose to live here and have never moved. I know we need change and extra housing is required, we do not need to increase as much as 50% in this area it is not in keeping. Why is it not put in other parts of the Borough? It is spoiling the rural aspect of the area.Paragraph 57
- ensure that the least possible disturbance is caused to existing residents whilst building any part of this new development.
-The location-of new housing close to existing residences should be kept to a minimum and where practical separated by a green open area , not opening up existing roads and using hem as access to the new development. Access to New development should have their own access from new roads created to keep traffic flow and congestion to a minimum
- Existing roads and lanes around the development are insufficient to cope with additional traffic. Meeting house lane should be kept as it is and not used and become an access point for a first phase of building before HS2 is completed. Any access along this road or the roads that feed off it would change the character and country feel of a traditional lane and would change the ambiance of a rural feel for ever.
- All traffic for new development must be directed away from existing resident areas towards the new bypass that will provide the main vehicle access.
- I live in Oxhayes Close coming off Meeting House lane which is a small culdesac with a sharp bend where our house is half way up,. It is a blind bend and there are often cars parked outside house on this corner, so is one lane only, one proposal is to open up our road as access to build possibly 40 homes . It would be very dangerous traffic wise and would also put extra possibly 80 cars ( 2 car a household) using Meeting house lane and Oxhayes Close. The access from our roD is dangerous with the pinch point existing hedges and bushes it is often hard to see on coming traffic when turning onto Meeting House Lane. This would also cause traffic build up coming in and out of Oxhayes to and from Meeting House Lane with the pinch points. The pinch points are very necessary as they slow the traffic down and stops Meeting House lane being a fast cut through for traffic instead of Kenilworth road. It would also not be in keeping with the existing housing in this area. At the end of the road was originally used as a play area with swings and slides and field used as a football pitch.groun. It is vital that areas like this should be redeveloped as open space for recreational activities which will be much needed with the Barratts Farm development.
At the end of our road are some lovely old oak trees which have preservation orders on them, there would be no access unless these were taken out, which goes against trying to keep the feel of the existing rural environment and preserving out trees and hedgerows.. Taking them out and removing their long established routes could also do damage to the nearest existing houses, one of which has extensive underpinning .

Concept Plan for Barratts Farm
- The emerging concept plan for Barratts Farm not clear and insufficiently developed to enable a clear assessment for residents to realise it s full impact on them. It raises more concerns then it addresses. The site is complex with 13 different landowners, HS2, proposed bypass and school. The plan needs to be strong from day one for the whole site. Paragraph 101
-there should be no development of Barratts Farm until after HS2 is completed, the village and especially the residents could not cope with traffic and extra disruption . The main access points must be from Station road near the Station and Waste lane from the other side.
- green space between existing and new development is not clearly shown on the concept plans at this stage. This must be made clear before any work begins.
- The concept plan as published is an emerging one and there hopefully will be major revision before it is finally issued taking in the needs and views of existing residents who will be greatly affected by this plan. Piecemeal planning must not be allowed otherwise this will not happen it must be a clear and planning policies must be robust and adhered to. It is dangerous that once land has been allowed to be removed from the green belt land will be sold off to developers who will apply for planning permissions.

My personal views on development
Balsall Common will no longer have a rural feel to it, which is why we chose to live here having moved from Water Orton 33years ago That has now been ruined by major roads and development. My concerns are that will happen here, with 50% increase in housing we will become a sprawling Conurbation with no amenities joined on to Coventry, it will not be rural village in the countryside, although it has grown it still has that feel but with this development it certainly will not
At the moment the village already struggles with parking at certain times of the day, I am lucky as I can walk up but, I have to drive to get to my house either through the village dicing with the people stopping and reversing in and out of space with often no regard for drivers who are driving through to get home, or along Hallmeadow road an up Station road with all the cars parked because there is insufficient parking for Station now,! We will need 80% increase in a new station car park to accommodate new housing and existing cars parked on road.. it is very dangerous at times driving up the hill from the Station by The Bricklayers arms, imagine with the increase of traffic and a bypass. Sensible provision of parking amenities must be provided for at Station and village. With the increased traffic it is going to take me a lot longer to access my house coming from both Solihull or from dual carriageway. How is the village going to sustain the increase of traffic and people?
More trains stopping here will also be needed, at moment x2 an hour and you have to stand during busy periods.. enter bus service including the evenings to Solihull .
More amenities will be required for leisure, open space, expanding the doctors surgery, the new school should be built first as the existing primary school cannot take any new people moving into village .
We will become a small town with no character just a sprawl of houses in the middle of country nearly joined to Coventry with no amenities like town, this is not in keeping with the villages of Balsall Common and Berkswell.
Why is all the building going into Berkswell Parish and not the other side of the village. It should be more eventually balance out especially with the disruption of HS2 and bypass both this side of the village, there are pockets of building land the other side of village . What about the area from Greenfield Avenue up to Wooton green lane and up to and beyond The George in tree easy access onto Kenilworth road.. I know there were areas there that were put forward as building land.
There are large pollution implications with HS2, bypass, extra traffic with development and the planes that take off and land over Balsall Common. This has an impact on old and new residents and also the new school which is tied near the proposed bypass..
why is the bypass not going to the West of Balsall Common , it was one of the original suggested routes.. why put so much together down next to HS2 which will be a huge disruption and a blot on the landscape cutting Berkswell Parish in half.
Also what justification is there for choosing to make Balsall Common for Your housing needs. What is the matter with Dickens Heath which was a new developed village in Solihull, these new houses would fit in much better to the existing environment. Or Hockley Heath, which has much better access to M42/M40 and nearer to Solihull town centre or Shirley where there are lots of amenities, we haven't we are in the country.
Solihull have ignored the Berkswell NDP in their plans and not taking or car d about existing residents
I feel it is very sad what is happening to our rural village and the beautiful countryside being eroded. )

