Question 39 - Red Sites

Please find attached my objection to the allocation of Site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common for consideration

See Letter

BARRAGE letter of objection

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.

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.

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

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.

Strongly object to A5 and 413.
A5 is high quality green belt.
Contravenes policy D1 'Density'.
Detremental to 'local character' required by the National Planning Policy forum.
Visual Sensitivity is extremely high due to the openness of this location. This location is on a hill so any development will be obvious to immediate area and beyond.
Flooding risk.
Ruins the visual appraoch to Dorridge.
With the profile of Dorridge and this location, the development would impact the overall attractiveness of Solihull Borough.
Site 207 makes far more sense, closer to M42 and major road access and much lower visual impact.

I would like to register my concerns and objections to the current draft local plan.

What is quite frightening is that the HSR report into the historic past of Blyth Valley has not been acknowledged by Solihull Council, A report that was widely available and already printed. A Report that could have considerable bearing on future housing.Shirley and Blyth Valley has 38% of the proposed housing which is a higher percentage than any other area and would link surrounding areas together i.e. Cheswich Green, Dickens Heath, & Tidbury Green. This will turn into an urban mass with a lack of open space which is a requirement for health and well being.I believe the council has based it's calculation on the 2014 Office of National Statistics figures and there is a clear case that the 2016 figures could be used.There are no plans in the current draft for extra GPs and schools
There has been no consideration of increase of traffic on the current road system and public transport system, the Mott Macdonald plan was not obtained. The council state that public transport will be improved, however if there is no public transport now how can that be improved.There is already a lack of local GP's and pupils are already travelling far and wide due to lack of schools in the appropriate areas..Site 4 an extension of Dickens Heath, proposed as it is near a station. The council has asked for alternative sites, if being near a station is a requirement, have the fields to the east of Widney Manor Station been considered. Widney Manor Station is much better linked. Dickens Heath which won best village was based on all houses being within a 10 minute walk to shops, this is something that no longer can be claimed . Site 4 states that improvements will be made to the infrastructure however roads cannot be improved as there are ancient hedgerows, which again the council appear to have neglected.
Site 26 I have no objections providing that the level of housing is kept as per the plan however the increase in traffic on Bills Lanes would need the Mott Macdonald plan being obtained prior to any permissions being granted.
However with this development then site 13 is the mitigation against the loss of green belt and would be beneficial for the community if this was designated a Village Green/ Nature Reserve.

section 5 of SMBC draft local housing plan re its intentions for Balsall Common
Preservation of the Green Belt in the Meriden Gap
--------------------------------------------------
1) The purpose of the Meriden Gap was to prevent the urban sprawl in the West Midlands conurbation between Coventry, Birmingham and Solihull. However it is clearly under threat with these plans. Paragraph 96 states that this plan will enhance the Green Belt but how does it do that. Once land is released from the Green Belt as per paragraph 97 then the benefit of the Meriden Gap will be gone forever.
2) Barratt's Farm is at the narrowest point of the Meriden Gap so instead of this development the council should consider building on site numbers 76 and 212 at Cornets End Lane (section 15 and Paragraph 405).

Preserve Green Space within the area covered by the development
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No mention is made in the plan of the emerging neighbourhood development plan for Berkswell (unlike those of Meriden and Hampton in Arden).This NDP seeks to maintain and preserve the rural character of the area.
If Barratt's Farm is to be developed a tract of open space should run throughout it, providing easy access for existing residents and the potential new householders for recreational amenities and playing fields .Safe pathways and cycle routes should be created away from traffic to the village centre whilst retaining existing public footpaths. The Solihull plan does not appear to achieve these aims.

Protection of Property and Quality of Life of all residents affected by the development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMBC must ensure that the least possible disturbance to existing residents is caused during the building of the development.
The location of houses close to the existing residences should be kept to a minimum and where practicable separated by a green open area that could be used for organised and informal pursuits.
Existing roads and lanes around the development are insufficient to cope with additional traffic from the site. Meeting House Lane must not be allowed to become an access point for a first Phase of building before HS2 is completed. Any access would change the character and country feel of a traditional lane and it would change the ambiance forever.
The possible development of the 2 fields behind the Catholic Church should not be allowed as these should be retained as they are and should be available for the community to use. If any development does occur here then access must not be via Oxhayes Close as this is a narrow cul de sac with cars regularly parked on the road near the narrow corner and the view on exit into Meeting House Lane is restricted and with the pinch points this would become a bottleneck.
All traffic must be directed away from the existing residential areas towards the bypass that will provide the main vehicular access.

