Question 6 - Site 3 - Windmill Lane
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9621
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Balsall Parish Council
Reservations about allocation as site has low accessibility, residents will require high levels of parking, additional traffic accessing already congested Kenilworth Road, phasing conflicts with HS2 construction and must be postponed until HS2 completed and/or by-pass opened.
Should consider emerging Balsall Parish NDP policies in master planning of site; housing to respect local character, mixed development with range of house types and sizes, opportunities for low carbon development, existing trees and hedgerows to be protected, include at least 10% bungalows or other suitable accommodation for downsizing of mobile older residents.
Please find attached Balsall Parish Council response to the SLP supplementary consultation.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9726
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Jean Walters
Many reasons why site is unsustainable.
Particularly concerned about ecological impact on area of High Habitat distinctiveness.
This has not been respected in concept masterplans, e.g. should have 30m buffer around woodland.
Council's proposed solution based on biodiversity offsetting rather than preserving habitats.
There are alternative sites which are smaller, with higher sustainability score and lower ecological value.
see letter attached
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9785
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr G Frost
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: 9789
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr D Edmonds
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: 9793
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs M Edmonds
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: 9797
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs E A Seal
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: 9801
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Leslie Eustace
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: 9805
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs B Stanley
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: 9809
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr J Stanley
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: 9813
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs C Cavigan
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: 9817
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs J Bliss
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: 9821
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs P Green
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. Proposals will impact on air quality and health.
Site is greenfield/green belt in the Meriden Gap which the Mayor and leader of the Council has pledged to protect. Site performs very poorly in SA, it stretches out far from the village boundary so it would be necessary to drive to shops, the medical centre, train station and primary school. Area is rich in wildlife and development will harm listed Berkswell Windmill. Road access is unsuitable on Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane, already a rat run. Otherwise traffic will have to cut through Meer Stones Road Estate. Development would impact on residents as there is green buffer to preserve existing visual amenity, and from construction noise.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9825
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr D Perks
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: 9829
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Rita Perks
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.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9837
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Christopher Read
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: 9841
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Francoise Read
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
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9859
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Historic England- West Midlands Region
Clarify what is meant by "zone of significant influence" and how "high architectural value" may be relevant in relation to the Windmill.
The Council's Heritage Impact Assessment should inform consideration of the principle of the site's suitability and an appropriate design response.
The Council should demonstrate that it has:
-taken sufficient account of the evidence to avoid or minimise harm to the significance of the Windmill
-attached great weight to the conservation of the Windmill and
-had due regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the Windmill in the wider landscape
Without the Council's Heritage Impact Assessment Historic England is unable to consider whether the principle and proposed response set out in the SMBC Draft Concept Masterplan is appropriate.
see attached document
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9905
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton
Agent: DS Planning
Doubts about the likelihood of comprehensive development and deliverability of some of the proposed allocations particularly when complex land assembly issues are highlighted. This is relevant to Site 3.
Although endeavouring to provide a firm and defensible Green Belt boundary the site becomes increasingly remote from the settlement in accessibility terms and produces a somewhat contrived, insensitive and illogical addition to Balsall Common which could result in a visually unattractive entrance into the settlement from the South.
This is the response of Generator Group and Minton to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site on land adj Harpers Field, Kenilworth Road Balsall Common for inclusion as a housing
allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order. Whilst we have
responded to each question, the detailed points in relation to our site are set out under question 39 and your attention is specifically drawn to this part of the response. It should be noted the site is developer owned and delivery of the site can therefore come forward early in the plan period
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9952
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land
Agent: DS Planning
Doubts about the likelihood of comprehensive development and deliverability of some of the proposed allocations particularly when complex land assembly issues are highlighted. This is relevant to Site 3.
Although endeavouring to provide a firm and defensible Green Belt boundary the site becomes increasingly remote from the settlement in accessibility terms and produces a somewhat contrived, insensitive and illogical addition to Balsall Common which could result in a visually unattractive entrance into the settlement from the South.
This is the response of Rosconn Strategic Land to the supplementary consultation by
Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the
response is to comment the draft Plan and promote three sites for inclusion as
housing allocations within the plan. The response is by question order.
The 3 sites are:
Land at Three Maypoles Farm Shirley
Land at r/o 2214 Stratford Road Hockley Heath
Land adj 161 Lugtrout Lane Solihull
The responses on the three sites to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation
are attached and which highlight the reasons why the sites should be allocations
within the Local Plan.
This document should also be read in conjunction with the Ecology Report and
Heritage Assessment in relation to land adj to 161 Lugtrout Lane, Solihull.
Your attention is also drawn to the attached Masterplan for land r/o 2214 Stratford
Road Hockley Heath.
Not withstanding that this is an informal consultation we consider that the document
should be accompanied by an up to date SA.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9992
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Stonewater
Agent: DS Planning
Doubts about the likelihood of comprehensive development and deliverability of some of the proposed allocations particularly when complex land assembly issues are highlighted. This is relevant to Site 3.
