Question 44 Are there any other comments
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7131
Received: 07/03/2019
Respondent: Ms Jennifer Cayley
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... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common
I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.
I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.
To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".
Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.
Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.
Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.
All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.
Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.
In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7135
Received: 07/03/2019
Respondent: Ms Joanne Bellamy
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... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
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.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7140
Received: 07/03/2019
Respondent: Carole Beattie
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... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7145
Received: 08/03/2019
Respondent: Helen Blyth
DLP Sustainable Economic Growth chapter lists 11 'Challenges and Objectives Addressed by the Policy'. These are not currently being met:
1. Sustaining the attractiveness of the Borough for people who live, work and invest in Solihull: Urbanisation of greenfields
2. Securing sustainable economic growth: Parkgate never fully occupied
3. Climate change: Increase in traffic
4. Increasing accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel: Public transport services reduced and cycle infrastructure inadequate
5. Improving health and well-being: Loss of greenfield land
6. Protecting and enhancing our natural assets: Brownfield land opportunities remain
7. Water quality and flood risk: Growth will exacerbate flooding.
See attached letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7147
Received: 08/03/2019
Respondent: Helen Blyth
Why does Shirley have to absorb 38% of proposed allocations?
Solihull is expected to provide extra housing which may be required for people to use the proposed HS2 interchange station. Suggest that any houses required to service this development are allocated nearer to the HS2 hub, to avoid further congestion problems with commuters driving across the Borough to reach UK Central Hub area.
See attached letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7157
Received: 07/03/2019
Respondent: Ferdous Gossain
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... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7163
Received: 07/03/2019
Respondent: Jean Fleming
Balsall Common 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... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
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 do not appear to be truly listening 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.
There is a lack of infrastructure to support such growth.
School
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
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.
Along the road I live on, 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.
Environment
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".
The Proposed Site
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.
We have already had to endure the development of two housing estates now built in the vicinity. I do not believe a further one taking away the remaining green space should be considered.
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 putting the lives of the newts at risk.
Road access
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.
Berkswell Windmill
Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.
All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.
Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.
In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7168
Received: 07/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Tony Mann
Balsall Common - 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... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
See Letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7188
Received: 08/03/2019
Respondent: Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council and Catherine-de-Barnes Residents' Association
The Plan needs to reposition discussion of Site 16 into the chapter on Hampton-in-Arden and Catherine de Barnes, following changes to Parish area in April 2019. Sites 12, 85, 96, 106 and 143 in Appendix E indicates no Parish, but will be in Hampton in Arden from April 2019.
Chapter 7 Hampton in Arden and Catherine de Barnes
Refers initially to both settlements, but subsequent paragraphs refer to village in singular creating uncertainty about which village is being referred to.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7260
Received: 09/03/2019
Respondent: Joanne Liddiard- McGann
Too many new houses are allocated for Shirley.
Too many new houses are allocated for Shirley.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7288
Received: 10/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Jane Starling
Many of the questions posed in this consultation are too complicated for the average person, e.g Do you agree with the methodology of the site selection policy? and all the questions in the Affordable Housing policy section. It is not easy to find the relevant sections for explanation and not easy to understand them unless you happen to be a town planner.
Many of the questions posed in this consultation are too complicated for the average person, e.g Do you agree with the methodology of the site selection policy? and all the questions in the Affordable Housing policy section. It is not easy to find the relevant sections for explanation and not easy to understand them unless you happen to be a town planner.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7312
Received: 10/03/2019
Respondent: Councillor M Wilson
At present, as outlined by Cllr Max Mcloughlin in March 2019 at a Managed Growth session, SMBC has less than 10,000 units classed as Social Housing stock. Clearly, the present and past housing allocation schemes have failed to provide social housing to meet demand. Now we have a shortage; a crisis.
SMBC needs to urgently address this shortage. Areas in the rural South of the Borough need to take up the shortfall, as well as the LEO wards, Shirley and the densely populated North. SCH needs the means to build more homes. Community schemes should also be supported.
