Question 9 - Site 23 - Lavender Hall Farm

Showing comments and forms 31 to 60 of 67

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8755

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Fulford Hall Road

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

Please see covering letter

Attachments:

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8761

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties (UK)

Representation Summary:

Supports inclusion of site. Identification as a green site falling within priority 3 of site selection methodology is justified and fully supported. Land to the rear of LHF forms a small parcel of Green Belt that would be impacted by HS2. Site comprises of Brownfield land that is on the Brownfield land register. Site is enclosed by west coast mainline & in the future HS2- clearly defined features
No functional reason why the land should remain Green Belt
Balsall Common is identified as an excellent location for growth, as a sustainable settlement, offering a range of facilities and is well served by public transport links. Supportive of approach to amend green belt boundary.
Land offers opportunity to provide wide range of homes including a substantial proportion of affordable homes. Development of site for a minimum of 60 dwellings is supported however greater degree of flexibility should be given to the number of dwellings to ensure efficient use of site. Masterplan currently shows a mix of low and medium housing rather than higher density to recognise sites changing context with HS2 which will greatly alter the sites immediate landscape context.

Full text:

see attached letter

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8764

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin

Representation Summary:

As per my answer to Q8, the confusion over the sites in the Masterplan document and the scant detail mean that beneficial scrutiny will have to come after further information is supplied.

Full text:

As per my answer to Q8, the confusion over the sites in the Masterplan document and the scant detail mean that beneficial scrutiny will have to come after further information is supplied.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8779

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land at Widney Manor 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, 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.

Full text:

Please see covering letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8801

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land North of School 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, 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.

Full text:

Please see covering letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8820

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:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8841

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land Fronting Waste Lane

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, 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 assumed built rate will be crucial in the Regulation 19 Plan. Our Client's land is available now and can be delivered early in the Plan period.

Full text:

Please see covering letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8861

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:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8875

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr D Deanshaw

Representation Summary:

No objection, but question road access - new bridge?

Full text:

See Letters

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 8954

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Wendy Gault

Representation Summary:

I am supportive of the site in that it is a brownfield site but have significant issues with impact of potential bypass/access and also it will be sandwiched between 2 trainlines.

Full text:

I am supportive of the site in that it is a brownfield site but have significant issues with impact of potential bypass/access and also it will be sandwiched between 2 trainlines.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9015

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Lindop

Representation Summary:

Lavender Hall Farm should be included as an allocated site because the location provides:

Easy access for residents to the A45 and motorway network along the A452 without the need to pass through Balsall Common causing increased traffic congestion.
A large enough area to incorporate facilities such as shops, and possibly a primary school.
Easy access to the Balsall Common Healthcentre via Hallmeadow Road.
Reduced infrastructure requirements compared to alternatives such as Barratts Farm.

Less impact on existing residents.

Full text:

Lavender Hall Farm should be included as an allocated site because the location provides:

Easy access for residents to the A45 and motorway network along the A452 without the need to pass through Balsall Common causing increased traffic congestion.
A large enough area to incorporate facilities such as shops, and possibly a primary school.
Easy access to the Balsall Common Healthcentre via Hallmeadow Road.
Reduced infrastructure requirements compared to alternatives such as Barratts Farm.

Less impact on existing residents.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9038

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Christopher McDermott

Representation Summary:

brownfield site

Full text:

brownfield site

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9067

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association

Representation Summary:

Brown Field development should always be a priority over Green Field, and as a Brown Field site we support its development.

Full text:

Brown Field development should always be a priority over Green Field, and as a Brown Field site we support its development.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9093

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Hatfield

Representation Summary:

Suitable land.

Full text:

Suitable land.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9291

Received: 20/03/2019

Respondent: L&Q Estates and Barratt David Wilson Homes

Agent: Avison Young

Representation Summary:

We query the designation of the entire site as brownfield land
We note in relation to the Green Belt impacts that the site until HS2 is implemented:
Performs a more important role than Grange Farm overall, in relation to the impact on the Green Belt.
It would result in unrestricted sprawl given the current lack of a strong and defensible boundary to the north of the site.
It is unclear why the site is preferred to Grange Farm which is less important in Green Belt terms
The site is premised on the defensible boundary of the HS2 line.

