Question 7 - Site 21 - Pheasant Oak Farm

Showing comments and forms 31 to 60 of 68

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8817

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land West of Stratford Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

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, such as Site 1.
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) are much more deliverable in the early years of the Plan.

Full text:

Please see covering letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8838

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land Fronting Waste Lane

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

The capacity of the allocation should be increased to at least 332 dwellings to reflect its relatively unconstrained nature and the need to make efficient use of land. Yes, we agree that this is a sustainable location for new housing on the edge of an urban area which has variety of facilities and services, including a station with regular links to Birmingham. The site is also adjacent to a bus stop with a regular service to Solihull and Coventry. Within the recent GL Hearn Greater Birmingham HMA Strategic Growth Study, Balsall Common is identified as a broad location for a strategic development given it is free from nationally significant constraints. Whilst the Council are yet to respond to the strategic growth study, the findings indicate the importance of Balsall Common in helping to address both Solihull's housing needs and Birmingham's unmet need. Smaller sites could help support strategic growth options such as Barratts Farm leading to a steady supply of deliverable housing in the early years of the plan. In terms of landscape character, the Balsall Common Eastern Fringe is a different landscape character area than the rest of the area to the north (Berkswell Landscape Character Area 4 Rural Centre, Sub Area 4D). The area to the east of Balsall Common (within the Eastern Fringe) is generally flat and is heavily influenced by the adjacent settlement. Development on this site is in accordance with the spatial strategy as Balsall Common is identified as a sustainable location for new growth. There are no constraints which can't be mitigated against. The site performs poorly in terms of both the Green Belt and landscape character and a more defined urban edge is needed. Compensatory measures will be provided to offset the loss of the Green Belt. In addition, the site has the potential to provide a financial contribution (e.g. via CIL) towards the bypass. As such, increasing the capacity of the site will further enhance the viability of the road. The site is well located in terms of walking and cycling to local services and facilities in Balsall Common, including a primary school. It is also adjacent to a bus stop for regular connections to wider employment opportunities.

Full text:

Please see covering letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8858

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land South of Park Lane

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

We agree with the identification of the Balsall Common sites given the sustainable nature of the settlement. However as above, it is clear that employment land will be required

Full text:

Please see covering letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8867

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Barrie Howarth

Representation Summary:

In appropriate development site. No local employ ment to walk to. Heavily dependent on car transport for work.

Full text:

In appropriate development site. No local employ ment to walk to. Heavily dependent on car transport for work.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8947

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Wendy Gault

Representation Summary:

Building on brownfield sites thereby protecting the green belt is a sensible way to maximise preservation of the green belt, therefore the site selection is acceptable. However part of the site does involve removal of the green belt, and this coupled with distance to amenities means the site selection has issues that need to be addressed

Full text:

Building on brownfield sites thereby protecting the green belt is a sensible way to maximise preservation of the green belt, therefore the site selection is acceptable. However part of the site does involve removal of the green belt, and this coupled with distance to amenities means the site selection has issues that need to be addressed

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9013

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Lindop

Representation Summary:

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. Site quite some distance from village centre and would contribute towards urban sprawl.

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.
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

Full text:

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.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9091

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Hatfield

Representation Summary:

Suitable land.

Full text:

Suitable land.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9169

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: stantec

Representation Summary:

We support the proposed allocation but consider that it should be increased in size and should be identified to accommodate some 350 dwellings.

Full text:

See letters 1 & 2

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9171

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: stantec

Representation Summary:

