Q15. Do you believe we are planning to build new homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think

Showing comments and forms 91 to 120 of 355

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1101

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Mr William Cairns

Representation Summary:

The plan to take only 39ha of non-green belt and 299ha of green belt shows a total disregard for the value that green belt land is held in by the community nor the strategic benefit of the Meriden Gap to restrict urban sprawl between Coventry and Birmingham/Solihull. It was recently stated by a government minister that green belt should only be taken in extreme circumstances when no other options are available.SMBC should be limiting the take of green belt whereas it seems to be actively promoting its destruction instead of using brownfield and PDL sites borough wide first.

Full text:

The plan to take only 39ha of non-green belt and 299ha of green belt shows a total disregard for the value that green belt land is held in by the community nor the strategic benefit of the Meriden Gap to restrict urban sprawl between Coventry and Birmingham/Solihull. It was recently stated by a government minister that green belt should only be taken in extreme circumstances when no other options are available.SMBC should be limiting the take of green belt whereas it seems to be actively promoting its destruction instead of using brownfield and PDL sites borough wide first.

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1123

Received: 12/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Emma Harrison

Representation Summary:

As long as sufficient numbers can be built.

Full text:

As long as sufficient numbers can be built.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1142

Received: 12/02/2017

Respondent: Peter Wreford

Representation Summary:

Barretts Farm - in Favour - major opportunity to develop recreational infrastructure (All Weather Pitches / Pool) with existing Lant Community at Sports Centre

Frog Lane BC- OBJECT - too small a site, too far from amenities, close to school but the school is full, so shouldnt count for anything! Long way from proposed bypass line, so lots of intra-village traffic created

Kenilworth Road - OBJECT - access puts more traffic on A452, if approved needs access direct to bypass.

Prefer to look at Grange Farm and NW of village - Northern bypass link provides natural boundary to a much larger BC.

Full text:

Comments on sites specific to Balsall Common

Allocation 1 - Barretts Farm
Overall view is in FAVOUR of this site.
This is the key site in BC, which has potential to shape the future of the village / settlement for years to come. As noted earlier the context of the proposed bypass line for BC is needed to fully exploit this opportunity - the bypass should be a dual carriageway to the North East of the proposed site along the corridor, blighted by HS2 development, and continue to rejoin the existing A452 where it forks to go to Kenilworth / Honiley, known as Gambols Corner.
Access to this development should be exclusively off the bypass route, connections to the existing village infrastructure should be by way of foot and cyclepath only. The most adjacent village road, Meeting House Lane used heavily by car traffic and narrow.
The appropriate development of this site gives a number of recreational amenity opportunities: the proposed provision of a new Junior School could enable shared an All Weather Sports pitch and Swimming Pool to be provided, as long as it was ensured that the school would provide community use on evenings and weekends.
The location of the sports / recreational amenities and associated school should be positioned on the western side of the site (known as the "Catholic Field"), as this could then be joined with the existing Village Sports Association site, the Lant, which hosts cricket, tennis running and hockey clubs. This would enable most of the village sports facilities to be concentrated and leverage / extend the existing Community Centre infrastructure, as well as providing a green hub to Balsall Common - parking for the facilities could also be extended on the developed site, as the current Lant provision is inadequate for the needs of four vibrant and expanding clubs. The provision of a Green centre to BC would also be supported by allowing this to span the current Meeting House Lane, by preventing through traffic on this route.

Allocation 2 - Frog Lane, BC
Overall view to OBJECT to this site
This site seems to only have got this far by virtue of erroneous analysis of the proximity to the primary school, and limited bus connections. The detailed plans currently being exhibited by the developer show no community amenity on the site whatsoever.
The site cannot benefit from a 100 score for accessibility (of a total of 225!) to primary schools when the school to which it refers is well known to be full to bursting point, and causes significant traffic issues. If as I have suggested elsewhere the BC bypass is finally put on the map to the North East, this site is a long way from it, and will only add to congestion within the village. Overall access to other village amenities is poor - station, shops and surgeries are all at the other end of the village, and so this location will add to short journey car traffic in the village, as well as having to cross the A452 artery to reach any of these facilities.
Access from Balsall Street East is also a concern, traffic on this route is already considerable at morning peak, and this will add to the West-East flows in the village. Access proposed is a single lane road on the apex of a bend where driving speeds are frequently in excess of the limits. If this site is seriously considered it should be mandated for the developer to provide a reasonable roundabout to calm traffic at this point.
The village can get far better benefits from developing elsewhere.