At present, as outlined by Cllr Max Mcloughlin in March 2019 at a Managed Growth session, SMBC has less than 10,000 units classed as Social Housing stock. Clearly, the present and past housing allocation schemes have failed to provide social housing to meet demand. Now we have a shortage; a crisis.
SMBC needs to urgently address this shortage. Areas in the rural South of the Borough need to take up the shortfall, as well as the LEO wards, Shirley and the densely populated North. SCH needs the means to build more homes. Community schemes should also be supported.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7313
Received: 10/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Stewart Phillips
I believe the rapid growth of Solihull population in this plan will be a huge strain on the local NHS secondary care and run the risk of increasing waiting times for treatment for the local population. I imagine that lack of adequate infrastructure for a growing population will adversely effect other services, eg police, fire, schools, etc. I fear that this plan concentrates solely on building houses without consideration of the full impact on support services.
I calculate that every 1000 of population generates 12 hospital admissions and 40 AE attendances per year. I do not see any evidence that impact on our local hospital from cramming more houses into Solihull is taken into account. Some plans account for general practice needs, but not the adverse effect on our hospitals People complain about AE, diagnostic and elective care waiting times. As Solihull grows, emergencies, cancer treatments and other major illnesses will fill our busy hospitals with worsening waiting times for AE, outpatient review, diagnostics and elective treatment for our local population. Hospitals are expensive to build and run, has this been taken into account?
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7327
Received: 10/03/2019
Respondent: Pauline Daniels
Every effort should be made to use brownfield sites for housing. Shirley has been swamped with more than its fair share of supermarkets and car show rooms making the roads car parks. Car show rooms do not supply parking for its employees causing them to park in residential roads and on hotel car parks. I think other parts of Solihull should now be looked at for housing and leave Shirley with what bit of green belt we have left to enjoy.
Every effort should be made to use brown sites for housing. Shirley has been swamped with more than its fair share of supermarkets and car show rooms making the roads car parks. Car show rooms do not supply parking for its employees causing them to park in residential roads and on hotel car parks. I think other parts of Solihull should now be Looked at for housing and leave Shirley with what bit of green belt we have left to enjoy.
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7352
Received: 10/03/2019
Respondent: Michael Moran
Thank you for providing residents with the oportunity top comment
Thank you for providing residents with the oportunity top comment
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7389
Received: 11/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Helen Bruckshaw
The amount of housing proposed for Shirley seems disproportionate. This should be spread around the borough to minimize the impact and create opportunities for all.
The amount of housing proposed for Shirley seems disproportionate. This should be spread around the borough to minimize the impact and create opportunities for all.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7433
Received: 10/03/2019
Respondent: Rebecca Clare
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... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common
I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.
I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.
To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".
Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.
Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.
Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.
All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.
Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.
In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7437
Received: 10/03/2019
Respondent: Simon Clare
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... . This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2.
Objection to the allocation of site 3, Windmill Lane, Balsall Common
I wish to register my objection to the on-going proposal, in the Draft Local Plan, to build 220 housing units on the greenbelt, greenfield land between Windmill Lane and the Kenilworth Road in Balsall Common known as Site 3.
I understand that the council has recently decided, in line with government policy, to develop three brownfield sites in Balsall Common at Wootton Green Lane, Lavender Hall Farm and Pheasant Oak farm. These sites were suggested by residents to the council as alternatives to site 3 (and also site 2, Frog Lane) in the last consultation in 2017. However, rather than developing these sites instead of the greenfield sites, they are to be developed in addition. Our village of circa 3900 homes is now expected to grow by a further 1755, 460 coming from the brownfield sites. In contrast, other settlements within the borough are seeing a big reduction in the proposed housing numbers (South Shirley and Dickins Heath) and Dorridge has not been allocated any housing sites at all. This does not seem to be a fair distribution, particularly with our village also having to deal with the disruption of HS2. The council would appear to be paying lip service to residents' concerns and efforts to assist in finding alternative sites to build on.
