Policy BC1 - Barratt's Farm, Balsall Common

Given the significant impact on the existing village the plan should be explicit as regards to:
1. How the village centre and infrastructure will be upgraded including target dates;
2. How transport links will be upgraded;
3. Exactly how a net gain in bio-diversity is achieved, given the significant loss of green belt.

The Public open space should be permanently designated as a Village Green or equivalent to safeguard its status and should be extended to run the length of Meeting House Lane to provide an interrupted wildlife corridor. Under no circumstances should additional vehicular access be given from the development to Meeting House Lane as this would exacerbate existing traffic problems and render the lane dangerous to pedestrian traffic.

The plan disproportionately utilizes Green Belt land and is unclear as to how a "net gain" in biodiversity is achieved. Public Open Space provision is made, but this is insufficient ,lacks permanency and fails to protect the south section of Meeting House Lane. There is a lack of specific detail as to how the significant impact of additional housing on existing infrastructure and village centre will be addressed. The Plan also fails to address climate change as it understates the impact increased vehicular transport will have given existing weak transport infrastructure for travel into Coventry and Solihull.

1. I am not against the need for housing at Barretts Lane Farm and I agree that any housing within the setting and view of my property must be of high quality and low density to reflect the nature of my property and the recent development of the former farm buildings at the end of Barretts Lane.
2. However, I have a few concerns. The Master Plan states that “Likewise any development within the setting of the listed buildings will need to reflect an understanding of context and not cause harm to their setting. Where appropriate development should provide opportunity to view the listed buildings and their settings, any development within view of the listed buildings should be of high architectural value”. My concern is that given that the house will be surrounded by open space on all sides, the “opportunity to view the listed buildings” will be a major invasion of privacy for me and my family. We have a large garden and paddock area which is open at many points on the boundary and my fear is that our house will end up sitting in open view in the middle of a public park
3. I am also concerned that there are proposals for formal play areas within this open space. Again for reasons of privacy and noise these should be placed as far away from the house as is possible.
4. I note that a tertiary road is planned out onto Barretts Lane which appears to serve most of the nearby proposed housing. At the point of proposed access, the Barretts Lane is single track and I don’t see how its possible to use Barretts Lane for any more traffic without widening it which would be impossible due to the mature trees running along it. There is also a substandard visibility at the end of Barretts Lane where abutting Sunnyside Lane.
My paddock is technically green belt but on the masterplan is shown as part of my garden. Whilst it is fenced within the garden boundary it does need removing from the green belt along with the rest of the Farm land. I propose to seek permission to build architecturally high quality housing on the part of my paddock which is not in view of the house and gardens and abuts the nearest housing parcel

The population of the village following the addition of at least 1615 houses is likely to rise to at least 11,500 which would justify 56ha to accord with the local standards – Policy P20/10. So not only has the opportunity to redress the shortage been missed but the situation is worsened. The concept plan also suggests an area of possible future development for 300 more houses on Barratt’s Farm post HS2 construction. It does not allocate any POS supporting these houses.

The plan is not consistent with maintaining the Meriden Gap. It builds over 1000 houses on the narrowest part of this.
Whilst the green areas between new and old housing is pleasing it is hard to see how the infrastructure will be built correctly with so many different landowners on this site.

This seems sensible.
However I disagree with the proposed bypass route

Balsall common bypass needs to move much further out and not cross Hob lane as that will be dangerous. It needs to be integrated into the existing network and improve and develop as the impact of house building, hs2 and a46 improvements become apparent!

The proposed Balsall common bypass is ill conceived and goes against the national strategy of reducing car use. It has been ‘plucked’ out of the air to support the proposed new house building without thinking strategically what Balsall common/Berkswell will need after other road and rail projects have been completed. If it does go ahead the route needs to be moved as the present proposal is unacceptable.

The Landscape Assessment of the area shows very clearly that there are notable habitats surrounding number 262, 264, 266, 268, Mews Cottage, Station Road and properties along Sunnyside Drive. The fields surrounding these properties are home to a diverse array of animals and plants and enhance the quality of life of local residents. This is the field in which grid reference SP2442777314 is identified in the report.

The Landscape Assessment States:

“Semi-improved grasslands occupy medium connectivity and those areas highlighted on the southern and western boundary should be enhanced as grassland creation and enhancement zones.”
(Figure 7 Habitat Connectivity, SMBC Additional Site Options Ecological Assessment).