Allocation 3 - Kenilworth Road / Windmill Lane
Overall view on this site - OBJECT
This site also lacks the critical mass to contribute significantly to the village - either in terms of supporting a bypass, but also significant distance away from all of the key amenities - reiterate - the junior school is full so should not be considered! The current walking routes back to the shops / station in BC are all along the very busy A452, and are both unattractive as well as potentially hazardous.
If on the other hand the intention is that this development should be inhabited largely by commuters, there would be more sense to provide direct access to the proposed bypass line on the North East of the site, rather than further traffic on to the existing A452, and through the existing traffic lights.
I am somewhat at a loss to understand how permission was granted for the ongoing development of the adjacent site, it would be doubly unfortunate if the same "errors" were allowed to permit this further development of this site.

Alternative opportunities in Balsall Common
I feel SMBC should look again at the proposal in the Call for Sites to develop Grange Farm and land to North West of the village (principally sites 142/198 in the Call for Sites).
As stated in your Atkins Accessibility report, both of these sites are substantial, and score far higher at 310 and 285 than either Frog Lane (225) or Kenilworth Road / Windmill Lane (150!). They provide a far greater opportunity for contribution to much needed village infrastructure, and could both be mainly accessed from a Northern bypass route, which would in turn form a "defensible boundary" that these sites are currently deemed to lack. This provides SMBC with a means of meeting more than the existing 1150 or so units required in Balsall Common, but at the same time fulfilling the stated objective of providing a much needed bypass around the village.
As proposed in their current form, with access from Denegate Drive the sites are not attractive.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1164

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Kirsty King

Representation Summary:

Object to proposals for over 1000 homes to be built on green belt land in Balsall Common, as more than 15% per cent of total is unfair and unjust, in comparison to other areas of the borough.

Full text:

I refer specifically to sites 57, 6 and 11 in Balsall Common, most notably to site 57, Barretts Lane Farm. With over 1000 homes planned, I believe the percentage chosen to be built on green belt land in Balsall Common is unfair and unjust, in comparison to other areas of the borough. Approx 15% of the total planned. The village will not cope, Station St is already too busy at the best of times and the already overused Kenilworth Rd will struggle. There is a lack of transport, services, amenities and the schools are already full.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1173

Received: 30/12/2016

Respondent: Mr D Deanshaw

Representation Summary:

Frog Lane site should be removed from the Plan. Grange Farm should be included. Once the bypass is completed, some development along Kenilworth Road to both north and south may be more achievable.

Full text:

see attached vision statement

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1183

Received: 03/01/2017

Respondent: Paul Morgan

Representation Summary:

Object to Site 2 - Frog Lane. Surely there are alternative sites available with less impact on the surrounding countryside - Dengate Drive appears to have been overlooked, for example.

Full text:

I'd like to raise the following concerns regarding the development of the Frog Lane site - hardly a large plot, and so I don't believe that the damage caused by developing it will be justified by the relatively small number of additional homes:
1. Frog Lane is niche green belt land and has been selected over more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why is this the case?
2. The Frog Lane development is a green field site on the outskirts of the village, so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane. This seems particularly concerning, given point 1 above.
3. Balsall Street East and the roads surrounding the Balsall Common schools - adjacent to the Frog Lane development - are already severely congested (with increased related pollution) at school drop off and pick up time. The Frog Lane development would no doubt have access via Balsall Street East and the immediate area and adding up to another 300 cars into this congestion every day will only increase the problem. I would suggest you or one of your team visits Balsall Street East at around 8.40am on a weekday morning to see the extent of the current issue, to then review how developing Frog Lane will further exaggerate the problem.
4. The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around, as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site, but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less impact on the surrounding countryside - Dengate Drive appears to have been overlooked, for example.
5. The Frog Lane site is a considerable distance from the village amenities, and in particular the train station - which will encourage people to drive more and increase the congestion and pollution problems in the village - and so goes against government planning guidelines on the subject.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1184