Although endeavouring to provide a firm and defensible Green Belt boundary the site becomes increasingly remote from the settlement in accessibility terms and produces a somewhat contrived, insensitive and illogical addition to Balsall Common which could result in a visually unattractive entrance into the settlement from the South.
This is the response of Stonewater to the supplementary consultation by Solihull
Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is
to comment the draft Plan and promote the site at the Firs Maxstoke Lane (west of
Meriden proposed allocation site 10) for inclusion as a housing allocation within the
Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the site should be an allocation within the
Local Plan (Site Ref 137).
see detailed comment in attached letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10032
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr T Khan
Agent: DS Planning
Doubts about the likelihood of comprehensive development and deliverability of some of the proposed allocations particularly when complex land assembly issues are highlighted. This is relevant to Site 3.
Although endeavouring to provide a firm and defensible Green Belt boundary the site becomes increasingly remote from the settlement in accessibility terms and produces a somewhat contrived, insensitive and illogical addition to Balsall Common which could result in a visually unattractive entrance into the settlement from the South.
This is the response of Mr Taj Khan, Sid Kelly and John Green to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site at 15,
59, & 61 Jacobean Lane Knowle for inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan
and land north of Jacobean Lane being removed from the Green Belt and to support
the removal of land from the Green Belt to rectify anomalies and for consistency.
See detail response in attached letter and appendices
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10073
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd
Agent: DS Planning
Doubts about the likelihood of comprehensive development and deliverability of some of the proposed allocations particularly when complex land assembly issues are highlighted. This is relevant to Site 3.
Although endeavouring to provide a firm and defensible Green Belt boundary the site becomes increasingly remote from the settlement in accessibility terms and produces a somewhat contrived, insensitive and illogical addition to Balsall Common which could result in a visually unattractive entrance into the settlement from the South.
This is the response of Minton to the supplementary consultation by Solihull Council
on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is to
comment the draft Plan and promote the site at Oak Farm Catherine de Barnes for
inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the full Oak Farm site should be an
allocation within the Local Plan. We have also carried out our own Green Belt
Assessment a copy of which is attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10120
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr David Varley
The site on Kenilworth Road has already been built on and the land up to Windmill Lane is not particularly good. However, any access onto Windmill Lane would need to see improvements to Windmill Lane itself.
see attached letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10163
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Jennifer K Darby
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.
Please find attached my objection to the allocation of Site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common for consideration
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10212
Received: 08/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs C M Stradling
Impact on operation and historic importance of the windmill.
Disproportionate increase in development compared to other areas.
No recognition of strategic importance of Green Belt.
No indication of timing and how the growth proposed will be managed especially in relation to the construction of HS2.
The village does not meet criteria for 'High frequency' public transport.
Impact on wildlife and no ecological assessment within the evidence.
Primary School is full.
SA is questionable.
Masterplan does not demonstrate how the site will function.
Future road network within and around the site not adequately considered.
Density will not respect local character.
I am writing in support of the objections raised by bcbarrage about the proposed development for residential purposes surrounding Berkswell Windmill. I am a member of Coventry Guild of Weavers Spinners and Dyers and myself and other members regularly attend the open days at the Windmill, demonstrating these traditional skills which are in keeping with the historical age of the Mill. Visitors from far and wide, including international visitors, attend these events and are enthusiastic in their respect for this historical monument and it's heritage, it has been carefully and professionally preserved and returned to it's original condition with funding and expertise provided by Historic England. The sails again turn using wind power and this year it will be grinding flour, however this could be prevented if the current proposal for high density housing surrounding the Mill goes ahead. There is significant research to show that any high density building interferes with wind flow and therefore this would have a detrimental effect on the Mill.
The objections are with regard to:
1: Issues relating to the DLP in general
2: Issues relating to the allocation of site 3
3: Issues relating to the concept plan
1;DLP. Allocation of sites across the Borough;
a) There appears to be a disproportionate increase from 3,900 to 5,700 for Balsall common whereas Dorridge, which has more sustainable infrastructure, eg; public transport and other public amenities, has no allocations, even though there has been significant investment in that area.
b) The G L Hearn report proposed a new settlement well beyond the current northern limits approximately 2 hours from the railway station, reflecting that most employment is to the north. The Council's report appears to ignore the importance of the strategic and local separation provided by the green belt as highlighted in the Hearn report.
c) There is no indication of timing and how the growth proposed for Balsall Common will be managed especially in relation to the construction of HS2, all of which will need skilled programme and project management including the need for increased infrastructure ie; schools, doctors shops etc. All of which needs careful planning at the outset.
d) Balsall Common does not meet with the Borough Councils own criteria for 'High frequency' public transport either rail or bus.
e) No ecological assessment within the evidence put forward has been shared this is an essential requirement if the consultation process is to be meaningful.
f)Balsall Common Primary School is already full, and contrary to the Council's information is Form 4 entry Not form 3, this is an unacceptable error especially as the Borough Council has responsibility for education.
g) Over 20% of SHELAA Assessments are incorrect, this does not instil confidence in the overall assessment and planning.