To manage any significant expansion of the village needs careful planning, in terms of schooling, traffic, housing sites and amenities, alongside HS2. There is no timing plan within the Draft Local Plan to give residents the confidence that any growth will be managed. The primary school is already full at 4 form-entry. There is no capacity to take any more children until a new school is built. Public transport is inadequate with infrequent bus services and there are only 2 trains every hour during peak times, so people depend on their cars. As yet, there has been no assessment done of the Highways to ensure the road network can cope, at least until such time that the bypass is built. The Kenilworth Road, in particular, has long queues of traffic at peak times. All this affects the air quality in our village and the health of the residents. Given that many of the proposed sites are in open countryside, it is also worrying that no Ecological Assessments have been made available to the public. I understand that there is a proposal to build a new settlement to the north of Balsall Common and I would urge the council to seriously look at that as an alternative to imposing any significant level of new housing on Balsall Common, a village which is already clearly "bursting at the seams".
Turning to site 3 itself, this is a greenfield, greenbelt site in the Meriden Gap. Mayor Andy Street and Leader of the Council, Bob Sleigh, have both pledged to protect this precious area. The development of site 3 would create the narrowest gap yet so, as residents, we do not understand why the site is being included. The council has also assessed the sustainability of the site and it scores very poorly (9 negatives and only 2 positives), not least because it stretches so far out from the village boundary that you would need to drive to the village shops, the medical centre, the train station and the primary school. Just because there are two housing estates now built in the vicinity should not provide a "shoo- in" to build on the rest. The area is rich in wildlife - owls, red kites, woodpeckers, deer, hawks, numerous insects, bats, amphibians and the protected Great Crested Newts, to name but a few. As there are no plans to include nature reserves, unlike the other two greenfield sites at Frog Lane and Barrett's Farm, the habitat and feeding grounds for these creatures will be destroyed. There is also the danger of light pollution from street lights having a detrimental effect on nocturnal creatures. Although there are areas protected for the newts, these are to be crossed over by roads, clearly putting the lives of the newts at risk.
Furthermore, the only additional access point onto the road network will be onto Windmill Lane opposite Hob Lane. Otherwise new residents will be expected to access their homes through the Meer Stones Road estate. This means that drivers from 280 dwellings (including Meer Stones Road residents) will be trying to access the road network from two points, one of which is the busy Kenilworth Road and the other Windmill Lane. This lane is already turning into a fast "rat run" as drivers try to avoid the congestion in the village. This is not sustainable.
Last, but by no means least, there is the harm that development in this area would have on the magnificent Grade 2* Listed Berkswell Windmill opposite. This is an historic monument of local, regional, national and international significance and is part of our heritage which attracts many visitors into the area. Not only will building houses nearby harm the setting of this unique tower mill, but also the wind flow will be interfered with, which will stop the sails from turning. Given that this is one of the few remaining functional mills in the country, this would be an absolute travesty. This is a magnificent and iconic landmark, the heritage of which must be respected and preserved for generations to come.
All these are reasons to remove site 3 from the plan, but there is also the impact this site would have on current residents to consider. Although low density housing is proposed in some areas next to current properties, in other parts medium density housing is proposed with no "green buffer" to preserve any of the visual amenity currently enjoyed by residents. This is not respecting the local character of housing in this locality nor the people who currently live there.
Moreover, based on the recent housing estates, the ground conditions are such that these new homes would require pile driving. The impact of the relentless noise and vibrations from this building process on residents is indescribable. It is impossible to work from home, which many of us do and not always out of choice. Such invasive work in the vicinity of the Berkswell Windmill also risks causing long-term damage to this historic monument as well as disrupting the numerous species of local wildlife. This, in itself, should be justification for not developing site 3, or indeed any site with similar ground conditions. Balsall Common residents will be under significant stress from the impact of HS2 construction as well as housing development, not least with the never-ending temporary traffic lights and road closures. We should not be expected to have to deal with this noise as well.