The Concept Plan for Barratt's Farm
------------------------------------
I note a suggestion that Barratt's Farm would not be developed(in the main) until HS2 is completed(Paragraph 103).I am not confident that the Concept plan addresses this. The construction of HS2 is going to cause major disruption to the residents of Balsall Common and therefore there should be no development until after HS2 is completed and the main access points should be from Station Road and Waste Lane which are the major roads adjoining the site.

General Comments on the proposed development
--------------------------------------------------
What is Solihull Councils justification for selecting Balsall Common for much of their housing needs. Why are houses previously planned for elsewhere (Dickens Heath) now being moved to Balsall Common.
The developments proposed will potentially increase the population of Balsall Common by 50 per cent which will have a very adverse affect due to the following:
Congestion due to much increased traffic.
Car Parking at the Station is already insufficient resulting in a large number of cars parking on adjoining roads. In addition if a new school is built near the station then even more street parking is likely to occur in that area.
There is already insufficient parking at the shops in the village centre most of the time. Therefore with the additional number of vehicles resulting from the large increase in the population of Balsall Common proposed there would be complete chaos at the village centre.

re SMBC,"s Draft Local Development Plan for Balsall Common

Firstly the Meriden gap is being eroded by this development.
The Meriden gap was made as a prevention to restrain the urban scrawl in the West Midlands conurbation between Birmingham and Coventry. (Paragraph 96 ) states that this plan will enhance the Green Belt! It is clearly under threat with these plans of urbanisation. How is this enhancing it by building Balsall Common 1/2 as big again!
Coventry have already made plans to build up to the Solihull Borough at Berkswell boundary. Coventry are already constructing at Burton Green in Warwickshire ,
SMBC "s plans will erode it further. It is only 2km at this point.

Once land is released from the Green Belt (paragraph 97) it cannot be reclaimed, the benefit of this lovely countryside will be gone forever. Looking at map of areas planned for development Balsall Common and especially Berkswell will no longer be a village and a rural area, which is why we enjoy living here with easy access to walks across the fields and countryside

Barratt"s Farm which is right next to where I live is at the narrowest point of the Meriden Gap. All those beautiful fields will be lost especially with HS2 and the By pass as well in this area and side of village!

There are possible alternative sites for building away from this valued piece of Green Belt section 15. & Paragraph 405 e.g site numbers 76 &212 at Cornets End Lane which could be used for a new settlement.

Secondly Green space must be preserved within the area covered by the development.
In the NDP it seeks to maintain and preserve the rural character of the area , which the existing residence would like to keep. No mention has been made of the NDP for Berkswell unlike those of Hampton and Meriden.
Paragraph 95 Concept Master Plans should:
- develop a tract of open space running through the majority of Barrett's Farm, much like Riddings Hill, with recreational amenities, play areas and retention/ development of nature reserve areas.
- There are some magnificent oak tree in Berkswell Parish these have preservation orders on them and must be retained along with established hedgerows and must be incorporated into any development in keeping with the rural area.
- long established use of playing fields and recreational spaces must be incorporated and new areas established.
- it is also very important to establish safe pathways and cycle routes away from traffic to the village centre as there certainly won't be any room to park with the housing being increase by 59%,!