2: Site allocation: Sustainability Appraisal.
a)Considering all facts this indicated that site 3 scored only 2 positives but 9 negatives
b) Sites 22 and 23 were considered too remote to be included and yet site 3 extends far beyond sites 22 and 23 in terms of distance and remoteness from Balsall Common settlement.
c) Site 3 would create the narrowest gap between Balsall Common and Burton Green due to the presence of great crested newts and poor ground conditions, it would be both and an inefficient and ineffective use of land. Only 6 of the 11 hectares being suitable for development as much of it would be taken up with ponds and corridors for the newts. Therefore the loss of a significant area of green belt cannot be justified with the amount of land suitable for housing low and the area given over for corridors and ponds inaccessible to the public.
d) The Council appears to justify the loss of Green belt because the development of sites 22 and 23 has already undermined the purposes of the green belt. This is an irrational argument, the aim should be to preserve the remainder of the triangle.
e) The ground conditions would necessitate the use of pile driving, this invasive work so near to Berkswell Mill risks long term damage to this historic structure which would have a detrimental effect on the historical culture of the area.
f) The overall disruption to residents and the detrimental effect on the local wildlife cannot be justified when the amount of land available for housing will be minimal.
3. The Concept Plan.
a) The plan does not demonstrate how the site will function as there is no indication how the corridors and ponds for the great crested newts will link between the various parcels of land.
b) The road network does not appear to have given consideration to the present levels of congestion on to the main road A452, it appears that the only access will be via Windmill Lane which is not viable. A bypass is mentioned, unless the construction of this precedes the housing development the level of traffic will create further congestion and be unsustainable.
c) Biodiversity;
As previously mentioned site 3 has and abundance of wildlife which is much appreciated by local residents. The solution for sites 1 and 2 has been to provide nature reserves whereas for site 3 the Council intends to 'offset' the loss of wildlife habitat, this is unacceptable to local residents.
d0 Density; The proposal to build medium density housing adjacent to existing residential properties and gardens does not respect the local character of the area or the needs of residents. Building right up to the boundaries of existing properties with no significant green space and lack of pavements gives the impression that houses are crammed in on top of each other with little consideration for the health and wellbeing of residents.
d) Berkswell Mill is a grade 11 listed building it is of extreme cultural and historical importance, a lot of effort and money has been poured in to restore the Mil,l affording local residents and visitors a visual and educational amenity. It is now in good safe working order any impact from building works or wind disruption could render it unsafe and unable to function reducing the benefits to the area.
As a member of Coventry Guild of Weavers Spinners and Dyers with an interest in keeping traditional skills alive I would urge the Council to give full consideration to the benefits the Mill brings to the area and think carefully before agreeing any development which would have a detrimental effect on the Mill.
Whilst we all recognise the need for more affordable housing if the rush to provide it is at the expense of such an important amenity as well as the loss of wildlife habitat and green space then the long term benefits to residents existing and new will not be realised. Quality of life is not just about housing there is considerable research to show that access to green space and interests other than work and home are beneficial for physical and mental health.
Lets not concentrate on short term gain but consider the long term benefits to retaining our cultural historical and natural heritage
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10215
Received: 09/03/2019
Respondent: Andrea Lutzy
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.
BARRAGE letter of objection
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10251
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Mr William Cairns
Area has already suffered development and does not have a high green belt rating, it is difficult to defend but at its extremity it is getting remote from the centre of the village. It could nevertheless be attractive to potential residents because of its rural outlook. However Windmill Lane has no pavements and is a busy cut through used by cars and commercial vehicles.
This is my response to the above document. I have presented my comments it in the order of the sections and paragraphs in the Draft. I have restricted my comments to those sections that particularly relate to me.
see letter for full text
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10280
Received: 09/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Kennedy
Again, given the need for additional housing, the site appears suitable.
Given the need for additional housing, the site appears suitable.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10291
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Professor David Walton
Scale/distribution of growth not equitable, settlement being concreted over and green space not being protected.
Massive infilling of green space around Balsall Common will shrink green belt in this part of the Meriden Gap to little more than a few fields. Loss of green belt despite pledges from Mayor to protect.
No Ecological Assessments made available to public, and hard to know why some sites in Balsall Common score so poorly for sustainability and other key criteria.
Area is rich in wildlife/birds/insects/bats/amphibians and even deer. Previous building in the vicinity a sign that village has already made a positive contribution.
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
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10332
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Christopher Fellows
Call for Sites reference 47, at northern end of Site 3, is priority 5 in Step 1 of Methodology. Despite SA findings of 4 positive, 7 neutral and 6 negative, including 1 significant negative, and commentary that site could be considered as part of a larger area, it is rated green after Step 2.
see full details in attached response