Question 44 Are there any other comments

We write on behalf of our client, IM Properties Limited (hereafter referred to as 'IM'), in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review (SLPR) Draft Local Plan (DLP) Supplementary Consultation, which was published for consultation in January 2019.
IM Properties own and are actively promoting several sites and assets within the Borough, including Mell Square, Blythe Valley Park and Fore Business Park.
IM Land, the strategic land division of IM, also has existing and emerging land interests within the Borough; separate representations have been submitted
in relation to IM Land's interests.
see attached letter

We write on behalf of our client, IM Properties Limited (hereafter referred to as 'IM'), in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review (SLPR) Draft Local Plan (DLP) Supplementary Consultation, which was published for consultation in January 2019.
IM Properties own and are actively promoting several sites and assets within the Borough, including Mell Square, Blythe Valley Park and Fore Business Park.
IM Land, the strategic land division of IM, also has existing and emerging land interests within the Borough; separate representations have been submitted
in relation to IM Land's interests.
see attached letter

Please see attached.

Please find below my feedback on the Solihull MBC Local Plan Consultation.
Comments on Site 1 - Barrett's Farm Development

I would like to emphasise the importance of considering appropriate access and the careful management of speed, traffic and parking problems on Balsall Common roads before any further development in and around the village proceeds, particularly at Barrett's Farm.

Since I moved to Balsall Common three years ago, I have been shocked and worried by the significant increases in the volume, acceleration and speed of traffic on Meeting House Lane and Station Road.

The so-called traffic calming measures on my road are completely useless, especially from Blessed Robert Grissold to the shop end of Meeting House Lane. The speed bumps are almost completely flat (please see attached photographs) and do nothing to slow the speed of cars racing to and from the village centre or using my road as a 'rat run' through Balsall Common. In fact, traffic accelerates on this part of the road, I think because drivers seem to want to drive as fast as they can going into or coming out of the slalom, where they know they will be forced to slow down for a short period.

In the last two years, two of my cats have been hit by cars and killed on Meeting House Lane and Station Road. This has been incredibly upsetting and quite a shocking statistic when you consider that I have had many cats as part of my family for 33 years in various locations around the country (including on a road off the A38 leading into Bristol city centre) and never experienced any of them being involved in accidents until I moved to Balsall Common. I am so concerned about the safety of animals on my road that I have felt compelled to ask my parents to look after my remaining cat at their house in another part of the West Midlands.

This may not be considered a big issue to people who are not animal lovers but I can assure you that it is a great source of distress to me and others in Balsall Common who care about animals. I would hope, however, that everyone in Balsall Common and at SMBC will care about the safety of the many Balsall parish runners, dog walkers, children walking to and from school, and various others that use Meeting House Lane to walk down every day, often in the middle of the road because of the lack of any/proper pavements in many places on the road.

Recently, I was driving very slowly down my road and still had to swerve to avoid runners using one side of the road and a parent with a child in a pushchair on the other side of the road (where there are no pavements). This sort of incident is a frequent occurrence. If I was one of the people that use my road to speed down as a cut through, I think that there could easily have been an accident. I am saddened that my elderly neighbour is afraid to walk down our road to go and see her friend because of this problem with traffic and lack of proper pavements/traffic calming.

The point that I am making is that the current speed and volume of traffic is untenable and we need SMBC to do something about it before considering any further developments in Balsall Common, including development at Barrett's Farm. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to do anything else.

My strong recommendation and plea is that SMBC considers the following:
* Blocking off Meeting House Lane to vehicular traffic, either at the village end (where the new shared space is proposed to start) or after the Catholic Church so that, in effect, it becomes two cul-de-sacs for vehicles. If the latter option was taken, one end of the road could be used for access to the tennis club and the other for the church, making it a fair distribution of traffic. This would prevent people inside and outside of the village using it as a rat run. I have been quite frustrated to learn from two colleagues at work who do not live in Balsall Common that their live satellite navigation software directs them to come down Meeting House Lane when driving in/through the village (e.g. from the motorway to the University of Warwick, and when driving from the University of Warwick to the Indian restaurant on the Kenilworth Road).
* Making the speed limit on Meeting House Lane and Station Road 20 miles per hour and installing proper traffic calming measures (e.g. more aggressive speed bumps, more slaloms, one way traffic etc).
Comments on infrastucture required to support additional housing in Balsall Common
I definitely support redeveloping the village centre but I would ask that the measures proposed above (regarding speeding on Station Road and Meeting House Lane) are implemented first so that more and more people don't use Meeting House Lane as a short cut to the village centre or to park on during any disruption when the redevelopment is happening. I would also support a bypass being created and routed to the Barrett's Farm development, should this go ahead.

