Question 10 - Green Belt Changes
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7778
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Wheeler
Green Belt Enhancements. It is an insult to the intelligence of residents to suggest that destruction of an area of Green Belt equal to the current area of the entire village, in the narrowest part of the Meriden gap, "provides an opportunity".
Please see my attachment.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7794
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Andrew Fox
What is the point of Greenbelt if it can be just withdrawn...?
What is the point of Greenbelt if it can be just withdrawn...?
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7983
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Izumi Segawa
We are trying to leave as much valuable nature for the next generation. But the government is being an obstruction to achieve such a legacy.
That's what the government is doing - destroying nature, encouraging people to drive more and pollute the air, lower the quality of life of people and leave nothing good for the children.
If you need to tackle the housing deficiency, build more flats in the town centre.
We are trying to leave as much valuable nature for the next generation. But the government is being an obstruction to achieve such a legacy.
That's what the government is doing - destroying nature, encouraging people to drive more and pollute the air, lower the quality of life of people and leave nothing good for the children.
If you need to tackle the housing deficiency, build more flats in the town centre.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8045
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Matthew Quinn
Historic Windmill.
Solihull must have more suitable Brownfield sites than building on greenbelt land.
The closing of The Meriden Gap is worrying.
Once green belt is gone it is lost forever.
Historic Windmill.
Solihull must have more suitable Brownfield sites than building on greenbelt land.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8046
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Matthew Quinn
The closing of The Meriden Gap is worrying.
Once green belt is gone it is lost forever.
The closing of The Meriden Gap is worrying.
Once green belt is gone it is lost forever.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8060
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Andrew King
Greenbelt is greenbelt for a reason. You are setting a dangerous precedence by taking out greenbelt willy nilly. What's the point in having greenbelt at all if you can just take it out whenever you want?
Greenbelt is greenbelt for a reason. You are setting a dangerous precedence by taking out greenbelt willy nilly. What's the point in having greenbelt at all if you can just take it out whenever you want?
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8092
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Sheila Cooper
No exceptional circumstances justifying such an action.
Removal of Green Belt status for land south of Old Waste Lane/Waste Lane will remove ALL protection from development. Will result in unstructured, random development as individual sites are promoted for development through the normal planning system.
This is strategically important and highly performing Green Belt and its loss will cause a strategic diminution of the Green Belt and Meriden Gap. Green Belt status of significance to setting of Windmill and rural character.
If Pheasant Oak Farm is developed boundary should be set tightly round the Brownfield part of the development.
See attached document
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8138
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Felicity Wheeler
No justification for such a change.
Loss of protection for smaller parcels of land could result in unstructured, random development as individual sites are promoted for development.
Land between Old Waste Lane and Waste Lane does have good accessibility and would cause less harm than other areas.
Loss of Green Belt in Barratt's Farm area, well used by walkers, cannot be compensated for within these plans. It is nonsense to suggest that destruction of an area of Green Belt equal to the current area of the entire village, in the narrowest part of the Meriden gap provides an opportunity.
There is no justification for such a change.
It is unacceptable that smaller parcels of land will no longer have the protection of being in Green Belt. This could result in unstructured, random development as individual sites are promoted for development through the normal planning system.
However, the land between Old Waste Lane and Waste Lane does have good accessibility and would cause less harm than other areas earmarked for development in Balsall Common.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8166
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Anya Schofield
The plans are not clear as to what happens to the Greenway - a key green space and heritage site - which should be protected
The plans are not clear as to what happens to the Greenway - a key green space and heritage site - which should be protected
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8177
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Richard Drake
Only land needed now should be released. In particular land between Waste Lane and Kenilworth Road should not be released.
Only land needed now should be released. In particular land between Waste Lane and Kenilworth Road should not be released.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8203
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Caroline Drake
Land not marked for development should not be taken out of the Greenbelt especially the land between Waste Lane and Kenilworth Rd.
Land not marked for development should not be taken out of the Greenbelt especially the land between Waste Lane and Kenilworth Rd.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8304
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow
Almost all of this land scored 12 in the Atkins greenbelt study. Consequently, it makes the highest contribution possible to the purposes of the greenbelt, It is also a key part of the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap. As such its removal is totally contrary to policy both NPPF and Solihull's. Its proposed removal looks so contrary to the evidence that it makes the SMBC approach look predetermoned around having a bypass that itself has not been justified in the draft plan.
Most this area of land forms part of the setting of the historic and listed Berkswell windmill.