Agrees with allocation of site subject to it being extended to include the whole of the land within Barwood Land's control. There are a number of inaccurate or inconsistent statements in the consultation documents.
* Document states site 21 is 12 ha in fact the red line is 9.56
*Suggests allocation will allow a strong and logical green belt boundary however the eastern boundary cuts through fields and does not follow existing physical features on the ground.
*Council has used a general new density figure of 35dph yet allocates site 21 for only 100 dwellings which would not make efficient use of land.
*The Barwood Land identified as site 414 in the site assessments document confirms that it is mainly brownfield and could make a contribution to new housing and is marked green suggesting it should be included in the allocation.
Extending the allocation to include the Barwood Land and allocating for 350 dwellings would rectify the anomalies and provide for effective use of a largely brownfield site as a highly sustainable form of development. This would include a mix of house types as well as affordable housing. Significant environmental improvements would result from the removal of the sites existing buildings and enhancements to the millennium walk public right of way through the site. Opportunity for widespread use by future residents of existing footpath and cycle connections to adjoining proposed allocations Berkswell rail station and key facilities such as existing schools, the proposed new school within Barrett's Farm, village centre shops and the village health centre. A net gain in biodiversity would be achieved together with a network of well connected green infrastructure , open space and children's play.

Full text:

See letters 1 & 2

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9289

Received: 20/03/2019

Respondent: L&Q Estates and Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Avison Young

Representation Summary:

We consider there has been an inappropriate designation of the site as brownfield land. It is therefore considered that any agricultural buildings within this site should therefore not be classed as brownfield.
We note in relation to the Green Belt impacts that the site currently:
Performs a more important role than Grange Farm overall (in GB terms)
It would result in unrestricted sprawl- lack of a strong and defensible boundary
It is unclear why the site is preferred to Grange Farm which is less important in Green Belt terms and often
more compact (less sprawling) form of development.

Full text:

see attached document

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9309

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

Representation Summary:

Question whether site is deliverable given time required to relocate existing businesses. Given the commercial uses currently on the site, would this site be better as a commercial allocation?

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9341

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Halford Holdings

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.
Should not be priority 3, but 8 for brownfield element and 10 for remainder according to site selection methodology, therefore unsuitable for allocation.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9374

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.

Full text:

See letters 1-4

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9538

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Richard Lloyd

Representation Summary:

Part of the proposed site could be released from the Green Belt without undue harm,
but there is no defensible boundary beyond the current buildings to the east of the
site. The proposed by-pass is unlikely to be constructed in the foreseeable future and would pass well to the east.
In addition, any development proposal needs to include space for the caravan storage, as this facility is still needed within the area.
Overall, housing development should be restricted to the western half of the proposed site.

Full text:

see letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9591

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Support building on brownfield sites and part of site included on BLR. Object to inclusion of significant area of greenfield/green belt, as evidence supports alternatives that will not impact on openness, such as Sites 1/43 bounded by roads.
Site beyond acceptable distance to centre/surgery/station and outside desirable distance to schools, will be highly car dependent and unsustainable.
Recommend exclusion of greenfield element other than for public open space which could remain in green belt. Suggest adopt approach as per Site 22 in SLP2013.
Paragraph 113 is untrue as by-pass will not be within 200m of proposed boundary of Site so inclusion of greenfield land not justified. Greater part of Site in higher performing green belt parcel in GBA.

Full text:

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.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9651

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Marion Joyce

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.

Full text:

On behalf of our Client Mrs M Joyce, we now formally submit on her behalf representations in connection with the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation.

The key question raised in the DSLPRSC is Question 39, which offers
an opportunity for our client to confirm she wishes her site to be included and the
reasons for that. In addition, this representation also addresses the following
questions: 2, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 44.

see letter attached

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9676

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.

Full text:

We write on behalf of our Client, Kendrick Homes Limited, who have an interest in land to the north side of School Road, Hockley Heath - referred to as Land adjacent 84 School Road (Site Ref: 49) within the Council's current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC).
see details in attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9685

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Belle Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.
Should not be priority 3, but 8 for brownfield element and 10 for remainder according to site selection methodology, therefore unsuitable for allocation.

Full text:

We write on behalf of our Client, Belle Homes Limited in respect of Land to the rear of 575a to 601 Tanworth Lane and Numbers 587 to 601 Tanworth Lane, Cheswick Green, Solihull B90 4JE. This letter is submitted in response to the current Draft Solihull Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (DSLPRSC
See detail in attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9699

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Landowners Wootton Green Lane

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.