The plan does not appear to take into consideration the SMBC Additional Site Options Ecological Assessment 2019

Any development should only have access via the new by pass road, to stop additional traffic in the centre of the village and on Station Road.
If a primary school is included in the plan, it should be located amongst the new home, with access off the by pass route only, to prevent traffic issues on station road.
Reduce the amount of built land, reducing the number of houses to 500 max
No residential development until HS2 construction is finished.

I object to the Barratts Farm development for the following reasons:

1) Removal of a countryside amenity, used by residents, providing health benefits and environmental benefits
2) Increased amount of traffic, on Station Road, Sunnyside Lane (narrow pinch point) Meeting House Lane creating pollution, noise and inconvenience
3) Addition of a primary school at the end of Station Road, near station, will exacerbate unacceptable traffic congestion issue, particularly during HS2 construction period, where Hall Meadow will be used as Haul route
4) The years of disruption and noise to residents adjacent to the site, due to HS" and Residential construction

Make the sections near Old Waste Lane "Low Density" Housing to reflect the existing housing, to comply with the overall Solihull Local Plan.

The policy calls for the density of proposed new development housing in immediate proximity to reflect the density of existing housing. The concept master plan illustrations show Medium density housing near Old Wate Lane, whis is low density. My house (Laurel Grove) lies behind the housing of Old Waste Lane, and would be adjacent to Medium Densit housing according he plans. This clearly contridicts the statement above about reflecting existing existing densities. All other parts of the Plan do seem to abide by this so why not Old Waste Lane?

Keep as a conservation area

Originally marked as a Conservation area

In principle we support the plan and agree that there must be appropriate infrastructure to support this necessary housing development. However, over the past few years there have been at least 4 serious road accidents on Station Road between Brickmakers Close and Sunnyside Lane. Traffic congestion and parking of cars on this stretch for school drop off and pick ups will increase the risk of further accidents. Furthermore siting the school in the field opposite the Brickmakers Arms effectively shuts off a green corridor for wildlife (mainly mammals and amphibians) to transit from the areas of significant ecological value between Meeting House Lane and Barretts Lane to Station Road and the park beyond.
We suggest that the school is sited instead further south east with direct access off the relief road away from the junction between the relief road and Station Road and with sufficient parking space for drop off and pick up. There should also be pedestrian access for pupils and carers from the new housing estate and beyond. These need to come through from Sunnyside Lane or Barretts Lane.
Maintaining at least some of the field opposite the Brickmakers Arms as Public Green Space will preserve a green corridor.

we object to plans summarised under points 2(v), 3(i), and 4(i)
We feel the plan is not legally compliant as the decision to site the school would pose risk related to traffic on Station Road and also threatens biodiversity due to failure to maintain a green corridor from Meeting House Lane via Barretts Lane onto Station Road. This is essential for the protection of the varied natural wildlife present in this area.
There has been failure of the duty to cooperate as there has been a lack of engagement with local communities regarding the plans especially siting of the school

Please locate the primary school more centrally in the proposed development to give the new deployment a heart.

I accept the overall development of Barrett’s Farm but please ask that you reconsider the location of the primary school on two grounds. One being the substantial amount of wildlife located on the site currently and the need for a buffer and natural corridor for wildlife, between the current village and the future development. Second, the location of the primary school at what will become a very congested part of the village with the conjunction of the HS2 relief road, Hall Meadow Road and the station.

1) and 2) SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the size of the development
3)Site the school at the other end of the development.

Barretts Lane Development, Balsall Common.

1) Trains from Balsall Common are already over-crowded at rush hour. This MASSIVE AND TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE expansion of the village will have a huge negative affect on rail accessibility because of excessive over-crowding and will discourage rail travellers. They will opt for road transport, further adding to congestion.
2)Travel to Birmingham International would become even more difficult.
3)Siting a school at this end of the development where there is already a road pinch-point which is made significantly worse by the extensive on-road parking for the station, would result in periods of incredible congestion and danger.

Keep the school at the same time. No further dwellings required use brown sites

The parking congestion and safety issues in a already every narrow and unsafe road. The inappropriateness of a school right next to the station , a relief road, and HS2 which is already a bottle neck. School is marked in a conversation area for wildlife - there are foxes, owls, newts, frogs, bees polecats etc
The speeding traffic and unsafe environment

Protecting and extending the existing PRoW network to include equestrians in order to provide safe, off-road, connected routes.
Using opportunities such as new multi-user routes to include equestrians to improve highway safety and prevent road accidents.