The protection of existing residents property and quality of life of all residents must not be affected by the development.
- As a long time resident of Balsall Common (33 Years) I am looking for vision and not the reproduction of another standard lookalike housing estate and village centre. That is why we choose to live here and have never moved. I know we need change and extra housing is required, we do not need to increase as much as 50% in this area it is not in keeping. Why is it not put in other parts of the Borough? It is spoiling the rural aspect of the area.Paragraph 57
- ensure that the least possible disturbance is caused to existing residents whilst building any part of this new development.
-The location-of new housing close to existing residences should be kept to a minimum and where practical separated by a green open area , not opening up existing roads and using hem as access to the new development. Access to New development should have their own access from new roads created to keep traffic flow and congestion to a minimum
- Existing roads and lanes around the development are insufficient to cope with additional traffic. Meeting house lane should be kept as it is and not used and become an access point for a first phase of building before HS2 is completed. Any access along this road or the roads that feed off it would change the character and country feel of a traditional lane and would change the ambiance of a rural feel for ever.
- All traffic for new development must be directed away from existing resident areas towards the new bypass that will provide the main vehicle access.
- I live in Oxhayes Close coming off Meeting House lane which is a small culdesac with a sharp bend where our house is half way up,. It is a blind bend and there are often cars parked outside house on this corner, so is one lane only, one proposal is to open up our road as access to build possibly 40 homes . It would be very dangerous traffic wise and would also put extra possibly 80 cars ( 2 car a household) using Meeting house lane and Oxhayes Close. The access from our roD is dangerous with the pinch point existing hedges and bushes it is often hard to see on coming traffic when turning onto Meeting House Lane. This would also cause traffic build up coming in and out of Oxhayes to and from Meeting House Lane with the pinch points. The pinch points are very necessary as they slow the traffic down and stops Meeting House lane being a fast cut through for traffic instead of Kenilworth road. It would also not be in keeping with the existing housing in this area. At the end of the road was originally used as a play area with swings and slides and field used as a football pitch.groun. It is vital that areas like this should be redeveloped as open space for recreational activities which will be much needed with the Barratts Farm development.
At the end of our road are some lovely old oak trees which have preservation orders on them, there would be no access unless these were taken out, which goes against trying to keep the feel of the existing rural environment and preserving out trees and hedgerows.. Taking them out and removing their long established routes could also do damage to the nearest existing houses, one of which has extensive underpinning .

Concept Plan for Barratts Farm
- The emerging concept plan for Barratts Farm not clear and insufficiently developed to enable a clear assessment for residents to realise it s full impact on them. It raises more concerns then it addresses. The site is complex with 13 different landowners, HS2, proposed bypass and school. The plan needs to be strong from day one for the whole site. Paragraph 101
-there should be no development of Barratts Farm until after HS2 is completed, the village and especially the residents could not cope with traffic and extra disruption . The main access points must be from Station road near the Station and Waste lane from the other side.
- green space between existing and new development is not clearly shown on the concept plans at this stage. This must be made clear before any work begins.
- The concept plan as published is an emerging one and there hopefully will be major revision before it is finally issued taking in the needs and views of existing residents who will be greatly affected by this plan. Piecemeal planning must not be allowed otherwise this will not happen it must be a clear and planning policies must be robust and adhered to. It is dangerous that once land has been allowed to be removed from the green belt land will be sold off to developers who will apply for planning permissions.

My personal views on development
Balsall Common will no longer have a rural feel to it, which is why we chose to live here having moved from Water Orton 33years ago That has now been ruined by major roads and development. My concerns are that will happen here, with 50% increase in housing we will become a sprawling Conurbation with no amenities joined on to Coventry, it will not be rural village in the countryside, although it has grown it still has that feel but with this development it certainly will not
At the moment the village already struggles with parking at certain times of the day, I am lucky as I can walk up but, I have to drive to get to my house either through the village dicing with the people stopping and reversing in and out of space with often no regard for drivers who are driving through to get home, or along Hallmeadow road an up Station road with all the cars parked because there is insufficient parking for Station now,! We will need 80% increase in a new station car park to accommodate new housing and existing cars parked on road.. it is very dangerous at times driving up the hill from the Station by The Bricklayers arms, imagine with the increase of traffic and a bypass. Sensible provision of parking amenities must be provided for at Station and village. With the increased traffic it is going to take me a lot longer to access my house coming from both Solihull or from dual carriageway. How is the village going to sustain the increase of traffic and people?
More trains stopping here will also be needed, at moment x2 an hour and you have to stand during busy periods.. enter bus service including the evenings to Solihull .
More amenities will be required for leisure, open space, expanding the doctors surgery, the new school should be built first as the existing primary school cannot take any new people moving into village .
We will become a small town with no character just a sprawl of houses in the middle of country nearly joined to Coventry with no amenities like town, this is not in keeping with the villages of Balsall Common and Berkswell.
Why is all the building going into Berkswell Parish and not the other side of the village. It should be more eventually balance out especially with the disruption of HS2 and bypass both this side of the village, there are pockets of building land the other side of village . What about the area from Greenfield Avenue up to Wooton green lane and up to and beyond The George in tree easy access onto Kenilworth road.. I know there were areas there that were put forward as building land.
There are large pollution implications with HS2, bypass, extra traffic with development and the planes that take off and land over Balsall Common. This has an impact on old and new residents and also the new school which is tied near the proposed bypass..
why is the bypass not going to the West of Balsall Common , it was one of the original suggested routes.. why put so much together down next to HS2 which will be a huge disruption and a blot on the landscape cutting Berkswell Parish in half.
Also what justification is there for choosing to make Balsall Common for Your housing needs. What is the matter with Dickens Heath which was a new developed village in Solihull, these new houses would fit in much better to the existing environment. Or Hockley Heath, which has much better access to M42/M40 and nearer to Solihull town centre or Shirley where there are lots of amenities, we haven't we are in the country.
Solihull have ignored the Berkswell NDP in their plans and not taking or car d about existing residents
I feel it is very sad what is happening to our rural village and the beautiful countryside being eroded. )