In summary, I would urge that the council take note of this response and remove Site 3 from the Draft Local Plan. There is no doubt, based on SMBC's criteria, that the site is neither sustainable nor accessible. Given the number of housing units available on the brownfield sites, it is unnecessary and incomprehensible as to why the site has not been taken out already. There is no need to build here.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7448
Received: 11/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Jones
More affordable housing for families.
More ares.
More infrastructure.
My main concern is that Solihull as a whole should provide more housing for more people. We feed metaphorically off Birmingham and should therefore provide housing for so many of its workers etc.
So many of our children are born in Solihull, educated in Solihull and raised by parents whose income is from Birmingham yet they the parents live in Solihull. And naturally the children in their time wish to live in Solihull but they can't afford the astronomical prices.
I would like to see the distribution of future to be more equitable across the borough of Solihull. Does Shirley suffer as it does not always vote for Conservatives. I would hope not but it certainly looks that way.
So my main comment is more housing in more areas with more infrastructure regardless of political allegiance.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7495
Received: 11/03/2019
Respondent: Wendy Cairns
Need to clearly ascertain that a bypass is essential for Balsall Common with up to date traffic flows and forecasts.
Need to include the draft NDP by Berkswell Parish Council as the draft Meriden NDP which is still in its formative state was sighted in the Solihull Draft Plan.
Need reassurances that concept plans have some strength and long term validity and that SMBC will insist they are observed by developers.
Major concern for residents is that the lack of cooperation between land owners and developers in respect of Barretts Farm could result in a planning disaster for Balsall Common
Need to clearly ascertain that a bypass is essential for Balsall Common with up to date traffic flows and forecasts.
Need to include the draft NDP by Berkswell Parish Council as the draft Meriden NDP which is still in its formative state was sighted in the Solihull Draft Plan.
Need reassurances that concept plans have some strength and long term validity and that SMBC will insist they are observed by developers.
Major concern for residents is that the lack of cooperation between land owners and developers in respect of Barretts Farm could result in a planning disaster for Balsall Common
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7504
Received: 11/03/2019
Respondent: Portland Planning Consultants
The plan is very heavily reliant on two major sites (UK Central Hub and Barratts Farm, Balsall Common) which have uncertainties relating to them. In the case of Barratts Farm it is understood there is a multiplicity of ownership. Whilst the consultation seeks to secure a comprehensive development proposal these are very difficult to put together and I have known long gestation periods whilst this takes place. There is therefore a material uncertainty regarding deliverability which currently would render the plan ineffective and therefore unsound. More reliable sites such as 114 - 118 WIdney Manor Road should be allocated.
The plan is very heavily reliant on two major sites (UK Central Hub and Barratts Farm, Balsall Common) which have uncertainties relating to them. In the case of Barratts Farm it is understood there is a multiplicity of ownership. Whilst the consultation seeks to secure a comprehensive development proposal these are very difficult to put together and I have known long gestation periods whilst this takes place. There is therefore a material uncertainty regarding deliverability which currently would render the plan ineffective and therefore unsound. More reliable sites such as 114 - 118 WIdney Manor Road should be allocated.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7585
Received: 09/03/2019
Respondent: Catherine-de-Barnes Residents Association
The Plan needs to reposition discussion of Site 16 into the chapter on Hampton-in-Arden and Catherine de Barnes, following changes to Parish area in April 2019. Sites 12, 85, 96, 106 and 143 in Appendix E indicates no Parish, but will be in Hampton in Arden from April 2019.
Chapter 7 Hampton in Arden and Catherine de Barnes
Refers initially to both settlements, but subsequent paragraphs refer to village in singular creating uncertainty about which village is being referred to.
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
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7625
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Mr William Cairns
Para.104 Site 19 Ridding Hill- Why the delay in bringing this forward?