I currently experience significant problems with village shoppers parking on the double yellow lines near my house, on the single yellow lines during restricted periods, on the pavement and across my drive. This means that I would certainly welcome improved parking in the village but I would also implore Balsall Parish Council and SMBC to put up signage for the existing car park behind Tesco. Visitors and newcomers to the village often do not know the car park is there. I would also ask that SMBC sends parking enforcement officers to Balsall Common on a regular basis to encourage drivers to start parking legally, safely and considerately when accessing the village centre.

I definitely support the creation of a bypass to help deal with the significant problem of commuters from outside of Balsall Common using the village as a short cut instead of local A roads and motorways.

I would also like to see an additional school being provided. I would make a suggestion that this could be a Catholic primary school given that there is a thriving Catholic community in Balsall Common with the parish church very close to the proposed Barrett's Farm development, the nearest Catholic primary school in the Solihull MBC area is over three miles away and the Council cut the bus service provided to this school.

There definitely needs to be a more regular and later running bus service in Balsall Common. I would also like to see more regular and later running train services and a larger car park at the train station. The station and roads near the station cannot cope with existing demand for parking, let alone if there are over 1000 more homes in the area.

I am keen to see many more signposted public footpaths and walking routes, as well as cycle paths and more pedestrian crossings. I would like to see the Kenilworth Greenway extended and access improved so that people in the village can more easily and more safely cycle to areas like Kenilworth, Berkswell, the University of Warwick, Knowle, Barston etc. It's very sad that it's not very easy to access the greenway in certain parts (e.g. having to haul a bike over a stile). I'm also keen to see safer pedestrian routes in and around the village to encourage more people to walk to the village centre.

Comments on the selection of sites in the green belt
I support a boundary for village development and protection of the green belt. I would like to see this policy strengthened to emphasise a commitment to always using brownfield sites or previously developed green belt sites when these are available in the area. The policies of a Conservative council should reflect the commitments of the West Midlands Mayor and the Government to protect the green belt.

Comments on the overall amount of housing being proposed for Balsall Common
I am still dismayed by the fact that the village of Balsall Common is one of few areas - and one of even fewer small communities - being expected to shoulder the brunt of the burden of additional housing in Solihull, and that the number has increased despite many residents objecting to the previous level of housing proposed in previous consultations. Surely there should be a more even distribution across the borough and all areas should be expected to take a reasonable share of additional housing, taking into account their current size and character and the impact that development will have? I think it is very sad that a village in a beautiful area is being turned into a town when there are other areas of the borough unaffected, and when we are already having to deal with HS2.

Comments on the timing of development and HS2
I would implore SMBC to ensure that large scale housing developments do not begin until after HS2 is completed. To do anything else would be to destroy Balsall Common and make the lives of people living here a misery for years.

Comments on the type and style of development
It is vital to retain the rural feel and character of Balsall Common if it is to remain a desirable place to live. That's the reason that many people like me choose to live here.

It's vital that natural habitats, wildlife and biodiversity are protected to highest level possible and that developers are forced to take their responsibilities in this seriously. The nature in and around Balsall Common is one of the village's most attractive qualities and I often enjoy walking the public footpaths in and around Barrett's Farm - it's important that natural features of any development site are retained and protected.

Developments should definitely be small in size overall and within small clusters of housing that are not identical. We don't want Balsall Common to look like a mini version of Milton Keynes or for developments to create a suburban sprawl.

Solihull conurbation is slowly becoming a suburb of Birmingham, Coventry, Redditch etc. Soon, if building at this rate continues, there will be no green spaces of value left. Our local infrastructure will be overwhelmed & the current problems of congestion / state of the roads, horrendous waiting times to see a GP, Dentist, hospital specialists, etc will worsen. Classes in school will soon be over 50 pupils per class. No teacher can teach 50 kids at one go. Parking outside schools is bad now, imagine how it will be.

Worcestershire County Council (WCC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the above consultation, and provides the attached officer-only comments. We are currently seeking endorsement of these comments by WCC's Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economy and Infrastructure, and will provide confirmation of this endorsement as soon as possible.

BARRAGE letter of objection

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

See Letter

See Letter

See Letter

See letter

See Letter

See Letter

This representation is made on behalf of the governors of Arden School, Station Road, Knowle, and Mr Ved Goswami. We firmly support the proposed allocation of Site 9 for housing and associated infrastructure, to include a new Arden Centre for Community Learning (ACCL). We therefore support Concept Masterplan Option 2 in principle, but with the caveat that the site presents the scope to realise a greater overall housing capacity than the estimated total of 600 dwellings assumed. This will be essential in order to make Option 2 commercially viable. The document attached provides further details.