Question 7 - Site 21 - Pheasant Oak Farm
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
A poor site, which will only extend the village and create future problems in defending the green belt.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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.
Surrounding road infrastructure is not suitable - Hob Lane and Waste Lane are country lanes. Countryside should be protected at all cost.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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 invariably earmark the area east of the farm for housing development at a future stage. However, any housing in this area (especially south of Hob Lane) would be quite some distance from the village centre and would therefore contribute to urban sprawl . As noted in my separate representation, the bypass is unnecessary and so is the need to move the boundary. Retaining what is left of the greenbelt and our beautiful open countryside is of far greater importance.
Page 34 of the 2019 Local Plan (Site 23 Pheasant Oak Farm) states that any housing development in this particular area should 'safeguard the rural character of Hob Lane and Windmill Lane'. Whilst this statement is to be applauded, the proposal to move the greenbelt boundary east and thereby remove Windmill Lane and part of Hob Lane from the greenbelt surely contradicts this statement.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
The 'bypass' should be built to the west of Balsall Common. Access can be provided to the site from existing roads.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7400
Received: 11/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Richard Davis
Increased car traffic to local shops
Increased car traffic to local shops
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7473
Received: 11/03/2019
Respondent: Wendy Cairns
It is a brownfield site and as such is preferred to green belt sites
It is a brownfield site and as such is preferred to green belt sites
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
It is considered this site is poorly related to employment facilities and very intrusive into the openness of the Green Belt.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7626
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: BFNAG
Building on brownfield sites is preferable even if it currently sits in Green Belt.
Building on brownfield sites is preferable even if it currently sits in Green Belt.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
This is a very large site which if released from Green Belt would allow developers license to destroy huge swathes of countryside.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7831
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor D Bell
Yes to being included as used as part brownfield.
Methodology.
I do not agree if Balsall Common station is counted as equal to Dorridge.
Infrastructure
We need infrastructure. Green spaces, sports facilities, parking,improvements to very limited.centre.
Site 1 Barrett's Farm
I reluctantly agree to its inclusion.
Site 2 and 3
I do not agree to their inclusion as they are do far from amenities.my neighbour has to get a taxi to the shops.also they have considerable worth as greenfield and wildlife havens.
Trevallion Stud and Pheasant oak Farm.
Yes to being included as
Used as part brownfield.
Concept plans. Good idea but need much more work especially in guarding development from existing gardens
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
See attached document
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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
Building on brownfield sites is preferable even if it currently sits in Green Belt
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8173
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Richard Drake
Only the Brownfield elements should be included
Only the Brownfield elements should be included
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8200
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Drake
Only the Brownfield part
Only the Brownfield part
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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!
Very small area for a lot of house
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
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 can all be rectified before the next version of the Local Plan and have full confidence it will be done by officers in Planning.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
Please see covering letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
Please see covering letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
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.
Please see covering letter