Question 44 Are there any other comments

Methodology.
I do not agree if Balsall Common station is counted as equal to Dorridge.
Infrastructure
We need infrastructure. Green spaces, sports facilities, parking,improvements to very limited.centre.

Site 1 Barrett's Farm
I reluctantly agree to its inclusion.
Site 2 and 3
I do not agree to their inclusion as they are do far from amenities.my neighbour has to get a taxi to the shops.also they have considerable worth as greenfield and wildlife havens.
Trevallion Stud and Pheasant oak Farm.
Yes to being included as
Used as part brownfield.
Concept plans. Good idea but need much more work especially in guarding development from existing gardens

Maximum use to be made of brown field or derelict sites

Questions 16, 17, 18 and 26 within the plan. I fully support the arguments put forward of the joint working group from Hampton Parish Council and Catherine de Barnes Residents' Association response to the SMBC Draft Local Plan (\Parish Response to SMBC Draft Local Plan January 2019) submitted on 03.02.2019. I do not believe site 16 (Lugtrout Lane) should be included as an allocated site and objections are based on loss of Green Belt, loss of an effective rural gap & defensible boundaries and the inability of local infrastructure to handle the development. I strongly oppose development of site 16.

The NEC Group supports the inclusion of an estimated 2,500 residential units in the UK Central Hub Area over the Local Plan period (page 13).

Subject to market demand, it is our view that there is sufficient and appropriate land capacity to bring forward that number of units over the Plan period in the context of the Conceptual Masterplan for the NEC site.

Would like to question why there is the need for more new homes in and around Shirley

Little or no information is available as to the number of dwellings at the 13 storey 'village' at the junction of Hasluck's Green Road and Stratford Road and whether they have been counted as part of the number of dwellings in this Local Plan. The same goes for the development on the Green. Please advise.

I assume you'll not listen to me because I'm not a developer throwing money at ruining the local green belt and thus getting morbidly obese off the profits.. However the removal of green belt land known as Simon Digby fields would be an abomination on the local wildlife and one of the few pleasant areas this side of the M6. Many animals will be displaced, and the increase in traffic will cause even more chaos at rush hour.
Suppose it doesn't matter though does it money talks. Whoever agreed should be ashamed of themselves for considering this land.

Solihull council been asked to take over spill from Birmingham but we just need to remember that Birmingham has more parks than any other City in Europe where Shirley in particular has very little green space especially post the Parkgate development.

The challenge to the original plan came in part from property development companies, revisions in this plan now make green belt land owned by property development companies (eg site 12) part of the new proposal to develop on - I still find this a very strange way to "do business"; surely development is controlled by the council and not property development companies as the motivations of the two should be very different.

Why are there so many homes near Shirley. The infrastructure cannot cope with it. Roads Schools and so on.

Grove Road should remain as 'washed over' Green Belt. We do not want it to become an extended inset boundary of Knowle to Grove Road which would make it part of a built up area which would change the nature of the existing and historic area changing the face and community of Knowle.

This is a draft plan supplementary consultation and much work needs to be done to ensure the correct decisions are reached. With specific regard to Balsall Common:-
* ascertain that a by-pass is necessary regarding traffic flows east/west as well as north/south.
* Confirm the infrastructure can provide for at least a 50% increase in population, and this can be put in place prior to building new homes.
* Confirm that the loss of Green Belt, in the narrowest part of the Meriden Gap, is unavoidable and will not damage the purpose of Green Belt.

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. )

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.

The representations are made on behalf of ALDI Stores Ltd. The purpose of the representations is to provide evidence to support a redefinition of the boundaries of the Green Belt at Balsall Common in order to exclude a brownfield site adjacent to Kenilworth Road, at the northern part of the built area of Balsall Common from designation as Green Belt. A detailed case supporting the proposed change to the replacement local plan Proposals Map is provided in the attached document.

I wholeheartedly agree that the dwellings in Grove Road should remain a "washed over" Green Belt and that the land to the north between Grove Road and Knowle centre should be retained as Green Belt to provide a clear boundary to the existing residential area of the village.

- 38% of the Solihull Borough to be built in Blyth Ward - unfair allocation
-Congestion in the ward and for Shirley
- Significant impact on already stretched and chaotic traffic conditions
-Limited parking at stations
-Pollution
-Detriment to fauna, flora and wildlife
-Recreational walking and cycling
-Green Space
-Removal of sports ground and recreational facilities for the young and youth of Blyth Valley
-Sustainability
-Loss of access to Green Belt
-Flooding
-Pressure on local services, libraries, schools, Health

Local Development Plan Site 245
LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation Site 18

I write with reference to the above planning site for housing development in Solihull. I write to object to these plans on the following grounds:-

In 2013, SMBC formally agreed in its policy that the freehold of these grounds would not be sold and that they would only be used for sporting activities, in line with the covenants in place. I consider this policy suggests that the inclusion of this development in the LDP is wholly inappropriate.

I feel strongly that Oakmoor (Sharman's Cross) Ltd have deliberately neglected their responsibilities regarding this land and have made no efforts to use it for it's intended purpose as a sporting/community resource, even though their lease for the land clearly states it must only be used as a sports ground. I moved into Winterbourne Road some 25 years ago and certainly, with 4 young children, the local facilities available (including the rugby pitch) were very much part of my decision to move. My children have all been members of Solihull Arden Tennis Club and visited the rugby club regularly to watch matches. The sounds of cheers and roars from the grounds were always a pleasure to hear and I would welcome the return of fixtures on this ground. Oakmoor cannot be excused for the way it has treated this parcel of land. Changing room facilities were left to rot; a very much needed community resource in the way of a pre-school group was forced closed and again the building left to deteriorate.

