Question 6 - Site 3 - Windmill Lane
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9063
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
The site is a considerable distance from amenities and is unsustainable in terms of travel, which will lead to greater car usage resulting in further traffic congestion and problems over parking both at the Railway Station and in Balsall Common Centre. The large removal of land from the Green Belt has not been fully assessed, and it also fails to fully assess the impact of large scale development on the listed ancient Windmill which is an important heritage site.
The site is a considerable distance from amenities and is unsustainable in terms of travel, which will lead to greater car usage resulting in further traffic congestion and problems over parking both at the Railway Station and in Balsall Common Centre. The large removal of land from the Green Belt has not been fully assessed, and it also fails to fully assess the impact of large scale development on the listed ancient Windmill which is an important heritage site.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9090
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Debbie Hatfield
Development should not take place opposite the historical Windmill.
Development should not take place opposite the historical Windmill.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9155
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: CPRE Warwickshire Branch
No. We wish to object to the Council's proposal to allocate Site 3, in Balsall Common, as part of the Local Plan. Although there are many reasons why the site is unsustainable, we are particularly concerned about the ecological impact the development of this site would have. The Green Infrastructure map Habitat Distinctiveness 2016 shows that this is an area of High Habitat distinctiveness, where development should be avoided (see p4 of the Ecological Assessment). However, these have not been fully respected when cross referenced to p23 of the master plans, particularly with regards to the 30m buffer around woodland.
Although there is no doubt as to the high impact the site would have on biodiversity (Draft Concept Plans, p24), Solihull Council's proposed solution would appear to be focussed around offsetting rather than preserving these precious habitats. There are other smaller sites that have a higher sustainability scoring and a lesser ecological value than Site 3.
6. Do you believe that Site 3 Windmill Lane, Balsall Common, should be included as allocated site, if not why not? Do you have any comments on the draft concept masterplan for the site?
No. We wish to object to the Council's proposal to allocate Site 3, in Balsall Common, as part of the Local Plan. Although there are many reasons why the site is unsustainable, we are particularly concerned about the ecological impact the development of this site would have. The Green Infrastructure map Habitat Distinctiveness 2016 shows that this is an area of High Habitat distinctiveness, where development should be avoided (see p4 of the Ecological Assessment). However, these have not been fully respected when cross referenced to p23 of the master plans, particularly with regards to the 30m buffer around woodland.
Although there is no doubt as to the high impact the site would have on biodiversity (Draft Concept Plans, p24), Solihull Council's proposed solution would appear to be focussed around offsetting rather than preserving these precious habitats. There are other smaller sites that have a higher sustainability scoring and a lesser ecological value than Site 3.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9165
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr H Keene
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.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9181
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs L Keene
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt and should be protected as Mayor has pledged. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible, and development will harm listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife. Road access is unsuitable. Development would impact on residents as no green buffer, and from construction noise.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9185
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Clifford Gledhill
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt and should be protected as Mayor has pledged. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible, and development will harm listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife. Road access is unsuitable. Development would impact on residents as no green buffer, and from construction noise.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9189
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Ronald A Smith
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt and should be protected as Mayor has pledged. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible, and development will harm listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife. Road access is unsuitable. Development would impact on residents as no green buffer, and from construction noise.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9193
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs June E Smith
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt and should be protected as Mayor has pledged. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible, and development will harm listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife. Road access is unsuitable. Development would impact on residents as no green buffer, and from construction noise.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9197
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr T N Walton
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt and should be protected as Mayor has pledged. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible, and development will harm listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife. Road access is unsuitable. Development would impact on residents as no green buffer, and from construction noise.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9202
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Sylvia Walton
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites were put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. This is not a fair distribution particularly as the village will have to deal with HS2. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt in the Meriden Gap and should be protected as the Mayor and Leader of the Council has pledged. It would create the narrowest gap between settlements do not understand why it is being included. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible because it stretches so far from the village boundary and therefore people would need to drive to shops, medical centre, train station and primary school. Development would harm the Grade II* listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife including owls, red kites. Woodpeckers and protected Great Crested Newts . Road access is unsuitable either onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane or through Meer Stones Road estate - this is already turning into a rat run. Development would impact on current residents, in some parts medium density housing is proposed with no green buffer to preserve visual amenity. Construction noise and vibration will affect residents and could cause long term damage to Berkswell Windmill.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9206
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Anna Waters
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites were put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. This is not a fair distribution particularly as the village will have to deal with HS2. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.Site is greenfield/green belt in the Meriden Gap and should be protected as the Mayor and Leader of the Council has pledged. It would create the narrowest gap between settlements do not understand why it is being included. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible because it stretches so far from the village boundary and therefore people would need to drive to shops, medical centre, train station and primary school. Development would harm the Grade II* listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife including owls, red kites. Woodpeckers and protected Great Crested Newts . Light pollution from street lights will have an impact on nocturnal creatures. Road access is unsuitable either onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane or through Meer Stones Road estate - this is already turning into a rat run. Development would impact on current residents, in some parts medium density housing is proposed with no green buffer to preserve visual amenity. Construction noise and vibration will affect residents and could cause long term damage to Berkswell Windmill.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9288
Received: 20/03/2019
Respondent: L&Q Estates and Barratt David Wilson Homes
Agent: Avison Young
To summarise our position, in our view the land at Windmill Lane performs a more important role in terms of Green Belt function than at Grange Farm.