A lot of new housing has already built in recent years causing more congestion and severe shortage of adequate car park spaces. Hence cars parked along residential roads causing obstruction. Such a large number of extra homes would place too much strain on local roads in particular those going towards Knowle, also M42 A34 and A41. Some of these are narrow lanes ie:- Grove Road and Norton Green Road. The extra vehicles would spoil the character and tranquillity of Knowle village and surrounds.
It contravenes Policy D1 as its far too dense for the rural surroundings. It wouldn't promote local character as required by The National Planning Policy Forum. Visual sensitivity would be high due to the open nature of Blue Lake Road.
Accessibility by bus would be poor. Services have just been reduced to an hourly service. It is half a mile from Dorridge to this development and there will be nowhere to park these extra cars if people were able to walk to the bus stops


Site 207 would make far more sense due to access to Solihull town ,M42 A34 etc thereby reducing traffic from more existing congested area.

see submission re: site 180 -Five Oaks School Road Hockley Heath

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.

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.

Housing Proposals for Balsall Common

I refer to your document for proposed housing in Balsall Common, plus the meetings organised in the village, where representatives from SMBC were present.

1. The overall presumption that the Green Belt must be sacrificed to the extent your plan assumes is contested. Gavin Barwell and now James Brokenshire have, in public broadcasts, stated that every option must be explored before Green Belt is removed.
The latest suggestion was that sites should be explored to create a completely new village/town.
Solihull have consistently refused to do this. As the Berkswell Parish Council have pointed out there is such a site on the old quarry near Cornet's End. This site comes into a different category because it is not brown field , and Solihull's argument always is that it must be restored to its original character before the quarry work was done. This is not acceptable, and would certainly be preferable to invading so much of the Green Belt surrounding Balsall Common. It is highly likely that developers would resist it, yet Andy Street has set aside large funds to allow this sort of project. The most crucial point in one of the above meetings was that developers MUST NOT be allowed to take precedence over every decision.

2. Your proposals for Balsall Common are far too highly weighted in one spot - Barretts Farm. The only other proposal for the other side of the village is Holly Lane. There is no cogent reason why you rejected building on the field next to Oakes Farm. This would be one field only, with good access to a main road. The additional advantage would be that the developer who is keen to build there could be made to create a full width road as access to Oakes farm shop and restaurant. With the popularity of the facilities there the current narrow road is totally unsuitable.

You also rejected any building near Grange Farm. Again, there would be good access to the A452.

3. The decision to place the vast majority of the housing on Barretts Farm would make the huge increase in traffic, and pollution, so lopsided in terms of the whole village that there would be a risk to health, at the very least, to mental health since you would be robbing this side of the village of all its footpaths. Footpaths round fields, with hedges, trees and ponds is very different for wildlife from a park.