Almost all of this land scored 12 in the Atkins greenbelt study. Consequently, it makes the highest contribution possible to the purposes of the greenbelt, It is also a key part of the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap. As such its removal is totally contrary to policy both NPPF and Solihull's. Its proposed removal looks so contrary to the evidence that it makes the SMBC approach look predetermoned around having a bypass that itself has not been justified in the draft plan.
Most this area of land forms part of the setting of the historic and listed Berkswell windmill.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8329
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Richard Chadwick
The Barratts Lane plan will mean our property (Dragonflies) on Waste Lane becomes surrounded by houses and the new bypass, I therefore ask you INCLUDE our property in the development proposal. This will mean more houses and easier access to Waste Lane.
The Barratts Lane plan will mean our property (Dragonflies) on Waste Lane becomes surrounded by houses and the new bypass, I therefore ask you INCLUDE our property in the development proposal. This will mean more houses and easier access to Waste Lane.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8341
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Helen Goodwin
The whole idea of moving the boundary makes a mockery of the what the village is about and has tried to maintain for all of these years.
Once these boundaries are lost, they run the risk of being eroded continually over the next generations to come.
The whole idea of moving the boundary makes a mockery of the what the village is about and has tried to maintain for all of these years.
Once these boundaries are lost, they run the risk of being eroded continually over the next generations to come.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8431
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Diane Howell
Greenbelt can be released at a later date, but once it's gone it is gone. My concern is tht as Coventry builds up to our boundary we are eroding the Meriden gap. And if our allocated housing numbers are increased, this land will be developed very soon.
Greenbelt can be released at a later date, but once it's gone it is gone. My concern is tht as Coventry builds up to our boundary we are eroding the Meriden gap. And if our allocated housing numbers are increased, this land will be developed very soon.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8435
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Catherine Brown
I object to the loss of green belt Land. Balsall Common is a village and green space around it should be maintained. The Meriden gap should not be eroded in order to pack houses into a village without the amenities to support more people. I'm really disappointed with the proposals made by Solihull council and the lack of foresight to see the impact on the current residents of Balsall Common, who already have noise and pollutions problems from HS2 and the airport. Please do not build a bypass and Reduce the housing to be built in the village.
I object to the loss of green belt Land. Balsall Common is a village and green space around it should be maintained. The Meriden gap should not be eroded in order to pack houses into a village without the amenities to support more people. I'm really disappointed with the proposals made by Solihull council and the lack of foresight to see the impact on the current residents of Balsall Common, who already have noise and pollutions problems from HS2 and the airport. Please do not build a bypass and Reduce the housing to be built in the village.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8532
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Ella McGarry
The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet
see attached letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8541
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs J A Gledhill
Development of Site 3 would create the narrowest gap between settlements.
see attached letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8575
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs J Carpenter
Development of Site 3 would create the narrowest gap between settlements.
see attached letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8646
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Henning Kleine
The government has continuously stated that green belts are to be preserved, which seems to be completely ignored by the Solihull.
I would like to express our deep concerns about Solihull Council's development plans regarding Balsall Common.
Generally we would like to point out that the government has continuously stated that green belts are to be preserved, which seems to be completely ignored by the Solihull authorities and planning departments.
We are afraid the proposed development will effect the village and its people, as there seems to be in effect hardly any coordination and structure, how this huge development shall be erected. The infrastructural requirement to integrate it into the village structure are simple not thought about sufficiently and such advance activities need to be timed and thought through. I stress that the village centre has no chance to cope with this development.
The development will take away a recreation area including the benefits for dog-walkers and joggers; it will harm the bio-diversity of the Meriden gap.
Parts of the development shall be directly linked to Meeting House Lane (i.e. lead into MHL), which constitutes a fundamental irresponsibility in regards to additional traffic and pedestrians' health and safety, as most of the lower end of Meeting House lane has no pedestrian walkway and children would be especially at risk.
The development Barretts Farm appears to suit big developers; in the attached areas small developers may piecemeal the area without any strategic planning.
There is no proper concept as to how the bypass may help the situation in the village unless also Kenilworth Road is completely restructured and be made a non-through road. In the abundance of such a concept the bypass will be a waste of money (although apparently already equipped with sufficient funds ...).
Please consider to the above and act accordingly.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8700
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs K Drakes
Development of Site 3 would create the narrowest gap between settlements.
see attached letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8745
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: Jeanette McGarry
The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet between settlements
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8748
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Andrea Baker
Balsall Common is a semi-rural village that has been severely neglected in terms of infrastructure development and improvement for more than a decade - members of staff from the Council often tell callers we are not even part of Solihull, and I have personally been told to ring Coventry City Council with issues about waste collection!
