Question 37 - Compensatory Provision for removal of land from Green Belt.

See Letter

See Letter

Dear Sir/Madam,
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

Please refer to attached documents.
Lichfields is instructed by Heyford Developments Ltd ('Heyford Developments') to respond formally to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review supplementary consultation (January 2019 - March 2019).

See Letter

See Letters 1 - 6

see letter

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

This representation is made on behalf of IM Land, a subsidiary of IM Properties PLC who are working with landowners to promote land north of Main Road, Meriden for new housing
see attached letter and appendices

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.

Please accept that attached as Catherine De Barnes Residents Association to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Review Consultation . This response is the work of a joint working group comprised members of the RA and Hampton Parish Council.
Although almost identical to the response from Hampton Parish Council we have made a correction to para 6.8 where the word north has been replaced by south and there is an additional para.6.10 .


See letter

See Letter

see letter attached

See Letter

Please find attached representations prepared by Turley on behalf of IM Land in respect of Land at Earlswood Station in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation (January 2019).

See Letter

See Letter

Sworders act on behalf of Mr. Stephen Dunn, landowner of Site 110 - Land to the south of 114 Kenilworth Road. The representations are submitted in response to the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation, January 2019.

We wish to comment on the following 3 questions:
Question 2: Do you agree with the methodology of the site selection process, if not why not and what alternative/amendment would you suggest?
Question 37: What compensatory provision should be made for land being removed
from the Green Belt? Where relevant give examples that are specific to individual sites proposed for allocation.
Question 39: Are there any red sites which you believe should be included; if so which one(s) and why?

I would like to register my concerns and objections to the current draft local plan.
Shirley and Blyth Valley has now 38% of the proposed housing which is more than the lions share and will link many areas together i.e. Cheswich Green, Dickens Heath, & Tidbury Green. All will become just another hugh conurbation with no identity.

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 which shows a lower calculation.
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. There are no plans in the current draft for extra GPs and schools.
With the current proposals the council would need to build 885 homes per year, a target that has never been obtained.
Site 4 an extension of Dickens Heath, proposed as it is near a station. Dickens Heath which won best village was based on all houses being within a 10 minute walk to shops, this is something which is already null and void. 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 appeared not to have done their homework. The council has asked for alternative sites, if being near a station is all that is required, have the fields to the east of Widney Manor Station been considered. Widney Manor Station is much better linked.
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.
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.

This is my response to the above document. I have presented my comments it in the order of the sections and paragraphs in the Draft. I have restricted my comments to those sections that particularly relate to me.
see letter for full text

COMMENT FROM THE RAMBLERS - WARWICKSHIRE AREA

Balsall Common By-pass: Warwickshire Ramblers are extremely concerned about this so called 'By-Pass'. It should not be seen as just a By-Pass for Balsall Common, but for what it really is - part of a far wider damaging scheme for a proposed A46/A452 Link Road from Balsall Common to the Stoneleigh Interchange on the A46; with a possible link to the A45 from Burton Green. The majority of both proposed routes would be within Solihull and between them would cut some 15 or so Public Rights of Way (PROWs) in the Borough. The route proposed for this Link Road closely follows the line of HS2 and would impact on both the environmental mitigations already hard won from HS2 Ltd and the Kenilworth Greenway - with the Greenway becoming trapped between HS2 and the new 'By-Pass'!

It is obvious that this Link Road would be designed as a fast through commuting route and that attempting to cross it at grade would be extremely hazardous - for, while PROW crossings on that portion of the Link Road falling within Warwickshire would be protected by the policy protecting PROW crossings at grade on fast new roads contained in the Warwickshire County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP), your SMBC ROWIP provides no such protection for pedestrians!

As this Link Road will inflict such immense damage on an already beleaguered stretch of countryside, Warwickshire Ramblers will strongly oppose any planning application to construct it.

Concept Master Plans: While having no comments to make on the other smaller housing allocation sites in Balsall Common, Warwickshire Ramblers do feel that the Barretts Farm Allocation is a development too far! From our own point of view the fact that the Barretts Farm Site would obliterate or subsume within urban development some 2.5 kl of public footpaths is sufficient cause for deep concern - but, coupled with the fact that by your own admission the proposed Balsall Common 'By-Pass' would be expected to provide the main vehicular access into the Barratt's Farm development, then we feel that this really is a drastic over-development of poor old Balsall Common, and must express our opposition to the development of the Barretts Farm Site!

Green Belt Enhancements: No possible enhancements would be able to compensate in the slightest for the extreme damage that taking Barretts Farm out of the Green Belt (with the resulting over-expansion of Balsall Common) will cause. As for 'an opportunity to link up with the Greenway', the rural setting of the Greenway will become permanently destroyed by being trapped between HS2 and the A46/A452 Link Road - a valuable green asset reduced to a mere urban cycle track!

Michael Bird
Footpath & Countryside Secretary
The Ramblers, Warwickshire Area

The Ramblers' Association is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company registration number: 4458492. Registered Charity in England and Wales number: 1093577. Registered office: 2nd floor, Camelford House, 87-90 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TW

We believe these washed over boundaries should be removed. The area 13 between Shirley, Dickens heath and Cheswick green should be made public open space and nature reserve with cycle tracks and paths for the residents to enjoy.

My concerns are as follows:-
Currently 38% of the Solihull Borough housing proposal is in Blythe Valley which remains disproportionate and unacceptable given the size of the borough. .
2050 new houses will bring around 4,000 more cars or higher and therefore more congestion in Shirley and limited parking at public areas, shopping areas and our stations.
A stretch on places at schools and G.P. capacity.
It removes sports grounds for the young/youth of Blythe valley causing a major problem when people/kids should be encouraged to be more active. There is no proposal to replace like for like facilities.
Loss of access to Green Belt, again many people use this space to walk to be healthy or take the dog for a walk - me and my family are included in that.
It is not sustainable and will create more pollution due to vehicle emissions and house emissions - which are already higher from domestic proprieties than they should be according to a recent news article.
Also flooding - we saw some major flooding in this area last April - 2018 which with more properties would only add to this issue.

Items to be considered are as follows:-
Allocation 13 changed from public open space status to nature reserve.
Improvements to public transport.

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.

Reference Sites 134, 205 and 308
I strongly object to the removal of these areas from the Green Belt. Site 134 was the subject of a refused Planning Application (2010/2) and the Appeal which followed was dismissed at the Inquiry. I can see nothing which has changed to now justify the removal of these sites from the Green Belt.
see supporting letter and appendices

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

Can the loss of so much greenbelt be justified
The canal will become the green belt boundary. Prevoius applications failed on this issue.
how much green belt will be lost to car parking