Full text:

We write on behalf of our various Clients, who jointly own land described below:
Proposed Allocated Housing Site 22 - Trevallion Stud, Wootton Green
Lane, Balsall Common CV7 7BQ
Also including consideration of land west of No. 32 Wootton Green Lane Site
Reference 160
see detail in attached letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9906

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment document states:
a) "....... part high (highest) performing parcel in the Green Belt Assessment and would result in an indefensible Green Belt boundary to the east.
b) "Site has a low level of accessibility....." and
c) "Could be considered subject to provision of clear firm green belt boundaries".
d) "Development should preferably be on land that is more highly accessible, and/or performs least well in Green Belt terms and/or provides strong defensible boundaries".
Allocation is reliant on the building of a bypass and the assembly of land outside the site allocation. Hardly glowing commentary for an allocation.

Full text:

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: 9953

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment document states:
a) "....... part high (highest) performing parcel in the Green Belt Assessment and would result in an indefensible Green Belt boundary to the east.
b) "Site has a low level of accessibility....." and
c) "Could be considered subject to provision of clear firm green belt boundaries".
d) "Development should preferably be on land that is more highly accessible, and/or performs least well in Green Belt terms and/or provides strong defensible boundaries".
Allocation is reliant on the building of a bypass and the assembly of land outside the site allocation. Hardly glowing commentary for an allocation.

Full text:

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: 9993

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Stonewater

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment document states:
a) "....... part high (highest) performing parcel in the Green Belt Assessment and would result in an indefensible Green Belt boundary to the east.
b) "Site has a low level of accessibility....." and
c) "Could be considered subject to provision of clear firm green belt boundaries".
d) "Development should preferably be on land that is more highly accessible, and/or performs least well in Green Belt terms and/or provides strong defensible boundaries".
Allocation is reliant on the building of a bypass and the assembly of land outside the site allocation. Hardly glowing commentary for an allocation.

Full text:

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: 10033

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr T Khan

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment document states:
a) "....... part high (highest) performing parcel in the Green Belt Assessment and would result in an indefensible Green Belt boundary to the east.
b) "Site has a low level of accessibility....." and
c) "Could be considered subject to provision of clear firm green belt boundaries".
d) "Development should preferably be on land that is more highly accessible, and/or performs least well in Green Belt terms and/or provides strong defensible boundaries".
Allocation is reliant on the building of a bypass and the assembly of land outside the site allocation. Hardly glowing commentary for an allocation.

Full text:

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

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10074

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment document states:
a) "....... part high (highest) performing parcel in the Green Belt Assessment and would result in an indefensible Green Belt boundary to the east.
b) "Site has a low level of accessibility....." and
c) "Could be considered subject to provision of clear firm green belt boundaries".
d) "Development should preferably be on land that is more highly accessible, and/or performs least well in Green Belt terms and/or provides strong defensible boundaries".
Allocation is reliant on the building of a bypass and the assembly of land outside the site allocation. Hardly glowing commentary for an allocation.

Full text:

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: 10121

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr David Varley

Representation Summary:

I would not be opposed to development on the Brownfield area, however, the green fields facing Waste Lane would be lost to the detriment of the green space.

Full text:

see attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10174

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr P Benton and Mr T Neary

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Representation Summary:

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.
Should not be priority 3, but 8 for brownfield element and 10 for remainder according to site selection methodology, therefore unsuitable for allocation.

Full text:

See Letters

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10237

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Jennifer Cayley

Representation Summary:

Site suggested by residents as alternative to sites 2 and 3. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

Full text:

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

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.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10242

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Joanne Bellamy

Representation Summary:

Site suggested by residents as alternative to sites 2 and 3. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

Full text:

Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

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 anygrowth 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 hourduring 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 onnocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly puttingthe 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 Roadresidents) 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.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10248

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Carole Beattie

Representation Summary:

Site suggested by residents as alternative to sites 2 and 3. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10252

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mr William Cairns

Representation Summary:

Starting to get remote from the centre but as it is poor green belt quality it ranks along with Windmill Lane. But it would bring more traffic on to Windmill lane which is always busy especially at peak times. Consideration of traffic flows need to be reviewed in this area. Development of brownfield sites is preferred to green belt.

Full text:

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