The preparations for HS2 have affected a much wider area than originally suggested. Our day to day lives are significantly affected by the current HS2 work -specifically - frequent road closures and diversions affecting travel plans, constant heavy traffic affecting our roads and daily routine and walking paths closed and diverted. This will only worsen as HS2 work progresses. These plans centre on the area of Balsall Common most impacted by HS2. Layering onto this work to build houses and related infrastructure in this area would make our daily routine unbearable.

This site seems to be included to justify/fund a bypass for which no evidence has been presented.
It is highly valued for walking by residents and at the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap.
The plan does not take account of the Berkswell Parish NDP and appears compromised by the multiple land ownerships. The Berkswell NDP should be taken into account and a plan for the entire site developed not compromised by the diverse ownership.
No normal vehicular access should be allowed from minor roads and public green space should be planned between old and new developments

section 5 of SMBC draft local housing plan re its intentions for Balsall Common
Preservation of the Green Belt in the Meriden Gap
--------------------------------------------------
1) The purpose of the Meriden Gap was to prevent the urban sprawl in the West Midlands conurbation between Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull. However it is clearly under threat with these plans. Paragraph 96 states that this plan will enhance the Green Belt but how does it do that. Once land is released from the Green Belt as per paragraph 97 then the benefit of the Meriden Gap will be gone forever.
2) Barratt's Farm is at the narrowest point of the Meriden Gap so instead of this development the council should consider building on site numbers 76 and 212 at Cornets End Lane (section 15 and Paragraph 405).

Preserve Green Space within the area covered by the development
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No mention is made in the plan of the emerging neighbourhood development plan for Berkswell (unlike those of Meriden and Hampton in Arden).This NDP seeks to maintain and preserve the rural character of the area.
If Barratt's Farm is to be developed a tract of open space should run throughout it, providing easy access for existing residents and the potential new householders for recreational amenities and playing fields .Safe pathways and cycle routes should be created away from traffic to the village centre whilst retaining existing public footpaths. The Solihull plan does not appear to achieve these aims.

Protection of Property and Quality of Life of all residents affected by the development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMBC must ensure that the least possible disturbance to existing residents is caused during the building of the development.
The location of houses close to the existing residences should be kept to a minimum and where practicable separated by a green open area that could be used for organised and informal pursuits.
Existing roads and lanes around the development are insufficient to cope with additional traffic from the site. Meeting House Lane must not be allowed to become an access point for a first Phase of building before HS2 is completed. Any access would change the character and country feel of a traditional lane and it would change the ambiance forever.
The possible development of the 2 fields behind the Catholic Church should not be allowed as these should be retained as they are and should be available for the community to use. If any development does occur here then access must not be via Oxhayes Close as this is a narrow cul de sac with cars regularly parked on the road near the narrow corner and the view on exit into Meeting House Lane is restricted and with the pinch points this would become a bottleneck.
All traffic must be directed away from the existing residential areas towards the bypass that will provide the main vehicular access.

The Concept Plan for Barratt's Farm
------------------------------------
I note a suggestion that Barratt's Farm would not be developed(in the main) until HS2 is completed(Paragraph 103).I am not confident that the Concept plan addresses this. The construction of HS2 is going to cause major disruption to the residents of Balsall Common and therefore there should be no development until after HS2 is completed and the main access points should be from Station Road and Waste Lane which are the major roads adjoining the site.

General Comments on the proposed development
--------------------------------------------------
What is Solihull Councils justification for selecting Balsall Common for much of their housing needs. Why are houses previously planned for elsewhere (Dickens Heath) now being moved to Balsall Common.
The developments proposed will potentially increase the population of Balsall Common by 50 per cent which will have a very adverse affect due to the following:
Congestion due to much increased traffic.
Car Parking at the Station is already insufficient resulting in a large number of cars parking on adjoining roads. In addition if a new school is built near the station then even more street parking is likely to occur in that area.
There is already insufficient parking at the shops in the village centre most of the time. Therefore with the additional number of vehicles resulting from the large increase in the population of Balsall Common proposed there would be complete chaos at the village centre.