4. The realistic situation is that some building may take place on Barretts Farm, but not to the extent proposed. Certain objectives should be required :-
a) the countryside, with footpaths and ponds, should be retained and the housing restricted to fields where there are no footpaths. In this way, the community will still be able to enjoy walking on the land.
b) if there is to be a new school, it should be given a playing field so that this facility can be used during school hours by the children, and out of school hours, by the community. There may also be space inside the school which could be for community use - this happened at a Birmingham school where I was a governor.
c) HS2 does not seem to be mentioned in your consultation document, but this is having, and will continue to have, a devastating affect on this side of the village. Therefore, no building on Barretts Farm should begin until this section of HS2 is completed.
d) the other stipulation should be that a new access road running parallel with the Greenway should also be completed before any development begins. It is essential that the narrow lanes of Meeting House Lane, Barretts Lane, Sunnyside Lane and Oxhayes Close keep their character by making all access to the development on Barretts Farm to and from the new access road.
e) the Council and developers should look at other estates in the village to copy the good features (footpaths through the houses, as on Kemps Green) and (curving paths, as on Grange Park), avoiding the completely straight path on Lavender Hall Park.
f) an earlier promise, which seems to have disappeared, was to create screening for the current surrounding houses. This was done by wooded areas on Lavender Hall, Berkswell Gate and Grange Park. This would not only make life more pleasant for the current owners, but would be more attractive for new house buyers.

5. We were told, at the meetings, that Balsall Common is highly desirable
because of its good infrastructure. I can only point out that the station carpark is so inadequate that cars use Hallmeadow Road, and now Station Road as overflow car parking. There are only two trains an hour; the bus service is very limited in times and destinations and the centre of the village is rapidly declining in variety of shops since all the banks closed. The parking in the village is so bad that almost every week there are small collisions between cars, made worse by the huge delivery lorries which obscure vision. Also, the vans which use the parking outside the shops and where the vehicle projects into the road are another hazard.

I apologise for the length of this response, but it is our lives at risk.

These are my views on the Solihull Local Plan Review:

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN - SUPPLEMENTARY CONSULTATION

BALSALL COMMON

QUESTION 4 - SITE 1- BARRETTS FARM


Preservation of the Green Belt in the Meriden Gap:

* Barretts Farm is in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap between Balsall Common and Coventry. With the addition of HS2 it will almost be eliminated.

*Alternative sites for development to the North of Balsall Common should be considered, making use of Hampton in Arden rail station.


Preserving green space in the area covered by the development:

* To compensate for the loss of Green Belt large areas of open space should provided for public use.

* There should be sizeable areas of undeveloped land containing existing trees and hedgerows to allow for the movement of wildlife.

* Linear tracts of landscaped open space should run through the development following footpaths and cycleways.

* The location of new homes close to existing residences should be avoided as much as possible, and separated by green open space (as at Riddings Hill).


Protecting the property and quality of life of all residents affected by the development:

* Vehicular access to the new housing should be from the new bypass.

* Only pedestrian footpaths and cycleways should be connected to Meeting House Lane, Oxhayes Close and Barretts Lane.

* Barretts Farm development should only be commenced after the completion of HS2, to avoid the massive impact from the construction of two projects at once.

* Construction traffic should not be permitted along Meeting House Lane, it is narrow and has no footpath.

* The bypass should be built first to take construction traffic.


Concept Plan for Barretts Farm:

* All new development should be in accordance with an agreed Concept Plan, even small sites.

* The Eastern bypass should become the route for though traffic, and be part of the A452.

* The existing Kenilworth Road should be for local traffic only, with traffic calming to discourage through traffic. Pedestrian movement across the Kenilworth Road should be improved.

* The increased population will require a larger village centre with more facilities.

* Earlier build should be on the Western side of the village whilst HS2 is under construction.

* A line for a Western bypass should be established to take pressure away from from the Eastern bypass which acts as a feeder road for 900 houses at Barretts Farm.

* The new development should be of high aesthetic value, giving Balsall Common a special character.

* A Design Guide should be produced for developers to comply with. This should give some unity and 'Sense of Place' to the expanded village

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.

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.

Please refer to attached document.

See Letter

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.

See Letter

objection to site 3 and copy of BARRAGE letter
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.

see letter

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

I see that the Supplementary Consultation Site Assessments document designates the Green Belt fields on one side of Widney Manor Road ( between 70- 120WMR) as RED ie not to be included in Plan because any housing development would have severe negative impacts. I totally agree that this land should remain undeveloped green belt. ( Rus in urbe). I am alarmed that developers have apparently bought part of this land ( near Lovelace) and are hoping to build houses on this land. My fellow residents are totally against any such development, and expect the Council to refuse any planning application.

objection to site 3 and copy of BARRAGE letter
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.