Policy BC1 - Barratt's Farm, Balsall Common

Identify the land marked as Hall’s Wood in the submitted plan as of ecological value on the Concept MasterPlan.

We are writing in support of the Berkswell Parish Council objection to the concept masterplan which objects to the concept plan because it does not link the 3 identified areas of ecological value. The parish council makes a full case in its submission and we do not intend to repeat it here. As the owners of Field Cottage on Old Waste Lane and the field behind it we wish to add practical support to the provision of a wildlife corridor linking two of the 3 areas where Pegasus Group for the landowners have committed to providing the link on their land to link the first and 2nd ecological areas.
We also request that Hall’s Wood on our land, shown on the map below, is designated as an ecological area. It was planted over 4 years ago extending an existing wood to its west. It is a non-commercial wood/copse specifically designed to add biodiversity and absorb CO2. It is a mixed plantation of mainly species native to the Arden landscape. 450 trees were planted but thinning over the years will reduce that by at least half. Identify the land marked as Hall’s Wood in the above map as of ecological value on the Concept Plan. We are writing to support that the land between Old Waste Lane and Waste Lane be ideally retained in Greenbelt or is designated as Local Green Space.
The land is crossed by the Millennium Way a national trail that stretches 100 miles from near Pershore in Worcestershire to Middleton Cheney in Northamptonshire. The land also contributes to the Meriden Gap between Balsall Common and Coventry/Burton Green. The gap in the area of Waste Lane is the very narrowest part of the Meriden Gap and requires all the protection that is can get.
We therefore support its retention either within the Green Belt or as Local Green Space.

Identify the land marked as Hall’s Wood in the submitted plan as of ecological value on the Concept MasterPlan.

We are writing in support of the Berkswell Parish Council objection to the concept masterplan which objects to the concept plan because it does not link the 3 identified areas of ecological value. The parish council makes a full case in its submission and we do not intend to repeat it here. As the owners of Field Cottage on Old Waste Lane and the field behind it we wish to add practical support to the provision of a wildlife corridor linking two of the 3 areas where Pegasus Group for the landowners have committed to providing the link on their land to link the first and 2nd ecological areas.
We also request that Hall’s Wood on our land, shown on the map below, is designated as an ecological area. It was planted over 4 years ago extending an existing wood to its west. It is a non-commercial wood/copse specifically designed to add biodiversity and absorb CO2. It is a mixed plantation of mainly species native to the Arden landscape. 450 trees were planted but thinning over the years will reduce that by at least half. Identify the land marked as Hall’s Wood in the above map as of ecological value on the Concept Plan. We are writing to support that the land between Old Waste Lane and Waste Lane be ideally retained in Greenbelt or is designated as Local Green Space.
The land is crossed by the Millennium Way a national trail that stretches 100 miles from near Pershore in Worcestershire to Middleton Cheney in Northamptonshire. The land also contributes to the Meriden Gap between Balsall Common and Coventry/Burton Green. The gap in the area of Waste Lane is the very narrowest part of the Meriden Gap and requires all the protection that is can get.
We therefore support its retention either within the Green Belt or as Local Green Space.

Amend wording of
2 i Conservation or enhancement of heritage assets and their setting;
2 ii Insert 'grade II*' before Berkswell Windmill

2019 Heritage Impact Assessment & Concept Masterplan - further discussions required before EIP to establish whether the concept plan and Policy BC3 could be tightened up further in respect of impact on the GII* Berkswell Windmill and its setting.
LPA will need to be satisfied that the functionality of this heritage asset would not be affected through the proposed development.

Wording in Policy BC3 requires alteration as suggested below.

In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting since the wording does not tie up with the 2019 Heritage Impact Assessment analysis;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘2*’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 2* would read II* etc.


With regard to the 2019 Heritage Impact Assessment for this site the analysis refers to ‘significant’ harm – it is not clear whether this means substantial harm or not. We note that the area to the south has not been taken forward.
2 i - Protection Conservation or enhancement of heritage assets and their setting;the setting of heritage assets adjacent the site;

2 ii - Provision of low density housing, and where relevant single storey housing to protect the setting and functionality of GII* Berkswell Windmill.

With regard to the 2019 HIA work and the Concept Masterplans information, we would welcome opportunity to discuss this site with you ahead of the EIP to establish whether the concept plan and Policy BC3 could be tightened up further in respect of impact on the GII* Berkswell Windmill and its setting. The LPA will need to be satisfied that the functionality of this heritage asset would not be affected through the proposed development.

Wording in Policy KN1 requires alteration in line with NPPF requirements for harm (this may be duplication however if text for Policy P16 is revised) and as suggested below.

In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting since the wording does not tie up with the 2019 Heritage Impact Assessment analysis;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘1’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 1 would read I etc.
With regard to the 2019 HIA work and the Concept Masterplans information, we would welcome opportunity to discuss this site with you ahead of the EIP to establish whether the concept plan and Policy KN1 criteria could be tightened up further in respect of impact on the setting of GI Grimshaw Hall.

Policy P5: Provision of Land for Housing.

Section 1 - The Policy refers to a table setting out allocations which is one table of a number of unnumbered tables which follows the policy.

Section 6 - The setting of heritage assets is not referred to within the policy at present.
Section 1 – It is recommended the tables be provided with Figure numbers so that the allocation table can be linked with Policy P5 for the avoidance of doubt.

Section 6 - In line with NPPF requirements it is recommended that Section 6: Density criteria (iii) be revised to read ‘…and, heritage assets and their setting’.

Historic England would refer you to comments made at an earlier consultation stage where we encouraged SBC to take the opportunity to refine the early post NPPF heritage policy in the extant Plan.

Whilst our earlier comments are predominantly recommendations, the proposed policy wording does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm as set out in the NPPF and we are of the view that this should be addressed within the policy.
The policy should include the following text, or a similar alternative:

Great weight will be given to the conservation of all designated assets and their settings (and non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments). Such assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Development which leads to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Development which leads to substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or where all of the following apply:

the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site;

no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation;

conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible;

and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘2’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 2would read II etc.
In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘2’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 2would read II etc.
In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘2’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 2would read II etc.

See attached

Unless viable ecological evidence has been found and is presented for the area discussed (number 3 on the map), the only part of that land that has possible ecological value is the pond and should be marked on the concept Master Plan accordingly

Having looked carefully into the modifications illustrated on the Berkswell Parish Council Plan, I felt it was imperative, as an owner of the adjacent property, to put forward my concern over how this land is being portrayed.

I have joint ownership of some land which is in the concept Master Plan and don’t necessarily agree to the current configuration (number 3 on the concept map).

I am interested to know what significant ecological interest there is in this particular field, as we currently use this field just for grazing sheep and our pet pony. The only possible significant point I can think of is the small pond by the current gate. On what grounds have the council identified this particular field as having significant ecological interest?

Below I have attached photos taken today (06/12/2020) to show how the fields are currently being used.

I suggest that, unless viable ecological evidence has been found and is presented for the area discussed (number 3 on the map), the only part of that land that has possible ecological value is the pond and should be marked on the concept Master Plan accordingly.

Thank you.

In order to make this policy sound, the allocation should be extended to include Land at Meeting House Lane (part of site 102 in the Site Assessment October 2020).

Policy BC1 Barratt’s Farm, Balsall Common
This policy is not considered to be sound for the following reasons.
It is noted that the proposed allocation at Barratt’s Farm, Balsall Common has been reduced from 900 dwellings at the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation to 875 dwellings (albeit a further 300 could come forward followingthe completion of HS2), and yet still does not look to include the Spitfire site which borders the southern boundary of the proposed allocation. As has been set out previously Spitfire do not object to the principle of an allocation in this location, however questions have been raised over the number of dwellings that can actually be accommodated on the site having regard to the site constraints including designated heritage assets, ecology and potential areas of floor risk. There also appears to be a significant number of landowners which raises further questions over the deliverability of the scheme. This matter is raised at paragraph 541 of the Draft Submission Plan.
As is set out in paragraph 536 of the Draft Submission Plan, Balsall Common is identified for significant housing growth and as part of this significant infrastructure improvements are also proposed for the settlement. these are detailed in paragraphs 527-535 of the Draft Submission Plan and include a relief road, enhanced centre, station parking, improved public transport, new primary school, and improvements to the existing secondary school. As such the settlement is going to change significantly over the plan period and is able to take additional growth over and above that already proposed in the Local Plan.
Land at Meeting House Lane (part of site 102 in the Site Assessment October 2020) has previously been put forward as being suitable for development. This site provides a very logical rounding off of the proposed Barretts Farm development utilising an existing agricultural field bounded by roads to the east and south together with residential development to the west. The Site Assessment carried out by the Council suggests that this site could be considered as part of a larger site subject to constraints. This site is not affected by other known constraints, for example, listed buildings. With the questions being raised as to the deliverability of the Barratt’s Farm site, it would be sensible to include this additional land to ensure that the housing numbers being proposed within this allocation can actually be met. Equally with the sites removal from the Green Belt, there is nothing to prevent this site coming forward for development in the short term.
This site is available immediately and is being actively promoted by Spitfire Homes. There are no known constraints which would prevent delivery. The site is adjacent to existing development and the proposed allocation at Barratts Farm. Development of this site would represent a logical rounding off of the Barratts Farm allocation. As there are questions over the land holdings at Barratt’s Farm, this site can easily be delivered within the next five years providing much needed housing in Balsall Common in the short term.

Modifications required to make the plan sound
In order to make this policy sound, the allocation should be extended to include Land at Meeting House Lane (part of site 102 in the Site Assessment October 2020).

In order to make this policy sound, the allocation should be extended to include sites identified as Land at Old Waste
Lane/ Waste Lane (site 101 in the Site Assessment October 2020).

Policy P20 Provision for Open Space, Childrens Play, Sport, Recreation and Leisure
This policy is not considered to be legally compliant or sound for the following reasons.
It is acknowledged and appreciated that a general requirement of the Local Plan will be a policy relating to open
space. My client does not have any significant concerns with the majority of the policy, apart from part 6 which
states:
6. In this plan the following sites (as shown on the policies plan) are designated as Local Green Spaces:
I. Land between Old Waste lane and Waste Lane, Balsall Common
II. Land south of Shirley
The supporting text to this draft policy states at paragraph 474 that “The importance of these sites has been
highlighted through their proximity to sites being allocated for development, or previously considered for such. This
list will be kept open and there is opportunity for future plan reviews to include other sites (including those areas of
open space being provided within site allocations), or for Neighbourhood Plans to identify such sites. Any proposals
for development of these sites will be judged by the Green Belt policies of the NPPF and Policy P20 of this plan in
accordance with paragraph 101 of the NPPF”.
The site my client is interested in is Land between Old Waste Lane and Waste Lane, Balsall Common.
As you will be aware, paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that “The Local Green Space designation should only be
used where the green space is:
a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of
its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its
wildlife; and
c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.”
There is little justification for the designation of these Local Green Spaces, other than that set out in paragraph 474
of the Draft Submission Plan and paragraph 91 of the Open Space Topic Paper which simply states two sites are
designated as Local Green Space. In light of this, further clarification has been sought from the Council and a
response from the Planning Policy Team Leader (dated 27th November) stated the following in relation to land at Old
Waste Lane this site “is in the proximity of proposed Site BC1, Barretts Farm. The openness of the land contributes
to the rural, tranquil character at this entrance to Balsall Common, which is of benefit in ensuring an attractive
gateway to the settlement as well as being of benefit as a recreational green space to existing surrounding residents
and future residents. It is proposed in the Plan that the land will be removed from the Green Belt as a consequence
of the proposed housing allocation at Site BC1 Barrett’s Farm & BC4 Pheasant Oak Farm. Designation will ensure
continuation of protection for this green area, if and when the Green Belt boundary is amended.”
In light of this, the justification provided by the Council must be considered against the requirements for designation
set out in paragraph 100 of the NPPF:
a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
It is not entirely clear what community, this designation serves, presently the site is surrounded by existing fields
with a handful of properties located along the norther boundary. The land is detached and some distance from the
main settlement of Balsall Common. There has been no indication in the supporting documentation from the Council
as to what community this land is seen to serve. The proposal therefore fails to meet criteria 1 of the requirements
for Local Green Space Designation.
b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of
its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its
wildlife; and
The Council within the draft submission plan and in their further email response provide no further justification or
reasoning as to why it meets any of the above criteria. They appear to suggest that the land is important as the
gateway to Balsall Common, and as recreational value. The site is in private ownership and whilst there is a public
footpath which runs through the site (which would be retained as part of any future development of the site), it
provides no further recreational value. The proposal therefore fails to meet criteria 2 of the requirements for Local
Green Space Designation.
c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
It is agreed that the site is not an extensive tract of land, however no justification has been provided as to why the
land is local in character. The proposal therefore fails to meet criteria 3 of the requirements for Local Green Space Designation.
It is clear from the supporting text in the draft submission plan and the Councils response that this land is being
designated as Local Green Space simply because it is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt and it is close
to sites being allocated for development. The Council is well aware that this site has been promoted for development
and that should it be removed from the Green Belt; it is likely to come forward subject to compliance with all other
planning policies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is not an extensive tract of land, the NPPG is clear that
“blanket designation of open countryside adjacent to settlements will not be appropriate. In particular, designation
should not be proposed as a ‘back door’ way to try to achieve what would amount to a new area of Green Belt by
another name.” (ID ref: 37-015-20140306). This designation is clearly a way to prevent development on the site.
Furthermore, it must be noted that the site is located in Berkswell Parish and was not allocated as Local Green
Space as part of their Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish would have been aware of the forthcoming allocations in the
Draft Submission Plan and the removal of the Old Waste Lane site from the Green Belt yet felt no need to allocate this land as Local Green Space. The PPG is clear that Local Green Space can be allocated on Green Belt land if there
is considered to be any additional local benefit to its designation as Local Green Space (ref ID: 37-010-20140306).
There is clearly no local significance of this land to the local community.
Finally it must be acknowledged that the PPG is clear that the Local Planning Authority should make contact with
landowners at an early stage about proposals to designate any part of their land as Local Green Space (ref ID: 37-
019-20140306). To date, and despite this site being actively promoted through the Local Plan process the Council
have failed to notify the promotor or landowner of the proposed designation.

Modifications required to make the plan legally compliant and sound
In order to make this policy sound and legally compliant the Land between Old Waste Lane and Waste Lane, Balsall
Common should not be designated as Local Green Space for the reasons set out in detail above.

This policy is not considered to be sound for the following reasons.
It is noted that the proposed allocation at Barratt’s Farm, Balsall Common has been reduced from 900 dwellings at
the Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation to 875 dwellings (albeit a further 300 could come forward following
the completion of HS2), and yet still does not look to include land at Old Waste Lane (site 101 in the Site Assessment
October 2020) which borders the southern boundaries of the proposed allocation. As has been set out previously
Spitfire do not object to the principle of an allocation in this location, however questions have been raised over the
number of dwellings that can actually be accommodated on the site having regard to the site constraints including
designated heritage assets, ecology and potential areas of floor risk. There also appears to be a significant number
of landowners which raises further questions over the deliverability of the scheme. This matter is raised at paragraph
541 of the Draft Submission Plan.
Since the time of the original representations, further work has been undertaken to produce a Vision Document and
Environmental Appraisal relating to the site identified as Land at Old Waste Lane/ Waste Lane (site 101 in the Site
Assessment October 2020)
As is set out in paragraph 536 of the Draft Submission Plan, Balsall Common is identified for significant housing
growth and as part of this significant infrastructure improvements are also proposed for the settlement. these are
detailed in paragraphs 527-535 of the Draft Submission Plan and include a relief road, enhanced centre, station
parking, improved public transport, new primary school, and improvements to the existing secondary school. As
such the settlement is going to change significantly over the plan period and is able to take additional growth over
and above that already proposed in the Local Plan.
It is acknowledged that Land at Old Waste Lane/ Waste Lane (Site 101) is proposed to be designated as Local Green
Space. As has been set out in detail above within this representation, this designation does not accord with the
requirements for Local Green Space and should therefore the site should be considered as a logical extension/
rounding off of the Barratt’s Farm proposal. As part of this submission, an Environmental Appraisal has been
prepared by EDP and accompanies this submission. As is proposed within the Draft Submission Plan, the site is to
be removed from the Green Belt. The assessment carried out by EDP agrees with this conclusion with their review
concluding that the site as it currently stands makes a limited assessment to the Green Belt. Given this is a relatively
small parcel of land, its removal from the Green Belt would not have an impact on the purposes of the Green Belt.
Furthermore, the conclusions reached by EDP are that the site can be development in accordance with sound master
planning principles without harm to the integrity of the Green Belt overall.
Accompanying this submission is a vision document which demonstrates how development can be accommodated
on the site having regard to the identified site constraints. The vision document identifies the site as strategic infill,
which forms part of the wider strategic proposals for Balsall Common. In addition, the proposal looks to prove
sustainable connections. The masterplan presents an opportunity for an improved footpath link through the site
which forms part of the Millennium Way and provides wider connections to the centre of Baslall Common. The site
as it currently stands is bounded by mature hedgerows and trees. The masterplan allows the scheme to integrate
within its existing landscape setting. Equally the proposals allow for ecological enhancements, and the opportunity
to provide an area of play for residents.
Land at Old Waste Lane is available immediately and is being actively promoted by Spitfire Homes. There are no
known constraints for which would prevent delivery. The site is adjacent to existing development and the proposed
allocation at Barratts Farm. Development of this site already surrounded by existing residential dwellings would
represent a logical rounding off of the Barratts Farm allocation. As there are questions over the land holdings at
Barratt’s Farm, this site can easily be delivered within the next five years providing much needed housing in Balsall
Common in the short term.

Modifications required to make the plan sound
In order to make this policy sound, the allocation should be extended to include sites identified as Land at Old Waste
Lane/ Waste Lane (site 101 in the Site Assessment October 2020).

See attached form and written representations

See attached

The Council should revisit the development of the Grange Farm proposal and the construction of a major Relief Road and useable By-Pass from the A452 to the South West of Balsall Common and onwards to JLR and the wider road and motorway networks road which would have a much lower negative impact on the health safety and wellbeing of existing residents and the existing infrastructure.

See attachment

Herewith my personal representation on the Local Plan Review.
See attachment

I would like to request a thorough review of the SMBC illustrative Concept Masterplan for Barrett’s Farm, Balsall Common, Solihull, and request that it take into consideration the SMBC Additional Site Options Ecological Assessment carried out in December 2019.

Figure 7 Habitat Connectivity:-

There is no allowance for these habitats or access to the ponds which have provided a complex series of drainage from homes on the edge of the village for 100 years. Indeed, a housing development and a school are marked along these notable habitats. This must be addressed and the fields surrounding the existing village preserved for animal life.

Examine the alternatives presented.
Assessment of noise pollution created by the relief road running through Barrett’s Farm and onwards along Hall Meadow Road needs to be undertaken
It must be a condition of the plan being approved by the inspector that the section of road from the junction at Waste Lane south to Meer End is completed when the section from Station Road the Waste Lane is built, otherwise it will become a rat run to avoid traffic on the A452 and the village centre will not benefit from the reduction in traffic.
Sources of funding needs to be explained.
The council should examine a by-pass route to the west of Balsall Common, as it would have significantly less impact on residential areas and be freer flowing than that proposed to the east.
Produce outline proposals for village centre improvements.
Bussing primary children to distant schools should not be considered an option.
No housing development or school build until HS2 construction and installation of the railway is completed.
Develop an achievable plan to establish a meaningful park.
All vehicular access when under construction and when completed should be via the relief road.
Concept plans need to have considerable strength and be robust to ensure that not only the main intentions are respected but also the detail observed.

See attachement

About 16:07 today 11/12/2020 I sent you my submission for the Local Draft Plan by email. Unfortunately I have just realised that I forgot to put my name on the Part B forms. I have now done that so I am submitting the document again.

Sorry about this, I hope you can locate the one I sent in error earlier, and submit the one attached to this email in its place

Land north of Old Waste Lane in BC1 should not be allocated until assurances can be gained by SMBC that the land will be available for delivery within the timescale of the Draft Submission Plan

Response to Solihull Local Plan Review (Regulation 19) Consultation


SITE 101 ALLOCATION OF LOCAL GREEN SPACE

The land consists of two pony paddocks totalling 4 acres. These paddocks were originally larger open grazing fields fronting Old Waste Lane rented for grazing by my Grandfather which were compulsorily purchased by the Council for the road improvement at "Catchem's Corner" in the 60's. The road improvement left a strip of isolated land surrounded by the new Waste Lane and the latterly re-named Old Waste Lane. This land was bought by my Grandfather after the completion of the road improvement and has remained in family ownership ever since.

Land at Old Waste Lane maintains the original frontage and access points along Old Waste Lane with a new boundary and modern hawthorn hedge planted on Waste Lane. It is not connected to any other landholding.

My land was identified and put forward by SMBC for a permanent gypsy/traveller site as part of the The Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations Development Plan consultations.
Its close proximity to the settlement of Balsall Common made my land suitable for consideration despite it being in the Green Belt. After my land was short-listed, I informed SMBC that it was not deliverable for that purpose and it was withdrawn by SMBC. My land remains available for residential development and representations have been made to the Draft Local Plan Review Consultation January 2017 and the Local Plan supplementary consultation March 2019.

As the owner of "Land at Old Waste Lane" known as Site 101 in the Solihull Draft Submission, I object to the designation of my land as Local Green Space on the following grounds of legal compliance and soundness:
• OWNER NOT CONTACTED The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government on Local Green Space designation: Paragraph 019 Reference ID: 37-019-20140306 "A Local Green Space does not need to be in public ownership. However, the local planning authority...should contact landowners at an early stage about proposals to designate any part of their land as Local Green Space. Landowners will have opportunities to make representations in respect of proposals in a draft plan". SMBC have STILL not contacted me about designating my land Local Green Space. I only found out about it by chance seeing a post on the Balsall Common Facebook page AFTER my land had been proposed, voted on and allocated by Full Council on 30th October 2020. So, I only have this one opportunity to make any representations at this final regulation 19 stage of the Local Plan. When asked via Mr. Bhatti MP about this, SMBC responded: "The current representations on the Draft Submission Plan provides the opportunity to make comments on this proposal" and "All representations will be forwarded to the Inspector when the plan is submitted for examination, and the Inspector will consider whether the proposal is sound and legally compliant, as with all policies and proposals in the Draft Submission Plan". As of the 14th December 2020, SMBC have still not contacted me.
• CANNOT BE DELIVERED On 25th November 2020 SMBC eventually provided the following reasons for designating my land LGS: "The openness of the land bounded by Waste Lane/Old Waste Lane contributes to the rural, tranquil character at the entrance to Balsall Common which is of benefit in ensuring an attractive gateway to the settlement as well as being of benefit to existing surrounding residents and future residents." and "The designation of this land as a Local Green Space will contribute to the overall green space provision for this part of Balsall Common. "Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 37-021-20140306 "Management of land designated as Local Green Space will remain the responsibility of its owner. If the features that make a green area special and locally significant are to be conserved, how it will be managed in the future is likely to be an important consideration..."Whilst in the past my land was managed as open grazing land with standard height hedges cut every year, for the last 30 years we have grown the hedges to provide shelter for the ponies and make the fields more secure. As it is my intention to continue to manage my land as enclosed pony paddocks and keep the hedges high as shown, it will not deliver SMBC's "openness / attractive gateway" to Balsall Common. As the only visible feature of my land is a modern, 100% hawthorn hedge planted by the council as part of the road improvement scheme it is also not sound to designate LGS. As the Pheasant Oak site is allocated, there is the opportunity to re-think the Green Space allocation within this site both to provide the attractive gateway to the settlement SMBC want, and contribute to the overall green space provision for this part of Balsall Common in the draft submission.
BELOW Approach to Balsall Common from the East on Waste Lane: Pheasant Oak (Left), Site 101 (Right)

• BELOW Same position on Waste Lane, looking left over Pheasant Oak allocation. BELOW same position on Waste Lane, looking right over Land at Old Waste Lane

• NO AMENITY VALUE My land is bisected by a diagonal cross-field PROW. In 2013 as a result of an unprecedented amount of complaints received by SMBC from Balsall Chairman Burrow (also Berkswell Parish Councillor, Lead of the Berkswell NP Steering Committee, resident of OWL and landowner/stakeholder in the BC1 allocation) it was decided that, despite no offence being committed under The Highways Act 1980, I would be prosecuted within 7 days if I did not take permanent preventative measures to protect the public footpath. This resulted in an immediate halt to grazing until I could afford the substantial amount of appropriate fencing. The complainant had asked SMBC to stop me grazing my land for the following reasons: Ponies standing in an intimidating manner in the field, ponies standing on the line of the footpath, hooves damaging the surface of the footpath, ponies blocking the line of the footpath, ponies standing at fencing near the footpath entrance with their heads over it which could lead to intimidation/contact with the public, ponies being fed near the entrance/anywhere near the line of the footpath with the possibility of hay being dropped or blown onto footpath, ponies sheltering under trees near the footpath, ponies being able to approach walkers, possibility of attack by ponies etc. On 26th January 2020, I informed SMBC that I was to resume the grazing of my land and the measures that I was taking to satisfy the conditions imposed. I am not aware of any complaints since and SMBC appear to be satisfied that I am now complying with their restrictions on my grazing, albeit, unwillingly due to the loss of grazing and expense I have incurred. Mr. Keaney, Head of highways has always been very helpful and we agreed many temporary measures before SMBC felt that a permanent solution had to be found.
• BELOW View of site 101 Land at Old Waste Lane viewed from footpath and only other view from the gateway on OWL showing measures required by SMBC:

• NOT DEMONSTRABLY SPECIAL Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that “The Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green space is:
a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and
c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.”
SMBC have not shown any evidence to support the designation of my land as LGS on the grounds of b) "Demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular
local significance" and therefore is not legally compliant or sound. The Neighbourhood Plan has not sought to allocate it. Indeed, the Council's justification for it being a proposed LGS is not sufficient for meeting the objectives of paragraph 100 of the Framework.
• UNDERMINES AIM OF PLAN Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 37-007-20140306."Local Green Space designation should not be used in a way that undermines the aim of plan making". BC1 has now been extended to include the historical landholding of "Laburnum Farm", north of Old Waste Lane. By designating site 101, South of Old Waste Lane as Local Green Space proper consideration has not been given to the close-knit community of Old Waste Lane and the opportunity in the plan making process, to provide sustainable, organic growth centred around the lane, within the wider BC1 site. This would maintain the historic context and character of development in Old Waste lane.
• BACK DOOR WAY OF ACHIEVING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE After the Draft Submission Plan was published in October 2020, I was contacted by phone by Mr. Norman Childs who is a neighbour and active member of Barratt's Farm Neighbourhood Action Group (BFNAG). Representing the views of Balsall Parish Chairman Burrow and the wider group, Mr. Childs informed me that "they" didn't appreciate me asking questions on the facebook post (where I found out about the LGS allocation). He then said that BFNAG had originally wanted to include my land in the "Central Park" in the BC1 site but, as they could not justify it, they had gone for Local Green Space for now. I was told that "they" could still make it part of the "Central Park" once the LGS was designated "If that's what you want". Although I have asked SMBC for clarification about who put my land forward for LGS, as of 14th December 2020, despite being repeatedly reminded by Mr. Bhatti MP, I still do not know who actually put my site forward. Nowhere can I see that it is either legal or appropriate for Local Green Space to be used as either a "holding position" or as a "back door" way of achieving Public Open Space.
• WILL LEAD TO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT Should my land be designated Local Green Space in the adopted plan and considering the above, I expect my land to be subject to further action to achieve what Parish Chairman and supporters actually want. As SMBC already agree with Parish Chairman Burrow that the grazing of my land is inappropriate without the extensive fencing and other measures to protect the footpath surface and walkers, I expect that the designation of LGS will lead to enforcement to remove my grazing rights to protect the amenity of the LGS spoiled by the presence of ponies and the necessary fencing. As the only viable green field use of my land is for grazing, this would leave my land useless and open to further unwanted action only made possible by the designation of LGS.
• SITE SHOULD BE RESERVED The draft Submission Plan retains other sites put forward that have not been allocated for development so that they may be put forward at a later date should some sites not be deliverable within the timescale of the plan. Site 101 should be retained for the same purpose. It is already acknowledged in paragraph 541 of the Draft Submission Plan in that site BC1 has multiple owners that could complicate deliverability. As the latest allocation of BC1 now extends to all land north of Old Waste Lane with its multiple owners and complicated agreements between them and other interested parties, this is even more important.
For the policy to be legally compliant and sound my land at Old Waste Lane (site 101) should not be designated as Local Green Space for the reasons above.


Policy BC1 Barratt’s Farm, Balsall Common - Allocation of land historically known as "Laburnum Farm" North of Old Waste Lane.

This policy is not considered to be sound for the following reasons:

• NOT DELIVERABLE Land north of Old Waste Lane involves 5 undeveloped parcels of land with different owners. The main landholding's owner has appeared publicly at a meeting promising Barratt's Farm Neighbourhood Action Group (BFNAG) that they will not build on their land in their lifetime.
• NOT DEVELOPABLE Land North of Old Waste Lane is dependant on the main landowner for access onto the "relief road". Without this, no land north of Old Waste lane historically known as "Laburnum Farm" can be developed. With the significant number of complicated landholdings, their reliance on each other for access and "claw-backs" to take into account, the whole of the "Laburnum Farm" part of BC1 may not be financially viable.
• UNDERMINES THE AIMS OF THE DRAFT SUBMISSION PLAN Mr. Childs of BFNAG also informed me that the main landowner, also has a legal veto over another landholding. Balsall Parish Chairman Burrow (also Berkswell Parish councillor, Lead of the Berkswell NP steering committee, Old Waste Lane resident and landowner/ stakeholder) is aware of this and by supporting/leading consultations for this allocation, is putting the delivery of BC1 at risk. By also putting forward my Site 101 for designation as Local Green Space, Parish Chairman Burrow is more likely to deliver no delivery of any development in the whole area surrounding Old Waste Lane. In addition, Land north of Old Waste lane in BC1 is even less likely to be delivered when there is no site left available for development South of Old Waste Lane (Site 101).
For the policy to be legally compliant and sound, Land north of Old Waste Lane in BC1 should not be allocated until assurances can be gained by SMBC that the land will be available for delivery within the timescale of the Draft Submission Plan. In addition my land, Land South of Old Waste Lane Site 101 should not be designated Local Green Space.


As the owner of land at Old Waste Lane, I have only been given this one opportunity to make representations against the designation of my land as Local Green Space at the very last minute of this Regulation 19 stage of the local plan. I would be grateful if the Inspector could consider the points I make above.

Provide large car park
Multistorey car park at Berkswell station
doubloe yellow lines along station road, brickrad close and riddings hill.
plant some trees to count the noise.

See rep form attached

- An additional sub-paragraph to be included under Paragraph “Development of this site should be consistent with the principles of the Concept Masterplan for this site, which includes the following:”
‘Create a place which is safe with a strong sense of identity, incorporating high quality design which meets ‘Secured by Design’ standards to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to this end applicants are encouraged to engage with the West Midlands Crime Prevention Advisor at the earliest opportunity.’

- An additional sub-paragraph to be included Paragraph “Likely infrastructure requirements will include:
Developer contributions to Police infrastructure to ensure an appropriate level of service can be maintained so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

See attached representations forms

- Policy could indicate how primary school will be funded.
- Should indicate area of land required in hectares for primary school.
- Policy should include information on key trigger points for delivery of primary school and funding for secondary school.

See attached letter.

Delete from Plan

See attached letter

Further housing sites, such as the CFS 193, must be allocated to provide assurances that the
minimum housing requirement can be met.

See attached letter

Review site allocations in Balsall Common and suitability of Site BC1

See attachments.ARDEN GREEN – BARRATT DAVID WILSON

Use brownfield land first such as Friars Gate where there is better existing infrastructure.

I am writing to state my objections to Site 4 after careful consideration of the facts. I am worried about the flooding levels in the houses that will be built and the houses around and adjacent to the fields as the fields are very waterlogged and not really suitable for building on. I believe the roads around the area cannot sustain the huge increase in traffic that this building scheme would bring. There are only narrow roads around there as it is countryside and it has been a protected area of nature for a long time and is high grade green belt. It is a very busy and social hub for children, adults and local community which would be lost.

I believe you should first start looking at brownfield sites or at the very least sites which would not add to traffic problems like this ste would. There is huge capacity around Friars Gate which allow the ability to leave straight onto the Stratford Road. I believe there are far too many car showrooms where better use could be made of the land to house people which is more important in these times. With careful planning of road networks I believe houses should be built but please please look at brownfield sites first and sites where the infrastructure can cope.