Balsall Common

The SA should be updated to consider higher levels of employment growth using a more refined approach, and alternative locations of employment.
An SA of Site 534 (land south of Kenilworth Road and south of Park Lane, Balsall Common) for employment uses should be undertaken as part of an update to the SA.

See attached

Site BC3 should be removed from the Plan

Objection to Site BC3 - Fails 3 out 4 Tests of Soundness I wish to formally object to Site BC3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road and ask that it is removed from the Solihull Draft Submission Local Plan and Final Local Plan. The Draft Submission Local Plan is not sound, in proposing the allocation of Site BC3 for housing, as it fails to comply with 3 of the 4 tests of Soundness: 1) Positively Prepared: The plan has not been positively prepared in that it is not practical to deliver the unmet need of the HMA (2105 units). NPPF para. 11 has not been given due consideration. To build 4410 units on Green Belt Land (greenfield) and 1195 in the Meriden Gap is not required in order to comply with planning policy. Moreover, it is demonstrated that Site BC3 specifically is not sustainable using the Council’s own criteria. 2) Justified: The allocation of site BC3 has not been justified. There are omission sites both within Balsall Common and in the wider borough which either should have been allocated, based on merit, or for which the omission has not been justified. Moreover, the findings from the final version of the masterplan for Solihull Town Centre are not incorporated and cannot be reconciled with the Draft Local Plan. 3) Consistent with National Policy: There are inconsistencies with the NPPF. Specifically paragraphs 11; 94; 108; 109; 122; 138; 185 and 194 are not complied with. As such, the enabling of sustainable development will not be delivered should Site BC3 remain in the Draft Local Plan. I wish to protect the biodiverse rich habitat that is Site BC3 and I also wish to protect the setting and character of the Grade II * Listed Berkswell Windmill.

There is insignificant evidence to justify housing allocations which are reliant on a road which is not demonstrably deliverable. The SA should be exploring alternative options, including elsewhere in Balsall Common; or more preferably the delivery of additional growth at other sustainable settlements such as Dorridge. The allocations should be revised to refer to updated, robust evidence around the infrastructure requirements and deliverability; otherwise they should be deleted.

See attached documents

See Attached Document

SSCG Local Plan Review Response



We are clearly pleased with the removal of site 13 from the local plan after a long campaign by local residents and SSCG



On the point of the current plan for SMBC to give only six weeks for local residents to respond seems unfair given the fact that you're asking for responses to be put against individual items within the plan.



Coupled with fact that there are ten thousand pages plus with support documents, a large percentage of the documents were uploaded after the consultation went live, with some changes in supporting evidence happening as late as in the final week of the consultation.

None of these were publicised



A disproportionate amount of supporting evidence was uploaded in October (around

30-40% in terms of page numbers), when the consultation went live so it’s less than the six weeks in real terms to submit responses.



We would question the plans soundness and legality to whether the plan has been positively prepared and justified (being an appropriate strategy based on

proportionate evidence),

Is effective (deliverable over the plan period), and is consistent with national policy.



Distribution



The spread of housing is disproportionate, 31% in Balsall Common and 39% in the Shirley Blythe area. This is 70% of the total plan in two small areas.





Sustainability



The environmental impacts are not sustainable



Green Belt land is essential for sustainability, both in terms of maintaining land

availability for future generations, but also for CO2 sequestration (absorbing carbon

from the atmosphere)

Whilst some Green Belt use for housing is unavoidable, the disproportionate amount

is unsustainable



Alternatives



Rather than “urban extension”, which the plan is focussed on, “verticalisation” in

built up areas should have been prioritised to maximise land efficiency for housing.



This is essential for preserving Green Belt, but also to ensure the necessary densities

that make sustainable travel alternatives viable.





Process



No drop-in sessions were arranged due to Covid

instead YouTube briefings were put online but some people reported that their questions were not answered here as they were not interactive in the same way that either a live Zoom/webinar would have been, or a

face-to-face drop-in would have been

Review large scale allocations in rural area.

See attached letter

Review distribution of growth in Balsall Common.

See attachments.ARDEN GREEN – BARRATT DAVID WILSON

RE: SOLIHULL LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION
Proposed housing land at Grapes Villa Farm, 170 Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common and land adjoining at the rear of 152 Kenilworth Road – known within the Solihull Council call for sites as Site 82.
I write to you as part of the Solihull Local Plan for housing development, within the parish of Balsall Common. The site that I own (above), alongside the land adjoining it at the rear of number 152 (owned by Mrs Irene Thompson) has been overlooked in each of the call for sites within the Balsall Common area over the past 15-20 years. My request is that the site is reconsidered on the basis that it is more suitable for development than those currently under consideration by Solihull Council.
Myself, and my parents before me, have lived at Grapes Villa Farm, 170 Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common since the late 1950’s and over that time have seen several housing developments built within the village over that period. Between 1974 and 2004 we ran an Agricultural retail business from the premises, Grapes Villa Farm Supplies Limited, and paid business rates on the premises over that time, having been granted an acre of Agricultural and Horticultural retail business permissions in the 1970’s by Solihull Council.
Since selling the business in 2004, my wife, myself and our family have continued to live at the premises as a family home. Grapes Villa Farm comprises a large farmhouse and 5 large outbuildings that formed part of our retail business prior to 2004. The location is within the existing envelope of the Balsall Common village, being c400 metres from the village centre and shops, and c800m from Berkswell Railway station and the 2 main village schools. Access onto the main A452, can easily be gained through a neighbouring property on Kenilworth Road, which the Highways department have already deemed acceptable to them.
During the SHLAA call for sites, there were objections to the site that were no different to other sites that have since gained permission for development. When I put the site forward as a former brownfield site in 2017, the only grounds on which it was not accepted was that the land was now kept as a garden i.e. I cut my grass regularly. Members of Balsall Parish Council, including the current Chairman, have visited the site and have no objections to it. The site is flat ground, with several existing outbuildings, fully defensible boundaries and runs to over 2 hectares in size, which I believe could be capable of taking as many as 70 dwellings. The site is available immediately, and there are only 2 landowners involved on the site, both of whom are prepared to put their land forward as part of the Balsall Parish neighbourhood development plan.
I believe that this land – Site 82 – would be a sensible and appropriate alternative to even part of other proposed housing allocations around Balsall Common should those sites fail the Examination in Public. If you have any questions, or would like to visit the site, this can be easily accommodated by contacting me on 07798 652006, or on the email from which this letter has been sent.

Include Site 43 in table of allocated sites in paragraph 226

See attached

I am absolutely amazed that Councillors or Officers of the council are submitting such plans in the midst of a PANDIC. Has the PANDIC highlighted
• THE NECESSITITY OF GREEN SPACE FOR PEOPLES WELL BEING AND HEALTH
• THE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY WITH THE HIGHEST DENSITY OF COVID 19 IS DENSELY POPULATED TOWNS AND CITIES
• GREED SOULD NOT BE PUT BEFORE PEOPLES HEALTH
The people representing us are not and should speak the those they represent and consider our wellbeing.