I also consider that the above development is totally out of character with the surrounding houses on Winterbourne Road and Sharman's Cross Road. These are traditional houses and roads with reasonable density. The density of housing proposed on site above would be 4-5 times greater than its surroundings. Add onto this the additional cars the development would need to cater for, together with the possible loss of 75 car parking spaces at Arden Tennis Club, which are regularly used, parking in the vicinity will become a serious problem. Sharman's Cross Road is already a very busy road and further access from a housing estate can only add to this problem. Flooding along Sharman's Cross Road already causes regular problems in the area. Access from Sharman's Cross Road onto Streetsbrook Road or access onto the island at Danford Lane already causes huge traffic tailbacks at prime times throughout the day. Children attending local schools already battle with dense traffic on their journey to and from school, not to mention the additional school places /medical resources that will possibly be required.

As closure to this email, I strongly urge SMBC to remove site 245 from its LDP. I also think SMBC should be looking at ways to provide more affordable housing for first time buyers - this certainly would not be the case at the proposed site. Two of my children have had to leave the area in order to buy a property within their budget.

Whilst I believe that the land on Rowood drive, earmarked for housing, needs to be used, I feel that by adding more housing you are exacerbating a large traffic problem. It has always been difficult to exit Rowood Drive at certain times of the day. Since the introduction of the bus lane in Lode Lane, this has become much more difficult. At times it can take 10 mins to exit the road!
By building 30 houses on that site it could add 60 more cars, making the traffic problem much worse.

I would like to register my objection to the Simon Digby site in Chelmsley Wood beyond Kitegreen Close and behind Henbury Drive still being considered for housing development but not open to consultation. I see a number of problems with access to this site being problematic and the proposed development containing such selling points as foot bridges over the river, a relocated children's playground, and trees lining the access roads that I don't believe will ever materialise after the money has run out building houses and roads. I purchased my house in 2006 overlooking the green space on the understanding that planning had been sought and failed because of the access problems, in preference to an identical property in the middle of the estate at a lower valuation. The traffic congestion on Chester Road that would be exacerbated by additional housing having access to it and loss of green space would make my continuing residence here unacceptable.

I object to the Amber site proposal Ref. A4/Site 59 Golden End Farm, Knowle.

This would severely impact the character of Kixley Lane and the canal which is an important feature of the historic town of Knowle.

Removal of green belt status, paving the way for development, severely impacts an important local amenity in Knowle.

I support the development of affordable housing, but more should be done to make sure this is accessed by local young people and younger families, NOT purchasers who then become or who already are private landlords.

Whilst I understand the reason for requesting responses via the online Portal and requesting a summary responses of less than 100 words where full response exceeds 100 words (for ease of reading), this does not allow for an effective or reasonable consultation if the full response is not considered in depth. It merely serves to limit respondents replies and preclude provision of supporting explanation or evidence, which should be helpful to the Council (therefore I suggest that full responses are wholly considered).

Whilst not a statutory consultation, the Council should welcome the views of its constituents and provide full scope for them to do so. I therefore consider the consultation timeframe (from 30 January to 15 March 2019) to be too short to enable a full capture of views.

In addition, I believe the questions set out under each settlement area are limited inasmuch as they merely focus on whether the proposed allocations are acceptable, however the questions do not allow for expansion to include suggestions for additional or alternative allocations.

In summary, I strongly object to some of the principles set out in this consultation, primarily the imbalanced and uneven distribution of new homes proposed for the Blythe area, versus other areas. This imbalance appears unacceptable, and a fair Draft Local Plan would be one which allocated new housing sites broadly equally amongst the different regions/villages. I therefore suggest that full consideration is given to a capping of allocated sites for each settlement area based on the percentage increase represented versus the current housing stock.

Please see attached document
Kier Living own the majority of 'Land at the Rear of 74 - 108 Coleshill Heath Road', as it is referred to within the Solihull Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2016 ("SHELAA")
(site ref. 193). This site has been promoted through the Call for Sites process (with a submission made in January 2018) and through the initial Regulation 18 consultation.

In responding to this present supplementary consultation, South Staffordshire Council would wish to reiterate the concerns - which we have previously expressed in our response to your Draft Plan consultation (December 2016) - on the level of contribution that Solihull MBC propose to make towards the evidenced housing shortfall of the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA). Currently, the Draft Plan proposes a 2000 dwelling contribution to this shortfall, however the close relationship between Solihull and Birmingham - which is the primary source of the identified shortfall - suggests a considerably higher contribution would be justified.

It is considered that this consultation offered the opportunity to consider the findings of the GL Hearn Strategic Growth Study (SGS) and test the potential options for growth identified within Solihull Borough in the study, and the role these could play in making a contribution to the wider housing shortfall. The decision to defer the Borough's response to the SGS findings until the publication of the Draft Submission Stage reduces the scope for meaningful engagement and consideration of the appropriate scale and potential location of additional strategic growth options. There is a concern that continuing with the current contribution towards the GBHMA shortfall could introduce the risk that the plan fails in its statutory requirements.

See Letter

Please find full document attached.

Cushman and Wakefield (C&W) have been appointed by the Strategic Land and Property Team of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) (acting in the Council's capacity as land owner) to submit this representation in support of the allocation of Site PO20 Damson Parkway for commercial development as part of the Draft Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (2019).

Please find full document attached.

Cushman and Wakefield (C&W) have been appointed by the Strategic Land and Property Team of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) (acting in the Council's capacity as land owner) to submit representation in support of the release of Site PO5, land at Chester Road/Moorend Avenue, Fordbridge for release from the Green Belt as part of the Draft Local Plan Review Supplementary Consultation (2019).

see attached letter

See Letter