Question 7 - Site 21 - Pheasant Oak Farm

Object

Representation ID: 6582

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Leslie Noble

A poor site, which will only extend the village and create future problems in defending the green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 6620

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Harry Siggs

Plan is supposed to avoid adding population in areas without transport infrastructure and local employment. Balsall Common is specifically identified as lacking in local services and in local employment. No plans are given for new business premises

Object

Representation ID: 6731

Received: 19/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Kate Cooper

A development of this size is completely out of keeping with this rural/agricultural area. It is a good distance from the local schools, doctors, rail station and all other amenities and a car would be required for almost all journeys. The small amount of existing housing in this area are all larger detached properties or farms, so a housing estate would be very much out of line with the rest of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 6741

Received: 20/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Jones

Hob Lane is already a busy road with a primary school on it. It has no pavements, street lighting or any public transport. It is far away from the town centre and other local amenities. With the proposed house building on windmill Lane this will also make the junction of Hob Lane/windmill lane dangerous. The ongoing housing building in Burton green (Cromwell lane) will serve this area.

Object

Representation ID: 6746

Received: 21/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Gill

This area of land provides countryside and walks for Balsall Common residents that is rapidly disappearing in other areas. It provides a boundary between Balsall Common and Kenilworth. Housing in this area would be very close to the HS2 with possible noise problems.

Object

Representation ID: 6850

Received: 27/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Gary Lindop

Including Site 21 Pheasant Oak Farm as an allocated site and moving the greenbelt boundary further east to the line of the proposed bypass serves no purpose other than to help earmark yet another site for future housing development in this area. The revised boundary would take Windmill Lane and part of Hob Lane out of the greenbelt and permanently destroy the rural character of these roads and the surrounding area. The greenbelt boundary should remain unchanged and the bypass should not be built.

Object

Representation ID: 6940

Received: 04/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Hedley

This area will be hard to resist where it is existing brownfield, but the business use of the site should be promoted at the village edge, especially as the increased population will include people looking for local employment. Windmill Lane should be retained as the village boundary right through to Waste Lane

Object

Representation ID: 7117

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Joyner

I object because when you take Waste lane, Windmill lane and Barratts Farm into account, then this is an almost continuous urbanisation of the south of the village.

This highlights the problem of asking for consultation on separate plots of land rather than an integrated plan - the effects of approval of one or more plots can have a significant impact on the nature of the village, but on their own as single sites, will not.

Support

Representation ID: 7233

Received: 09/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Kennedy

The 'bypass' should be built to the west of Balsall Common. Access can be provided to the site from existing roads.

Object

Representation ID: 7400

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Davis

Increased car traffic to local shops

Comment

Representation ID: 7473

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Wendy Cairns

It is a brownfield site and as such is preferred to green belt sites

Object

Representation ID: 7491

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Portland Planning Consultants

It is considered this site is poorly related to employment facilities and very intrusive into the openness of the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 7538

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Kevin Thomas

As with Windmill Lane site the proposal places unnecessary additional pressure on green belt. I would support building on the brownfield element of the site.
I do not understand the point about the by-pass forming a logical boundary for the site as this is well away from the core Pheasant Oak Farm site.

Support

Representation ID: 7626

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: BFNAG

Building on brownfield sites is preferable even if it currently sits in Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 7650

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Judith Thomas

I support the proposals to build on the brownfield element of the site. However as with Windmill Lane site the disproportionate release of Green belt land places unnecessary additional pressure on green belt.
Specifically, I do not understand the claim about the by-pass forming a logical boundary for the site as this is well away from the core Pheasant Oak Farm site and appears to be a placeholder for subsequent opportunistic development.

Object

Representation ID: 7769

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Wheeler

This is a very large site which if released from Green Belt would allow developers license to destroy huge swathes of countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 7831

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Councillor D Bell

Yes to being included as used as part brownfield.