The release of land at Windmill Lane plays an important role in preventing development extending into the countryside and resulting in urban sprawl.
The narrow shape of the land within Site 3 extends disproportionately from the southern edge of the settlement and would have a significant negative impact on the local environment in this location.
Windmill Lane plays a more important role in terms of GB function than at Grange Farm
see attached document
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9308
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes
Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP
This site appears to an illogical extension to the settlement, when considered in its wider context with listed buildings and main services and should therefore not be allocated.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9354
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Richard Onions
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt and should be protected as Mayor has pledged. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible, and development will harm listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife. Road access is unsuitable. Development would impact on residents as no green buffer, and from construction noise.
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.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9355
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Victoria Onions
Site is greenfield, and within the green belt in the Meriden Gap. Development would create the narrowest gap yet so residents do not understand why the site is being included. Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site performs very poorly in the SA (9 negatives and only 2 positives), is not accessible, you would need to drive to access shops, the medical centre, train station and primary school, and development. Area is rich in wildlife and as there are no plans to include nature reserves like at the other two sites the habitat and feeding grounds will be destroyed. Light pollution from street lights will have a detrimental impact. Access to the road network is unsuitable via two points, the Kenilworth Road and Windmill Lane which is already turning into a rat run. Development will impact on Grade II* listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. Would impact on existing residents, in some parts medium density housing is proposed with no green buffer to preserve visual amenity and there will be an impact from construction noise.
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.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9409
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr K Millican
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9416
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs J A Howles
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9425
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr S C Howles
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9429
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Gillian Tomkys
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9444
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr G Wilkinson
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9457
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Roger Howles
Overall level of growth in settlement is excessive and much greater than proposed elsewhere, with reduction in numbers for Dickens Heath/Shirley and no allocations in Dorridge. Brownfield sites put forward as alternatives to avoid development of greenfield land, not as additional sites. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt and should be protected as Mayor has pledged. Site performs very poorly in SA, is not accessible, and development will harm listed Berkswell Windmill and adversely affect wildlife. Road access is unsuitable. Development would impact on residents as no green buffer, and from construction noise.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9464
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Derrick Walker
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9468
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr K Hazelwood
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9473
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs A Hazelwood
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9488
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr P Phillips
The area is rich in wildlife. . 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. . 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
See Letter
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9501
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Catesby Estates Limited
Agent: WYG
Site 3 represents a natural extension to Balsall Common which reflects the limited landscape impact and the site's proximity to a good range of services and facilities. The rationale for its identification is considered to be sound.
Development would not harm purposes of green belt as evidenced in GBA, with loss of openness restricted to well-contained area The need for housing in Solihull is evident and the identification of this site for housing is justified with reference to the evidence base informing the Local Plan Review.
please see attached document
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9502
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Catesby Estates Limited
Agent: WYG
Draft Concept Masterplan supported in principle.
A Concept Masterplan for the development of the allocation should include flexibility to ensure any subsequent planning application for development of the Site is able to take account of the different land interests across the allocation whilst utilising baseline evidence / concepts to ensure a comprehensive development overall.
In addition, the proposed development should be put forward at the appropriate time to promote the most sustainable development achievable; matters such as access points should not be fixed within the Concept Masterplan.
please see attached document
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9537
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Richard Lloyd
Although it is a less valuable part of the Green Belt, the site is an inaccessible location with poor housing yield due to ecological factors. It is clearly outside walking distance of all the facilities in the village of Balsall Common, and the resulting growth in vehicle traffic will have a major impact on the A452/ B4101 cross-roads and traffic lights.
The masterplan should include provision of a footway southwards along the A452 to
link with Public Footpath M181 through the site.
see letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9555
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning
No. The proposal is a poor strategic decision, it being too far from the centre. There is significant ecological impact the development of this site. The Green Infrastructure map Habitat Distinctiveness 2016 shows that this is an area of High Habitat distinctiveness. These have not been referenced to the masterplans particularly with regard to the 30m buffer around woodland. Solihull's solution seems to be around off setting rather than preserving habitats. There are other smaller sites that have a higher sustainability scoring and a lesser ecological value than Site 3.
Please find attached a response to various aspects of the supplementary consultation
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9590
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council
Object as failed to study alternatives and there are errors in the site selection methodology. Green belt deletion disproportionate to development area due to ecological restrictions, and greater than required elsewhere.
Concept masterplan underestimates impact on setting of listed building and SMBC has failed to engage properly with owner, particularly relating to impact on wind flow.
Site beyond acceptable distance to centre/surgery/station and outside desirable distance to schools, so will be highly car dependent and unsustainable.
Concerned estate roads will impact on protected species, and that ecological report shows building on 2 areas of importance.
Concept Masterplan
Ignores emerging NDP as green space not provided between existing (Wellfield Close) and new development.
Concerned at impact of access onto Windmill Lane as no pavements, traffic will affect rural character and traffic hazard at Kenilworth Road junction. Access should be solely to Kenilworth Road, achievable with by-pass.
Traffic calming measures on Meer Stones development not effective, so concern about speeds on Windmill Lane.
See details in attached letter
Berkswell Parish Council considers that the issues are important and worthy of deep consideration with an honest attempt by SMBC to conduct a suitable and sufficient review of the draft plan proposals.