No it is in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap and appears to have been selected to fund a bypass that is not otherwise required

I wish to object to the plans to build houses on green belt on Barrett's Farm.
There is no clear route for access.
Any construction should be done after HS2 to minimise disruption and provide potentially better access.
Transport- No plans for further trains, just false claims that there maybe more trains!
No clear plans on how bypass would be funded.
Village centre needs major overall. Money from Development will go to Berkswell Parish and not Balsall Common so will not improve village centre.
Solihull have ignored the Berkswell NDP in their plans so are they considering the existing residents?

Half of this site scored of 12 in the Atkins assessment and that element cannot be included within the housing allocation. It will irreparably harm the greenbelt, reducing the width of the Meriden gap by 50%. This site was proposed for development in March 2016 by SMBC at a meeting with Berkswell PC before any analysis was undertaken.

The site has huge amenity and wellbeing value to the community through the network of footpaths.linked to the Greenway. These are probably the best and most accessible network of footpaths in the borough and no account has been taken of this loss.

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

I feel very sad that such a wonderful area of historic countryside will be lost forever. I feel it cannot be called progress

The Local Governing Body of Balsall Common Primary School (BCPS) believes as per our representation in Question 3 regarding infrastructure requirements for Balsall Common, would be sufficient to accommodate a 5 form, multi-story primary. The proposal from the Leadership Team at BCPS is to build up, rather than out retaining the same footprint as a 2-form entry school. This would further enhance the sound and visual barrier against HS2.

But it must be developed after HS2 construction and there should be no access from the development onto meeting house lane, barretts lane or oxhayes close. These are narrow residential roads; much of Meeting House Lane has no pavement. Bypass must be single carriageway so that it cannot be used as an extension of any other link road in future.

900 homes in one plot is wholly excessive for a village of this size. Why is Balsall Common having to adopt such a huge chunk of the housing needs for Solihull? This is a village and should be treated as such. Brownfield sites need to be used. It is not fair to solve Solihull's housing needs by taking away Balsall common's green space and character as a village.

The Ecological Assessment (Jan 17) for this site identifies habitats of high and moderate ecological value including ponds, species rich hedgerows, veteran trees and meadow grasslands. It makes recommendations for the retention and restoration of the meadow rich grasslands, retention of the species rich hedgerows and the network of ponds which are thought likely to contain Great Crested Newts (protected species).
The Developer proposal does not retain these areas of significant ecological value and therefore we do not support thier concept plan.
The SMBC Illustrative Emerging Concept Masterplan shows the areas of significant ecological constraint are retained along with the hedgerows and some ponds. We would better support this concept plan for the site, but recommend that there is a requirement to provide net gain for biodiversity within the site itself (rather than compensate off-site) given the current value of the natural environment and its position within the landscape.

This seems like a sensible way to extend the village in a controlled manner and in an area that is close to central amenities

The site is one to be considered, but using the station as a positive link to public transport is somewhat farcical. There are two trains an hour, nowhere near sufficient for commuters to access the variety of areas they will need for work. The road network in the region is poor, and blocked by insufficient parking facilities at the station meaning existing commuters choose to park badly on surrounding roads. The speed that cars travel that road would make walking with young children not viable or safe, and the very low railway bridge results in high vehicles hitting it and blocking the road on a regular basis. A better option would be to use this to recreate the infrastructure the village needs. Relocate the schools to purpose built sites - perhaps creating a junior and senior campus, with traffic flows to avoid the "school run chaos", leaving the existing primary school site as a dedicated infant and nursery school site. The HoE site could be demolished and used for housing, or a dedicated community facility.

Yes, with considerations in mind.

Whilst the HS2 train line offers an opportunity for a defensible boundary, it is important to consider how it interacts with the local environment. There are references to a viaduct in this area. Whilst this would have less impact on surface water run-off than an embankment, the development itself is likely to impact potential flooding in the northern part of the site. The concept masterplan shows a minimal amount of Sustainable Drainage System in the area of potential effect. Whilst more detailed analysis would clearly be forthcoming during any planning process, it is important to clarify the interaction between HS2 plans and this development at an early stage. Retrospective changes are likely to be very costly and run the risk of damage to residents' property. The fact that this location has been proposed for the school and high density housing is of some concern with regards to flooding. Whilst I recognise the benefit of higher densities offering greater shielding/screening from HS2, this location runs the risk of both exacerbating the issues to a greater extent (with large areas of tarmac around schools) and exposing more people to greater risk from flooding. Ensuring permeability of surface treatments would be a minimum, but rigorous SuDS and Flood Management Plans would be essential before bringing these plans forward further.

Please see covering letter

Please see covering letter

Please see covering letter

Please see covering letter

Please see covering letter

Please see covering letter

Why place the high density housing next to the green belt as this will impose over the green belt. It would be better to place the high density housing towards the village centre.With the low density housing next to the green belt

See Letters

.I do not agree that Barrett's farm should be included as an allocated site because Solihull Council has failed to study alternatives and there are errors in the site selection methodology. Furthermore the green belt assessments indicate a large part of this site is scored as Solihull's most valuable greenbelt. Based on this it is hard to understand how the site selection methodolgy has resulted in the selection of this site.