Object

Representation ID: 7976

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Izumi Segawa

Building on all available land means that the British countryside is losing to yet more ugly houses.
If you look at the town itself, which is currently quite grotty, there is more opportunity for (better) development - above/behind shops/unnecessarily large car park by Co-op. Instead of choosing the easy option of building on greenbelt and farmland, you should use more imagination to maximise the use of the existing town. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 8088

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Sheila Cooper

Support building on Brownfield sites, including Brownfield area of Pheasant Oak Farm ONLY. Object to allocation of significant area of greenfield land due to impact on openness, when sites with lower impact not proposed.
Site will be highly car dependent/unsustainable.
Site justification in Para. 113 is deeply flawed as route of the proposed by-pass uncertain and will not come within 200 metres of the site boundary.
Development of the Greenfield portion of this site would dramatically change the nature of the rural area.

Support

Representation ID: 8133

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Felicity Wheeler

Building on brownfield sites is preferable even if it currently sits in Green Belt

Object

Representation ID: 8173

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Drake

Only the Brownfield elements should be included

Comment

Representation ID: 8200

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Drake

Only the Brownfield part

Support

Representation ID: 8300

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow

A brownfield site. It is good to see that SMBC have finally included brownfield sites after providing a non lawful rationale for their exclusion in the first place. A rationale that was repeated on 5th March 2019 and was put in writing before then. I cannot see why SMBC continue to use the mantra that paragraph 145 of the NPPF 2018 in some way restricts the redevelopment of brownfield land more than greenfield land when creating a local plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8306

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow

I support the brownfield element but not the greenfield element because that scores 12 in the Atkins Greenbelt assessment. There are also other sites with far lower greenbelt scores and closer to village amenities (sites 1 Springhill and 43) that should be chosen first. The use of this highly rated greenbelt land seems perverse.

Object

Representation ID: 8339

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Helen Goodwin

Very small area for a lot of house.
It seems to be an approach to fill in all the "little Green Bits" up to any major lines?
Feel as though it is a policy to think, oh there is some land, lets build on it!

Object

Representation ID: 8732

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Andrea Baker

Balsall Common is already being subjected to far more new houses per capita of the existing development, without the need to destroy more of our farm land and green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 8750

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin

I appreciate that this site is new and has had less opportunity to have as much detail added to the plans. It is exacerbated by confusion of masterplans for Site 21 and 23 in the Masterplans document.
That said, the masterplans are unclear as to where access will be from, where the HS2 line will go, incomplete legends on the masterplan. All in all, it is insufficient information to elicit valuable feedback. This should be rectified before the next version of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8753

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Fulford Hall Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Whilst we agree with the spatial approach to development in Balsall Common, we query whether there is evidence on the deliverability of some sites, for instance Barratts Farm (site 1), which has over 10 landowners within the allocation and relies on significant infrastructure for its delivery. Evidence is required to demonstrate delivery and the build rate will be crucial in the Regulation 19
Plan. Sites that have less land assembly issues that are available for development now (such as our Client's) are much more deliverable in the early years of the Plan, as demonstrated by the adjacent Bellway scheme.

Object

Representation ID: 8777

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Widney Manor Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Whilst we agree with the spatial approach to development in Balsall Common, we would query whether there is evidence on the deliverability of some sites, for instance Barratts Farm (site 1), which has over 10 landowners within the allocation and relies on significant infrastructure for its delivery. Evidence is required to demonstrate delivery and a housing trajectory will be crucial in the Regulation 19 Plan. Sites that have less land assembly issues that are available for development now are much more deliverable in the early years of the Plan. This is particularly important for affordable housing, and our Client's site has the ability to deliver a 100% affordable housing scheme within the early years of the Plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 8799

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land North of School Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Whilst we agree with the spatial approach to development in Balsall Common, we would query whether there is evidence on the deliverability of some sites, for instance Barratts Farm (site 1), which has over 10 landowners within the allocation and relies on significant infrastructure for its delivery. Evidence is required to demonstrate delivery and a housing trajectory will be crucial in the Regulation 19 Plan. Sites with less land assembly issues that are available for development now (such as our Client's - site 416) are much more deliverable in the early years of the Plan.