2 ix and x, 3viii and 4iii
Equestrians are not included in the commitment here. Routes in and around rural/semi-rural areas particularly would be essential for equestrians.

3.i. The provision of a new 2 form primary school and nursery to be phased at the early stage of the development.

The provision of a new primary school must be phased at the early stage of this large development not at the latter in order to cope with the expected population growth.
The existing primary school is already operating at overcapacity and would be unable to cope with more pupils from the area.

1. Development should not be permitted on sites which are designated areas of ecological significance at the Station Road, western side, of the development.

The fields and ponds behind 262, 264, 266, 268 and Mews Cottage Station Road and properties along Sunnyside Drive are home a diverse array of animals and plants. All of which enhance the health and well being and quality of life of local residents.

"Semi-improved grasslands occupy medium connectivity and those areas highlighted on the southern and western boundary should be enhanced as grassland creation and enhancement zones" (Figure 7 Habitat Connectivity, SMBC additional site options ecological assessment 2019).

Yet the Concept Master Plan makes no allowance for these habitats. This is not acceptable. These habitats must be respected, enhanced and nurtured. The areas around these properties are home to:
bats newts frogs toads voles shrews polecats owls moorhens mallard ducks heron kingfishers wood peckers jays swifts robins sparrows blackbirds bees dragonflies butterflies and many many insects.

Proposal: These animals need corridors and connectivity to the open fields in order to survive. As such there should be a green belt strip behind 262,264,266,268, Mews Cottage, Sunnyside Drive that interconnect with the fields behind Meeting House Lane. THIS GREENBELT BEHIND THE EXISTING VILLAGE IS VITAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING WILDLIFE. THESE HABITAT CORRIDORS AND CONNECTIONS TO OPEN SPACE AND THE COUNTRYSIDE BEYOND SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND ENHANCED.

This not only benefits the animal kingdom but their presence and connection to nature enhances the health and well being (mental health and physical health ) of local residents.

2. Permitted access: There has been permitted access between property owners at 268,266,264 Station Road and Land owners for over 100 years in order to actively manage the trees and ponds.

Proposal: This permitted access from Station Road to the ponds must remain as there is no other vehicular access to the pond areas.

3. Drainage: the ponds across the southern section of Barretts farm are vital to drainage of properties along Station Road and Sunnyside Drive. These ponds regulate water flow to avoid flooding from surface water in this clay rich area.

Proposal: These ponds should be further enhanced and additional SuDs placed in the southern section of Barretts Farm to prevent flooding at the northern end of the site along the cycle route, HS2 and the current railway.

4. The area on Station Road is not a suitable site for the Primary School.

- it has been drawn on an area of ecological significance.

- it is not a safe area of the village where Hallmeadow Road meets the proposed relief road, HS2 and the low bridge under the existing train line. It is a bottle neck with fast traffic coming from Truggist Lane. As a mother of four I would not allow my children to attend this school for safety reasons.

- the area along Station Road is already plagued with parked cars making visibility as you enter and exit drives poor. There have been numerous accidents along this stretch of Station Road for many years. This will worsen with school traffic.

- the congestion in this bottle neck area of the village will simply worsen. Thus impeding travel, increasing travel times, increasing stress and decreasing mental health of local residents who are already significantly stressed by HS2 and the proposed housing development that is causing the destruction of the countryside.

Proposal for the school to be situated in the centre of the development for local children to walk and cycle safely to school. This will alleviate congestion at Station Road and prevent accidents.

Objection to the development of a primary school and housing from Station Road across to the east of the development behind existing homes.

The proposals for the development at Barretts Farm have not taken into account the area of ecological significance to the Western side of the development adjoining Station Road. Nor have they adhered to the ecological assessments recommendations for

"Semi-improved grasslands occupy medium connectivity and those areas highlighted on the southern and western boundary should be enhanced as grassland creation and enhancement zones" (Figure 7 Habitat Connectivity, SMBC additional site options ecological assessment 2019)

The policy should reference the significant archaeological potential of this area and highlight that, prior to the submission of any planning application, a detailed archaeological assessment, including evaluative fieldwork, should be undertaken. It should further advise that results of the assessment should inform the development of a strategy, if appropriate, to mitigate the potential archaeological impact of the proposed development and that this strategy may include designing the development to avoid impacting any archaeological features present which are worthy of conservation.

This will help to ensure that any application is submitted with sufficient archaeological information to enable a reasoned and informed planning decision to be made.

As highlighted on pg. 19 of the 2020 Archaeological Assessment undertaken by the Warwickshire County Council Archaeological Information and Advice team on behalf of SMBC*, this site has significant archaeological potential. This potential, and the need for further archaeological assessment in advance of the submission of any planning application is not referenced in this policy. As the results of the assessment may influence the final form of the development across this area, it should be.

*Warwickshire County Council, 2020. 'Archaeological Assessment to Inform the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Local Plan. Additional Sites, 2020'. Warwick: Archaeological Information and Advice

Amend paragraph 527 to commit that the relief road will be competed in a single phase and adjust policies BC3 Kenilworth Road and BC4 Pheasant Oak to require those sites to make a financial contribution to the Waste Lane to Meer End section of the relief road.
.
This is justified as Sites BC3 and BC4 will create traffic in Balsall Common, as recognised by the submission plan reference to the distances to the centre and the rail station, which, in the absence of a relief road, will cause further pressure on the A452 through Balsall Parish. Hence a proportionate financial contribution to mitigate the traffic demands that these sites will place on Balsall Common is appropriate.

See attachment

3.05ha of land adjacent Meeting House Lane within Site BC1 should be designated for housing, with access from Meeting House Lane. Area of significant ecological value and zone of significance on the setting of the listed building should be removed from the Site Analysis and Concept Masterplan. This part of the site should be within phase 1 0-5 years for delivery.

Policy BC1
Our comments can be found in the attached ‘Representations’ document.
Greenlight Development’s specific objection relates to the treatment of its land holding in the
‘Illustrative Concept Masterplan’ as an ‘area of significant ecological value’ and ‘public open space’; a
position that is not consistent with the Council’s own evidence base.
Greenlight’s position is that these uses are not deliverable and contrary to Paragraph 34 of the NPPF.
If the Illustrative Concept Masterplan were to be taken forward in the Local Plan Review, then the
landowners would be unwilling and financially unable to submit a planning application for an ‘area of
significant ecological value’ and ‘public open space’ due to it not being a viable development option.
It should instead be designated for housing.

See Attached Word doc.

The number of dwellings allocated in Policy BC1 should be amended to reflect the capacity of land at Meeting House Lane for development. The Concept Masterplan should be included in the Plan, and be amended to include the land at Meeting House Lane for specialist housing and care home bedspaces for older people in accordance with the evidence within the HIA and the requirements of Policy P4E.

See Attachment

Policy BC1 and its associated Concept Masterplan should be removed. Alternatively, timing of the delivery period in paragraph 226 should be delayed to phase iii, and the land safeguarded as per NPPF paragraph 139c and d, to allow the full impact on the Green Belt land in the Meriden Gap to be understood before it is destroyed forever. If future events reduce the housing demand the site will be returned to full Green Belt protection.

See Attachment

The following to be added to Policy BC1 4 i:-
after.… woodland copse planting. “This to provide a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity and habitat creation; and space for tree planting to meet the requirements of paragraph 38 challenge K; and replacement of trees and habitat lost to HS2.”
“A wildlife corridor at least 6.5m wide to be created to run all the way along the western edge of the Barratt’s Farm site to connect and act as a “stepping stone” between Lavender hall Park in the north and what remains of the open countryside to the south and east.”

See Attachment

See Attached Letter.

See attachments. LAND AT JACOBEAN LANE, KNOWLE

I wish to make a representation regarding the proposal for housing on Barretts Farm which adjoins our residence. My wife and I have lived in the village for 40 years and are both shocked at the timing of the final draft plan during a pandemic. It shows a complete disregard for the older generation like our selves who are shielding. The concept masterplan has errors, is unsound, unclear and incomplete.

I wish to raise and object to the following points,

1. Tennis courts of our property at 262 Station Road are identified as development land. This is incorrect and must be corrected immediately.

2. Vehicular access has been permitted through Barretts Farm for generations to maintain trees and ponds. There is no allowance for this permitted access. This must be corrected immediately.

3. I strongly object to the development of housing abutting the boundary of our property. This land is a wildlife haven, full of all manner of animals, birds, insects and plants. A green nature reserve must be retained in the plans between the existing village and the new development to ensure the survival of this wildlife as without this access corridor these species will die.

4. I strongly object to the housing development at Barretts Farm as it narrows the green belt between the village and Coventry.

5. I strongly object to the location of the primary school on Station Road. This has been an area of significant special interest and an ecological importance to the village for decades. The old brick making ponds attract a diversity of wildlife which is second to none in the village and surrounding area.


6. I strongly object to the location of the relief road. There are no environmental plans provided for this road and as such this proposal is not sound. No noise and atmospheric pollution studies have been provided. Balsall Common and Meriden are at the heart of England, as such we are land locked. Without coastal winds this area has a very high incidence of hay fever and asthma suffers. This will be further exacerbated by traffic pollutants.

To develop housing along the side of HS2 when there are no studies of the potential impact of noise and vibration on housing is unsound and indeed negligent.

7. I strongly object to position of the relief road and school on the grounds that they are unsafe, pose a threat to the lives of children and the wider community. The concept master plan provides no traffic surveys or consideration for the bottle neck of Hallmeadow Road, the Low bridge under the existing railway, HS2, the school and the relief road. This is unsound, unsafe and should be addressed immediately. The school must be positioned more centrally within the housing development or on Waste Lane as originally planned.

8. The proposal of a retail park on the edge of the village has been made without an assessment of community needs and wants. The community within the village commute. There is no need for additional shops. The local community require greenspaces, parks, trees, a decent playground for children and a leisure centre. This would be ideally placed on Frog Lane near the secondary school in order to enhance recreational facilities and opportunities for youngsters but also all generations.

I wish to make a representation regarding the proposal for housing on Barretts Farm which adjoins our residence. My wife and I have lived in the village for 40 years and are both shocked at the timing of the final draft plan during a pandemic. It shows a complete disregard for the older generation like our selves who are shielding. The concept masterplan has errors, is unsound, unclear and incomplete.

I wish to raise and object to the following points,

1. Tennis courts of our property at 262 Station Road are identified as development land. This is incorrect and must be corrected immediately.

2. Vehicular access has been permitted through Barretts Farm for generations to maintain trees and ponds. There is no allowance for this permitted access. This must be corrected immediately.

3. I strongly object to the development of housing abutting the boundary of our property. This land is a wildlife haven, full of all manner of animals, birds, insects and plants. A green nature reserve must be retained in the plans between the existing village and the new development to ensure the survival of this wildlife as without this access corridor these species will die.

4. I strongly object to the housing development at Barretts Farm as it narrows the green belt between the village and Coventry.

5. I strongly object to the location of the primary school on Station Road. This has been an area of significant special interest and an ecological importance to the village for decades. The old brick making ponds attract a diversity of wildlife which is second to none in the village and surrounding area.


6. I strongly object to the location of the relief road. There are no environmental plans provided for this road and as such this proposal is not sound. No noise and atmospheric pollution studies have been provided. Balsall Common and Meriden are at the heart of England, as such we are land locked. Without coastal winds this area has a very high incidence of hay fever and asthma suffers. This will be further exacerbated by traffic pollutants.

To develop housing along the side of HS2 when there are no studies of the potential impact of noise and vibration on housing is unsound and indeed negligent.

7. I strongly object to position of the relief road and school on the grounds that they are unsafe, pose a threat to the lives of children and the wider community. The concept master plan provides no traffic surveys or consideration for the bottle neck of Hallmeadow Road, the Low bridge under the existing railway, HS2, the school and the relief road. This is unsound, unsafe and should be addressed immediately. The school must be positioned more centrally within the housing development or on Waste Lane as originally planned.

8. The proposal of a retail park on the edge of the village has been made without an assessment of community needs and wants. The community within the village commute. There is no need for additional shops. The local community require greenspaces, parks, trees, a decent playground for children and a leisure centre. This would be ideally placed on Frog Lane near the secondary school in order to enhance recreational facilities and opportunities for youngsters but also all generations.

Policy BC1 Criteria 2vii should be amended to state ‘temporary and permanent access from a limited number of access points from the Relief Road’.

Please find attached my representation to the Local Plan Consultation. Please confirm receipt.

Kind regards

Diane

Policy BC1 Criteria 2vi should be amended to state ‘Provision of the whole length of the Balsall Common Relief Road between Station Road and the A452’.

Please find attached my representation to the Local Plan Consultation. Please confirm receipt.

Kind regards

Diane

Deletion of Policy BC1 Barrett’s Farm, Balsall Common

See attached