The draft rightly states that only one NDP in the borough has been completed and approved, for Hampton in Arden. However the draft mentions that for Meriden which is not as far forward as that of Berkswell Parish Council. This is a major omission of evidence that is available to the planners and would provide SMBC with a significant input of up to date valuable data and direct comments/concerns from residents of Berkswell parish. This significant omission MUST to be addressed.
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
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7627
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: South Solihull Community Group
Shirley is expected to take 38% of proposed new development - which is disproportionate - 24% of this is green belt.
Retirement living apartments are not included in housing figure, yet this frees up homes?
Developments will adversely impact the ecology of the area
Residents wish "previously site 13" to be assured for the future, as an open public space (Nature Reserve/Village Green/Country Park). This area has evidence of important history events dating back to 880 AD.
See attached letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7637
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: BFNAG
Before the next iteration of SMBC's DLP work needs to be undertaken to:-
* ascertain that a by-pass for Balsall Common is necessary and traffic flows east/west as well as north/south need to be established.
* Confirm Balsall Common can provide for a 50% increase in population, and once Barratt's Farm is fully developed, potential doubling the number of households
* Confirm that the loss of Green Belt, in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap, is unavoidable
Before the next iteration of SMBC's DLP work needs to be undertaken to:-
* ascertain that a by-pass for Balsall Common is necessary and traffic flows east/west as well as north/south need to be established.
* Confirm Balsall Common can provide for a 50% increase in population, and once Barratt's Farm is fully developed, potential doubling the number of households
* Confirm that the loss of Green Belt, in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap, is unavoidable
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7673
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Mr N Walters
Dickens Heath has been overdeveloped and the original design concept has been destroyed. Council has ignored views of local residents and councillors. Size and number of dwellings far exceeds supporting infrastructure.
SMBC need to listen to local residents!
SMBC have continually ignored local residents, local Parish Councils and Councillors in Blythe re continued development in Dickens heath. I have lived here since 2003, I can no longer get in or out of the village at peak times in less than 20 minutes traffic pollution is horrendous, flooding is now a reality, power cuts are virtually weekly, local road infrastructure has been decimated over 20 years and the promised improvements never materialize! Dickens Heath is at breaking point SMBC need to stop dictating to local residents and start listening and acting for them, they created something remarkable but seem intent on destroying it.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7699
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Keith Tindall
In relation to Balsall Common, I am concerned that the high volume of housing proposed will have a serious impact on this rural location, particularly on its infrastructure which is already under pressure.
Brown field land used by HS2 should be included not ignored.
As previously developed land site this warrants development over green field sites.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7719
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Ms Nicole Geoghegan
Consultees cannot properly consider, or comment on, the Draft Plans where SMBC's development intentions for The Hub have not been made available. For example, if plans relating to The Hub had been released, it may show that SMBC's new housing aspirations can be met without some of the sites quoted in the Draft Plans being developed (or, at the least, not developed to the density levels set out in the Draft Plans). The failure to disclose the plans for The Hub alongside the Draft Plans is a serious omission that undermines the entire consultation process for the Draft Plans.
See Letter
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7736
Received: 12/03/2019
Respondent: Edward Fraser
Where possible in Solihull Town area instead of building luxury apartments build affordable appartment accomodation to facilitate first time buyers not pushing retirees all the time.
Where possible in Solihull Town area instead of building luxury apartments build affordable appartment accomodation to facilitae first time buyers not pushing retirees all the time.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 7785
Received: 13/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Wheeler
I recognise that this is a draft plan supplementary consultation and as such may be modified significantly before the formal version is issued. However, I believe it has so many flaws that extensive research and modification is required before it can reissued.
I would expect this version to be extensively challenged by residents and developers alike, and probably by the external examiner.
I ask SMBC to rethink.
I recognise that this is a draft plan supplementary consultation and as such may be modified significantly before the formal version is issued. However, I believe it has so many flaws that extensive research and modification is required before it can reissued.
I would expect this version to be extensively challenged by residents and developers alike, and probably by the external examiner.
I ask SMBC to rethink.