The attraction of the area is its rurality, we are surrounded by wildlife, safe cycling routes and walks for families and dog lovers alike. These plans destroy the way of life the villagers have moved here for.
Balsall Common is a semi-rural village that has been severely neglected in terms of infrastructure development and improvement for more than a decade - members of staff from the Council often tell callers we are not even part of Solihull, and I have personally been told to ring Coventry City Council with issues about waste collection!
The attraction of the area is its rurality, we are surrounded by wildlife, safe cycling routes and walks for families and dog lovers alike. These plans destroy the way of life the villagers have moved here for.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8770
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor Max McLoughlin
Principle needs greater explanation for respondents.
Mapping of sites needs to be provided in conjunction with question, to demonstrate that principle of change is effective and reassure community.
Whilst I recognise the principles behind 'washed over' Green Belt, I have reservations over making sweeping statements.
The principle of 'washed over' Green Belt would need further explanation in this document for residents to comment on it. The principle, for the benefit of anyone not familiar reading this, is that where development encases, or creates parcels of now poorer performing Green Belt, this should act in favour of development (or removal of the parcels from the Green Belt).
I understand the principle and can see instances where this might work. I also appreciate that this location, spatially, could make sense for development. However, without more detailed mapping I wouldn't like to give any consent. The primary reason is, as stated earlier in my response, that a principle's efficacy should be measured by the results that it produces. There should be efforts given to demonstrate that the principle is effective and provide reassurance, as well as open it up to scrutiny by residents with more detailed knowledge of the land it would pertain to.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8862
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd - Land South of Park Lane
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
We agree that the Green Belt boundary should be amended to reflect HS2 and other growth, however we disagree with the proposed amendment around Park Lane. We have identified a suggested Green Belt boundary shown in the Context Plan, which we consider presents a more logical boundary based on the committed infrastructure development around Park Lane, and the proposed allocation at Lavender Hall Farm to the east. HS2 will ultimately provide a new defensible boundary to Balsall Common and our Client's site (Land south of Park Lane) falls within this boundary, therefore ensuring there will be no encroachment into the open countryside.
Please see covering letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8956
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Ms Wendy Gault
I do not understand the logic or rationale for this at all and it is not based on any evidence/policy direction within the NPPF.
I do not understand the logic or rationale for this at all and it is not based on any evidence/policy direction within the NPPF.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9010
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Sharon Lindop
Removing the 'washed over' Green Belt status of this area by moving the existing greenbelt boundary further east to the line of the 'proposed' bypass serves no purpose other than to earmark yet another site for potential housing development in the future.
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. This would cause a further reduction in the 'Meriden Gap' and be a 'thumbs up' to developers for ongoing 'urban sprawl'.
Moving the greenbelt boundary further east to the line of the proposed bypass serves no purpose other than to invariably earmark the area released from greenbelt 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.
This greenbelt boundary should remain intact and it's washed over status should be retained.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9017
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Keith Tindall
The proposal cannot be justified and will lead to uncontrolled development sprawl. It is contrary to the Atkins Green Belt Report 2016 which scored it 12.
It will weaken the Council's position in defending the Meriden Gap, and to para phrase Professor Alan Wenban -Smith 'allocation of housing is a one way process'; in other words its removal will encourage even more unsustainable development.
The proposal cannot be justified and will lead to uncontrolled development sprawl. It is contrary to the Atkins Green Belt Report 2016 which scored it 12.
It will weaken the Council's position in defending the Meriden Gap, and to para phrase Professor Alan Wenban -Smith 'allocation of housing is a one way process'; in other words its removal will encourage even more unsustainable development.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9039
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Christopher McDermott
i don't think the green belt boundary should be moved from the existing east side of the village
i don't think the green belt boundary should be moved from the existing east side of the village
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9072
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Balsall Common Village Residents Association
We do not support this.The proposal is unjustified and will lead to uncontrolled piece meal development. Its removal from the green belt will therefore further erode the Meriden Gap by encouraging unsustainable development on it.
It is also contrary to the Atkins Green Belt Report 2016 which rated the area's importance highly.
We do not support this.The proposal is unjustified and will lead to uncontrolled piece meal development.Its removal will therefore further erode the Meriden Gap by encouraging unsustainable development on it.
It is also contrary to the Atkins Green Belt Report 2016 which rated the area's importance highly.