Full text:

see attached document

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9311

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP

Representation Summary:

Unclear whether existing businesses would be relocated. Nevertheless, the loss of employment generating uses appears to be at odds with the wider economic ambitions of the Council. The site would also be bounded on two sides by the railway line with what appears to be a limited buffer. This therefore raises concerns over amenity for future occupiers.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9541

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Richard Lloyd

Representation Summary:

Only if HS2 is constructed. Cancellation of HS2 would remove the defensible Green Belt boundary that is required.
The opportunity should be taken to build at a higher density than shown on the masterplan.
A key infrastructure requirement is the provision of a segregated route for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders This could connect with a SW-NE route parallel to Hall Meadow Road, linking with the existing Kenilworth Greenway.
A new bridge for non-motorised users would be required across the Rugby and
Birmingham Railway, possibly adjacent to the aqueduct over the railway, which only
has pedestrian access for maintenance purposes.

Full text:

see letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9557

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Richard Cobb Planning

Representation Summary:

No - This site should be allocated for business use not residential. It is close to the centre but sandwiched between two train lines with HS2 to the north and In either case the narrow railway bridge which would need to be improved.

Full text:

Please find attached a response to various aspects of the supplementary consultation

Attachments:

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9593

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Berkswell PC are pleased that SMBC have responded to consultation responses and included brownfield sites within the local plan. Therefore, the Council supports the inclusion of this site for medium/high density housing.

Concept Masterplan
Footpath access possible to station/surgery/Hall Meadow Road but will need improvement. If Hall Meadow Road becomes by-pass, suitable access across road will be required. Access to Lavender Hall Lane will need careful planning in conjunction with new HS2 bridge as existing access problematic.

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: 9860

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Historic England- West Midlands Region

Representation Summary:

Although we acknowledge the SMBC Draft illustrative Concept Masterplan indicates how potential future development could respond to the affected heritage assets, it will be important to consider the local authority's completed Heritage Impact Assessment of this site, to inform the principle and without prejudice the appropriate response.

Full text:

see attached document

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 9908

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment would not immediately suggest this site was suitable for allocation. It lies within the highest performing Green Belt Parcel and has high visual landscape sensitivity. If HS2 is built the site would lie in a narrow belt between two highly used railway lines, hardly an ideal situation for residential development. Site would lie outside the suggested firm and defensible Green Belt boundary east of Balsall Common, at odds with the implied development intentions. Being contaminated land its viability would come into question. Difficult to understand why this site is proposed for 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: 9955

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment would not immediately suggest this site was suitable for allocation. It lies within the highest performing Green Belt Parcel, site has high visual landscape sensitivity. If HS2 is built the site would lie in a narrow belt between two highly used railway lines, hardly an ideal situation for residential development. Site would lie outside the suggested firm and defensible Green Belt boundary east of Balsall Common, at odds with the implied development intentions. Being contaminated land its viability would come into question. Difficult to understand why this site is proposed for 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: 9995

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Stonewater

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment would not immediately suggest this site was suitable for allocation. It lies within the highest performing Green Belt Parcel, site has high visual landscape sensitivity. If HS2 is built the site would lie in a narrow belt between two highly used railway lines, hardly an ideal situation for residential development. Site would lie outside the suggested firm and defensible Green Belt boundary east of Balsall Common, at odds with the implied development intentions. Being contaminated land its viability would come into question. Difficult to understand why this site is proposed for 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

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10035

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr T Khan

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment would not immediately suggest this site was suitable for allocation. It lies within the highest performing Green Belt Parcel, site has high visual landscape sensitivity. If HS2 is built the site would lie in a narrow belt between two highly used railway lines, hardly an ideal situation for residential development. Site would lie outside the suggested firm and defensible Green Belt boundary east of Balsall Common, at odds with the implied development intentions. Being contaminated land its viability would come into question. Difficult to understand why this site is proposed for 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: 10077

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd

Agent: DS Planning

Representation Summary:

The site assessment would not immediately suggest this site was suitable for allocation. It lies within the highest performing Green Belt Parcel, site has high visual landscape sensitivity. If HS2 is built the site would lie in a narrow belt between two highly used railway lines, hardly an ideal situation for residential development. Site would lie outside the suggested firm and defensible Green Belt boundary east of Balsall Common, at odds with the implied development intentions. Being contaminated land its viability would come into question. Difficult to understand why this site is proposed for 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: 10239

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: 10244

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: 10250

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: 10254

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mr William Cairns

Representation Summary:

Sandwiching houses between two railways lines and close to a major road which likely to become the main A452 - What would be the quality of the environment for residents in this location, though it is brownfield land.

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

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 10258

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Ferdous Gossain

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: