Question 39 - Red Sites

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 188

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6697

Received: 14/02/2019

Respondent: Gillian Griggs

Representation Summary:

The Council should review its assessment of sites as there are inconsistencies in the assessment of several sites. Examples in KDBH include 244, 323, 324 and 413, but also small sites such as 207, 210, 344 and 135. Some of these perform well on a number of criteria and may be able to overcome concerns such as defensible GB boundaries. A mix of large and smaller sites in a more dispersed pattern would have less impact on the GB, be more consistent with government guidance and potentially being less damaging to village character and infrastructure.

Full text:

The Council should review its assessment of sites. I referred in my response to Q2 to the apparent inconsistencies in the assessment of several sites. In particular, many of the small sites were not included in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal and some appear to perform reasonably well but are placed in the red category. Examples in KDBH include those referred to in Q2 but also small sites such as 207, 210, 344 and 135. Some of these perform well on a number of criteria and may be able to overcome concerns such as defensible GB boundaries. Consideration of some smaller sites could also enable more 'rounding off' or infill of the built area in some places as well as spreading the impacts across a wider area. A mix of large and smaller sites in a more dispersed pattern would have less impact on the GB, be more consistent with government guidance and potentially being less damaging to village character and infrastructure.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6723

Received: 18/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs B Hill

Representation Summary:

CFS 54 Clopton Crescent Depot & British Legion Club
objection to further development on open green space in North Solihull and
Existing Facilities are over crowded ,schools and doctors, lack of children's play space, traffic gridlock.

Full text:

CFS 54 Clopton Crescent Depot & British Legion Club
objection to further development on open green space in North Solihull and

Existing Facilities are over crowded ,schools and doctors, lack of children's play space, traffic gridlock.


See letter

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6724

Received: 18/02/2019

Respondent: Mr R Hill

Representation Summary:

CFS 54 - Clopton Crescent Depot & British Legion Club

Council have closes 6 schools in the area and built houses on the sites

All green spaces are being built on, no matter then size - there are no areas for children to play

Traffic is gridlocked

Full text:

See letter.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6725

Received: 19/02/2019

Respondent: Miss Lyndsey Hawkes

Representation Summary:

CFS 54. Clopton Cres.
Development will cause pressure on local amenities, loss of playing fields will impact local children, increase of cars will increase traffic congestion.

I feel that the houses will not be built in the interests of the community.

Full text:

See attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6726

Received: 19/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Ashley Canning

Representation Summary:

CFS 54. Clopton Cres.
Development will cause pressure on local amenities, loss of playing fields will impact local children, increase of cars will increase traffic congestion.

I feel that the houses will not be built in the interests of the community.

Full text:

See attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6728

Received: 19/02/2019

Respondent: Mr K R Baker

Representation Summary:

I think that the inclusion of CFS 32 Chadwick End would address the lack of varied housing types in the village. It would allow for a significant contribution of social housing/custom/self-build, and could include a shop/community centre/village green.

Full text:

see attached letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6754

Received: 22/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Neil Murphy

Representation Summary:

- CFS 325 provides a suitable and sustainable location for urban extension to Hampton Lane without encroaching on Catherine De Barnes and therefore would not contribute to coalescence.
- The site is located within a lower performing parcel in the Green Belt Assessment and would be a natural extension to Hampton Lane whilst maintaining a defensible boundary to the east and north.
- The site is therefore a good location for sustainable urban growth and should be considered suitable for inclusion as a residential site.

Full text:

site reference number 325 .
I am the householder and owner of the small patch of adjacent land in Hampton Lane. I believe a small development would help meet Solihull councils need for housing without any adverse affect on the area and without closing the gap on my local village Catherine De Barnes. Site Reference 325 provides a suitable and sustainable location for urban extension to Hampton Lane without encroaching on Catherine De Barnes and therefore would not contribute to coalescence. The site is located within a lower performing parcel in the Green Belt Assessment and would be a natural extension to Hampton Lane whilst maintaining a defensible boundary to the east and north. The site is therefore a good location for sustainable urban growth and should be considered suitable for inclusion as a residential site.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6755

Received: 20/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Ian Rees

Representation Summary:

CFS 53 - We have seen a constant erosion of the open grassed areas in Chelmsley Wood. I have copies of documents from the Land Registry relating to the area subject of the house building proposals - stating that the land is under a covenant for the use of public open space. Why was there no consultation of local residents during the covenants removal? I would strongly object to the potential loss of the Family Tree Social Club. We have few enough local amenities. I'm aware of the national housing shortage and the need to build new homes

Full text:

see attached letter

Attachments:

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6788

Received: 24/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Claire Hill

Representation Summary:

The red sites No. 98 and No, 110 should be omitted as these are very ancient fields. The site at No.98 is actually a medieval ridge and furrow field and should therefore very definitely not be built on. It is part of Knowle heritage. There would also be the added problem with both of these sites with regard to traffic - on one side by the Kenilworth Road and on the other by the Warwick Road - both of these are main roads which are extremely busy at all times of the day and could not facilitate any extra traffic.

Full text:

The red sites No. 98 and No, 110 should be omitted as these are very ancient fields. The site at No.98 is actually a medieval ridge and furrow field and should therefore very definitely not be built on. It is part of Knowle heritage. There would also be the added problem with both of these sites with regard to traffic - on one side by the Kenilworth Road and on the other by the Warwick Road - both of these are main roads which are extremely busy at all times of the day and could not facilitate any extra traffic.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6837

Received: 13/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Ray Painter

Representation Summary:

Call for sites ref: 54
I would like to make you aware of my concerns regarding the proposed development of the green space adjacent to our properties Newby Grove/Clopton Crescent.

Full text:

I would like to make you aware of my concerns regarding the proposed development of the green space adjacent to our properties Newby Grove/Clopton Crescent. I have lived in Clopton Crescent since 1971 and every approximately 10 years with have this problem of this plot of land being developed. I believe has a resident of this area we have a duty of care to preserve our green spaces for the quality and well being of the current and next generation of residents. Our children when they were young used to enjoy playing on this area. When I was young we didn't have green safe areas to play, we had to play in the road which was relatively safe due to low volume of traffic, which is not the case nowadays.
I did attend the meeting on the 3rd December at the Fordbridge centre. The absurd carrot dangled of a FA standard football pitch by John Halton (regeneration officer) which would probably cost too much to keep maintained and would fall in disrepair. We don't want to lose our green spaces.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6851

Received: 26/02/2019

Respondent: M Ian Birch

Representation Summary:

Call for site ref: 54
Near to our properties there is a piece of land where Solihull Council is seeking to sell to developers to build houses.
I would suggest many local residents would seek your intervention on this subject and any small open green spaces being built on for future ghettos.

Full text:

I would like to take this opportunity to inform you as my M.P for my area that the growing fears and anxieties from many local residents Of Newby Grove and surrounding areas.
Near to our properties there is a piece of land where Solihull Council is seeking to sell to developers to build houses.
I would suggest many local residents would seek your intervention on this subject and any small open green spaces being built on for future ghettos.
There are many issues, listed here is a few.
1. The removal of the covenant on the said piece of land adjacent to Newby Grove was done without consultation with local residents.
2. Chelmsley Wood estate concept was designed with pockets of green space for communities to enjoy, to avoid the failures of the 30s and 40s.
3. Many families moved from inner cities for a better environment.
4. In a time when we are encouraged to get outdoors and encourage our children from computers and enjoy the outside to play and socialise, we risk losing anywhere to go, as this is the only area without crossing busy road

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6868

Received: 22/02/2019

Respondent: Mr John Tocker

Representation Summary:

Call for sites ref: 54
Residents feel this land should be restored to its original use.
This very small pocket of open green space is part of the gateway to North Solihull.
I am convinced many might conclude a perception not conclusive to our future prosperity, major developments or investments.

Full text:

See letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6877

Received: 28/02/2019

Respondent: CGA Taylor

Representation Summary:

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

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 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.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6891

Received: 01/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Elspeth Hamilton

Representation Summary:

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

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.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6915

Received: 03/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Salamon

Representation Summary:

Site 207 adjacent to motorway would be suitable location with good road network able to take more traffic.
Also residents would have choice not to use cars due to closeness to Solihull and the motorway already acts as a divide between Solihull and Knowle/Dorridge .
With area already having motorway noise , housing sited close does not make any difference to the locality.

Full text:

Area207 adjacent to motorway would be suitable location with good road network able to take more traffic.
Also residents would have choice not to use cars due to closeness to Solihull and the motorway already acts as a divide between Solihull and Knowle/Dorridge .
With area already having motorway noise , housing sited close does not make any difference to the locality.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 6931

Received: 02/03/2019

Respondent: Mr P Greasley

Representation Summary:

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

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.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7078

Received: 06/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Bob Holtham

Representation Summary:

In the KDBH area there are a number of alternative locations for development which appear to have been excluded on marginal/subjective grounds which could take some of the pressure brought about by the other Knowle sites.
SUPPORT: Site 207, Accessible to Solihull, the railway and Stratford Road and capable of providing good housing numbers on a large featureless site with a strong defensible boundary.
The 'gap' between Solihull and KDBH would not be harmed because of the existing River Blythe/M42 corridor and there would be a much needed new primary school.
SUPPORT: Sites 72,419,88,108 for similar reasons.

Full text:

In the KDBH area there are a number of alternative locations for development which appear to have been excluded on marginal/subjective grounds which could take some of the pressure brought about by the other Knowle sites.
SUPPORT: Site 207, Accessible to Solihull, the railway and Stratford Road and capable of providing good housing numbers on a large featureless site with a strong defensible boundary.
The 'gap' between Solihull and KDBH would not be harmed because of the existing River Blythe/M42 corridor and there would be a much needed new primary school.
SUPPORT: Sites 72,419,88,108 for similar reasons.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7180

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Kat Mann

Representation Summary:

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Full text:

See Letter

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7239

Received: 09/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Phil Barnett

Representation Summary:

Further sites should be released to make essential infrastructure requirements affordable.
Through the extension of an allocation to sites 13, 121, 219, 417, 38, 416, 180, 208, and 145 a defensible barrier can be formed by the roads of Stratford Road, Kineton Lane and School Road (supported by the canal).
The extension of such allocation would provide a connection with the Blythe Valley development and provide significant investment in infrastructure from a major development and would provide safe access from a main artery road of the A3400 from the M42 junction 4.

Full text:

The omission of the Red Site in the Hockley Heath Parish to the North of School Road and West of Stratford Road; sites 13, 121, 219, 417, 38, 416, 180, 208, and 145 are omitted based on their priority based on the advice in paragraph 138 of the NPFF.
Through the extension of an allocation these sites can be seen to have a defensible barrier that is formed by the roads of Stratford Road, Kineton Lane and School Road (supported by the canal).
The extension of such allocation would provide a connection with the Blythe Valley development and provide significant investment in infrastructure from a major development and would provide safe access from a main artery road of the A3400 from the M42 junction 4.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7248

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Peter Renwick

Representation Summary:

I do not support inclusion of Red Sites - the proposed level of development on the Knowle and Dorridge area is already greater than the local infrastructure and local character can sustain .

However, if any Amber or Red Sites were to be considered for inclusion, I would support the inclusion of Red Site 207 ahead of Amber Site 413 - more in keeping with existing housing density and better served by road and public transport infrastructure.

Full text:

II would not support the inclusion of any Red Sites, as the proposed level of development in the Knowle and Dorridge area is already greater than the local infrastructure and local character can sustain

However, if any Amber or Red Sites were to be considered for inclusion, I would support the inclusion of Red Site 207 ahead of Amber Site 413, as it would be more in keeping with the existing development density, better served by existing transport infrastructure and less likely to put further pressure on the restricted through-ways of Knowle and Dorridge which will be unable to accommodate it, especially given the already planned development

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7413

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Steven Lyle

Representation Summary:

Why are developments currently focused on Knowle rather than being spread more evenly across the wider KDBH area? There are many proposed sites to the SW of Dorridge (29, 127, 199, 210 & 247) and NW of Bentley Heath (3, 72, 88, 108, 207 & 419). Were some of these to be developed they would potentially a) result in at least some of the additional traffic moving westwards and northwards out of the KDBH area, thereby taking some of the pressure off Knowle and b) give new residents a shorter and easier route to city rail links via Dorridge Station.

Full text:

Why are developments currently focused on Knowle rather than being spread more evenly across the wider KDBH area? There are many proposed sites to the SW of Dorridge (29, 127, 199, 210 & 247) and NW of Bentley Heath (3, 72, 88, 108, 207 & 419). Were some of these to be developed they would potentially a) result in at least some of the additional traffic moving westwards and northwards out of the KDBH area, thereby taking some of the pressure off Knowle and b) give new residents a shorter and easier route to city rail links via Dorridge Station.

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7419

Received: 10/03/2019

Respondent: Eileen Lamb

Representation Summary:

Alternative proposal for a new settlement north of Balsall Common needs serious consideration, instead of the significant expansion proposed for the settlement.

Full text:

I attended a meeting in Balsall Common Library on Saturday 16th February. I was disappointed to find that the representatives from Solihull Council were not able to answer many of the questions satisfactorily. There were many 'unknowns'. I moved into Meer Stones Road in October and am lucky to have a view over fields which I understand would be obscured by the proposed building on green field land in Windmill Lane. The thought of extra traffic having to use Meer Stones Road if the plans go ahead is frightening as the road outside my house is very narrow and on a sharp bend and an accident could easily occur. Have the planners visited this site before making such proposals?
I entirely endorse the views expressed in the attached letter from BCBARRAGE and trust that the points made in it are considered very carefully before permission to build on Site3 is given.
Balsall Common does not have the infrastructure to support such development and the disruption, together with that caused by HS2, would be intolerable. The effect on the environment caused by extra roads and traffic pollution would be great and not a legacy I would like to leave to future residents.
I trust that serious consideration will be given to the points made in the attached letter from BCBARRAGE. I am not usually a protester but feel very strongly about this issue.


See Letter

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7481

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Wendy Cairns

Representation Summary:

Some red sites to the west of Balsall Common are worthy of consideration in conjunction with a west bypass that would remove virtually all of the through north south traffic and provide a defensible boundary for such a development. Site 1015 (which an amalgamation of 142, 198 and 223) should be re-evaluated

Full text:

Some red sites to the west of Balsall Common are worthy of consideration in conjunction with a west bypass that would remove virtually all of the through north south traffic and provide a defensible boundary for such a development. Site 1015 (which an amalgamation of 142, 198 and 223) should be re-evaluated

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7485

Received: 09/03/2019

Respondent: Laura Emma Johnson

Representation Summary:

Object to development on red site 98
Loss to landscape
Loss of character
Loss to wildlife

Full text:

I am commenting on site 59 and 110and a red site 98.
Site 59 kixley Lane is the oldest road in knowle with historical
importance and the proposed Amber site 59 would be detrimental of that
road it holds great historical value when you appreciate the location of the church to its proximity to Kixley lane it self.
currently situated on edge of the village and adjacent to green belt
landscape going down to the locks. The same applies to site 110. From the
canal you see a beautiful landscape on the edge of the village. Which from my lounge window I regularly see a Heron which sits directly on said Amber site.

This wonderful beauty would be lost if houses were built here. it would result in losing the real village character you experience as
you approach knowle and the church from the kenilworth road.
They have settled here because they have space to breed & enjoy some rare green belt in the area and the wildlife feel safe here. It would be a terrible loss to nhe natural wildlife if
this site were lost to development. I am a home owner deeply saddened by the thought of house being built on a typical country lane which keeps knowle in its original heritage.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7523

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Tony Moon

Representation Summary:

I think that smaller more spread for the sites would maintain the overall feel of the village

Full text:

I think that smaller more spread for the sites would maintain the overall feel of the village

Object

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7584

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Glenn Woolley

Representation Summary:

objection of development of site 54 at Clopton Crescent
site should remain as a depot or be used as green space

Full text:

Site 54 - Clopton Crescent Fordbridge

It has come to my attention that the proposal to build on the parkland by Newby Grove in Chelmsley Wood has been dropped and now a new plan to use the council depot land, site 54 to build a new planned housing development.
As a local resident i see this as yet another plan to hide another planning permission like the failed Newby Grove.
To use the council yard as the development is not acceptable and I want to see it either stay as a council yard or put it back to its original green space. There are still only 2 entrances to the estate and the fact still remains the local areas road system is already stretched to the max, and recently shrunk in size with the local schooling being full etc.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7635

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: BFNAG

Representation Summary:

Site nos 76 and 212 have not been assessed for housing but, while they are in Green Belt, they are PDL and are near both Hampton and Berkswell stations. They are north of Balsall Common, within easy reach of the motorway network, and near employment opportunities. It could provide a purpose-built new settlement.
Site nos 142, 198 and 233 would be an alternative to Barratt's Farm, providing the possibility of a by-pass to the west of Balsall Common. It is also more accessible to the employment opportunities. It could be developed ahead of the completion of HS2.

Full text:

Site nos 76 and 212 have not been assessed for housing but, while they are in Green Belt, they are PDL and are near both Hampton and Berkswell stations. They are north of Balsall Common, within easy reach of the motorway network, and near employment opportunities. It could provide a purpose-built new settlement.
Site nos 142, 198 and 233 would be an alternative to Barratt's Farm, providing the possibility of a by-pass to the west of Balsall Common. It is also more accessible to the employment opportunities. It could be developed ahead of the completion of HS2.

Support

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7638

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Anthony Baines

Representation Summary:

Site 207 would be a much better option to Site 431 in our view as it would be much more in keeping with that particular area and it also provides much better access to Solihull , the motorway and other major roads.

Full text:

Site 207 would be a much better option to Site 431 in our view as it would be much more in keeping with that particular area and it also provides much better access to Solihull , the motorway and other major roads.

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7694

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Landowner Winterton Farm

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

Site 173 has been incorrectly assessed and should have been identified as a Priority 6 site under Step 1 of the site selection process. The site is within a moderately performing GB parcel and is adjacent to the sustainable settlement of
Cheswick Green. The land also performs more highly than Site 26 in the Site
Assessment (January 2019) document. We request that our client's land is correctly reassessed and either the whole site or parts of the site are allocated for residential development.

Full text:

please find attached our response to the Solihull Local Plan Review Draft Supplementary Consultation and a site location plan for Site 173 -Winterton Farm

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Representation ID: 7698

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs C S Prence

Representation Summary:

CFS 56 - Delighted that this site has been marked as a red site

Full text:

see attached letter

Attachments: