Q10. Do you believe the right scale and location of development has been identified? If not why not?

see attached letter for full text . Generally supportive and the letter comments on each of the 23 questions.

Where I generally agree with most of the points highlighted in the consultation I do not agree with them all and post my concerns and suggestions.

Existing commercial land should be used for development

Ref Balsall Common, I fail to see how the Southside developments contribute towards place-making aspirations - given congestion and the elevated profile of the sites - not to mention removal of the playing-fields and allotments. Neither can I see that it discourages the of modes of travel other than cars, given its distance from rail stations and places of work The idea that by building on allotments and green play areas will "incorporate high quality design aspirations for both the development and public realm" is laughable or indeed "Contribute towards the strategic green infrastructure..." or"develop strong, vibrant and healthy communities!"

see attached letter and scanned annotated hard copy local plan pages

Should the areas that are not greenbelt be developed first, for example 'The Green' should be used for housing since the report states there is no commercial interest being shown since 2005. This area already has a road infrastructure within the site and the 'ggeen spaces are strile of any wildlife as they are flat turf areas, it is also an area that has been plagued by travellers setting up camp.

We currently have the current local plan out for review, a JLR plan out for review, the airport has been expanded and increased noise levels.

Why hasn't all this been included in the same coherent plan.

With the extension to JLR and proposed housing plan off Parkway what are the plans for supporting traffic.

RESPONSES 1-YES
2-YES
Spatial Strategy
3- The size of the proposed developments around rural villages appears out of proportion to the size of the villages themselves. This is particularly exemplified in Balsall Common. The proposed by pass that would create an area of land between it and the A452 that would eventually be filled in with future housing developments.
The alternative options would be to concentrate future housing developments closer to the local areas of employment-JLR, Airport, NEC, Motor Cycle Museum, Birmingham Business Park and Hams Hall. There are sites available around Bickenhill, the junctions of the M6 AMD M42,Melbecks Garden Centre and even perhaps the site that was proposed for the new National Football Stadium before the new Wembley got the nod.
There are also areas around Water Orton and Coleshill which could be considered Sustainable Economic Growth
4-YES
5-YES
6-YES
7-YES
8-See previous answer to 3 9-YES
10-See previous answer to 3 PROVIDING HOUSES FOR ALL 11-YES
12-The principle of 50% affordable housing is laudable but judging by past local developments around Balsall Common this is never realised. The current Elysian Gardens Development is a case in point. The proportion of larger 2-5 bedroom detached houses always seem to dominate these development I suspect so the land owners and developers and landowners can maximise their profits.
13-No opinion
14-NO-Why should we have to take on a proportion of Birminghams number of development in the HMA. If you travel by train in from Berkswell to New Street their are plenty of unused brown field sites to be seen, are these not an option as green belt is cheaper to develop.
15-NO-Refer to answer to question 3.The main reason for the size of the "Barratts Farm" development appears to be to get funding from the developers to fund the proposed bypass to relieve congestion on the A452.As mentioned before this will inevitably lead to further infill development. The infrastructure of the village barely copes as it is, parking in the "thriving village centre" is already positively dangerous. Cars reverse out from both sides of the roads and there are frequents bumps and pedestrians being knocked over, I suspect a future fatality is inevitable.
16-As identified the infrastructure within Balsall Common is small. There is a lack of capacity at the primary and secondary schools. They are already over subscribed and have lack of space to expand into. Re-siting them would take them out of their central position where most pupils can walk to. If that were to happen additional school runs would be inevitable adding to the traffic congestion.
It is identified in the report that parking at the train station is inadequate, Hallmeadow road has become the unofficial overspill(part of the proposed bypass)
Extra parking is proposed but where. The only land by the existing car park is not being considered for the housing development because of recurrent flooding. As detailed in the report the number of car to house ratio at 1.6 is the highest in the borough so compounding the problem. As a regular cyclist I can assure you that adding cycle lanes on already narrow roads will not work.
The village centre is quoted as "thriving" in your report, the only useful development recently has been the addition of the Costa store where local people can meet up over coffee and socialise.
An obvious opportunity that has been lost is the development of the disused office block and
parking area for housing by the Co-op. This would have been an obvious site for a public funded facility for recreation and social needs-i.e. citizens advice, meeting area for the elderly/vulnerable and planned activities for the teenagers. Instead as before it has gone to the more profitable housing option. The village centre as it is has nowhere to expand to, and if moved would completely change the individuality of Balsall Common.
The only existing facility within the village that could cope with an increased local population is the new health centre. With an increase in patient number there will follow increased funding and an ability to employ more doctors and associated staff. The village badly needs a public funded development as previously mentioned that could provide recreational and social facilities
for the whole age range. The existing youth club is barely used for lack of activities leaving the streets and the park for the kids to fill their free time.
If the proposed developments do go ahead-3 in Balsall Common far more thought needs to be put into the impact they will have on theses small rural communities. The whole purpose of developing the concept of greenbelt and the greenbelt acts was to stop the creepage of large towns/cities into rural areas so they can keep their own unique character and charm. Increased urbanisation of the countryside between the cites of Birmingham and Coventry flies in the face of this agreed and accepted philosophy
17-YES
IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY AND ENCOURAGING SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL 18-YES
PROTECTING AND ENHANCING OUR ENVIRONMENT.
19-YES
PROMOTING QUALITY OF SPACE
20-YES
HEALTH AND SUPPORT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
21-YES AND NO-There is an historic under funding of health care between Birmingham and Solihull as reflected by our local CCGs overspend and the combined Birmingham CCGs underspend. Perhaps this issue needs to be addressed at a Governmental level but it grates somewhat when we are expected to provide additional housing sites to make up for Birmingham's shortfall.
DELIVERING AND MONITORING 22-YES
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
23-I refer to my previous comments about the purpose of greenbelt and attach a document which I think is self explanatory.

I object to site 20 and that the land at damson parkway is being taken out of green belt.

Can we keep some of the original features if there are any and transfer them to the new buildings?

Need to ensure that sufficient employment sites are provided in rural areas to support objective to encourage small and medium sized enterprises in all areas of the Borough, including rural areas.

Why are there no "brownfield" sites included. Why are all of the sites on the m42 corridor? Are there no sites closer to where people currently live and work which could benefit from these policies? How will these developments curd sprawl and meet wider environmental commitments?

Seems about right

Yes. The sites indicated utilise existing and planned infrastructure improvement and represent the best effective use of existing general business sites. More could be said in relation to paragraph 174 (for example powers relating to business rate reduction to encourage utilisation of existing premises over newly built SME-level development of smaller office sites). Vacant small and medium sites (e.g. along Stratford Road, Shirley) are a barrier to creating vibrant communities in these areas as current policy encourages tenancies in the charity sector over other retail use. With respect to Hockley Heath, we wholeheartedly support the decision not to include site 165 in the Local Plan as this would significantly impact the useful Green Belt (as per SMBC's Green Belt assessment) to the north of Hockley Heath.

The Green (former TRW site) at the moment has an open feel; the density of development will completely eliminate this. There is no additional public open space or public realm space identified in any of the plans. Instead, private countryside is replaced by development, private open land is replaced with high density development. The Stratford Road corridor will become a corridor of intense development with no opportunity taken to interrupt this at any stage.

In considering the location of development your authority should utilise our SSSI Impact Risk Zones which are a GIS dataset designed to be used during the planning application validation process to help local planning authorities decide when to consult Natural England on developments likely to affect a SSSI. The dataset and user guidance can be accessed from the data.gov.uk website.
Other considerations include environmental constraints such as:
Do they avoid:
 designated sites/priority habitats
 protected landscapes
 Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Land
 areas at risk of flooding
 brownfield sites of high environmental value

see attached letter re: site 20 employment land

see attached letter re: Land Fronting Old Damson Lane

see attached letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

see letter

see attached letter

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

see letter

see attached response on behalf of Shirley Golf Club Limited and IM Properties Limited in respect of land adjacent to Stratford Road.

see attached documents

see letter

see written response attached

see attached written rep