Received: 03/01/2017

Respondent: Aidan Blanco

Representation Summary:

Proposing 1100 homes for Balsall Common (30% increase on the current population) will have a fundamental and irreversible impact on the village and change the way we live. Most of us chose to live in Balsall Common due to it's village status. Adding 1100 homes will not only add unprecedented pressure on an already creaking infrastructure but have a negative impact on the current population of the village. 1100 homes is too much for the village and a short term move by Solihull Council to push the housing shortage issue onto an easy target such as Balsall Common.

Full text:

I am writing to you regarding the recent news of the proposed developments in Balsall common and the potential 1100 homes you are planning on enforcing on Balsall Common village. In particular I would like to confirm how Solihull Council has chosen the 3 proposed sites - out of a potential 40 - in particular the Frog Lane development.
The Frog Lane site was seen as an unlikely option when all 40 sites were initially submitted due to the issues and limitations related to the proposal. I was therefore surprised to hear the Frog Lane site has been selected and would like to request that Solihull Council reconsiders the selection based on the following issues related to the site:
* The Frog Lane is green belt land and has been selected over more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why?
* The Frog Lane development is a Green Field site on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane. I've spoken to several people living around Frog Lane who have previously had planning permissions for building work rejected due to Green Belt restrictions that will be requesting reviews of these decisions if the council approves the Frog Lane development. This will be in addition to developers using Frog Lane as the precedent when putting Solihull Council under pressure to approve future plans on the Green Belt in the area surrounding Balsall Common
* Balsall Street East and the roads surrounding the Balsall Common schools - adjacent to the Frog Lane development - are already severely congested (with increased related pollution) at school drop off and pick up time. The Frog Lane development would no doubt have access via Balsall Street East and the immediate area so adding up to another 300 cars into this congestion every day will only increase this problem. I would suggest you or one of your team visits Balsall Street East at around 8.40am on a weekday morning to see the extent of the issue. I would be happy to send you a video of it, if a visit is not possible
* The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less irreversible impact on the surrounding countryside.
* The Frog Lane site is a considerable distance from the village amenities and in particular the train station which will encourage people to drive more and increase the congestion and pollution problems in the village - and goes against government planning guidelines on the subject
* On a more general point proposing 1100 homes for the Balsall Common village - at least a 30% increase on the current population - will have a fundamental and irreversible impact on the village and change the way we live. Most of us chose to live in Balsall Common due to it's village status and adding 1100 homes will not only add unprecedented pressure on an already creaking infrastructure but have a negative impact on the current population of the village - without them having any say. 1100 homes is simply too much for the village and a short term move by Solihull Council to push the housing shortage issue onto an easy target such as Balsall Common
The selection of the Frog Lane site by Solihull Council is made even more surprising by the fact that one of the owners of the Frog Lane land told me that the Consultants they have used to submit their plans said it was extremely unlikely the site would be approved due to the limitations related to the proposal. Please can you confirm the specific reasons why you have gone against all of this logic to select the Frog Lane site? I would urge you to consider a more suitable option.

Further email 13/2/2017:
Further to the instructions given by SMBC at the planning consultation meeting at Balsall Common library on the 7th January, I am writing to you to regarding the proposed development plans for Balsall Common and in particular the Frog Lane proposal.
As per my discussion with Gary Palmer on the 7th January there seems to be no clear reason why SMBC has selected the Frog Lane site other than to benefit directly from the Recreational Fields conversion to brownfield site and subsequent sale for development. The issues with The Frog Lane site are numerous - as listed below - and I would like to take this opportunity to suggest suitable alternatives that I would urge SMBC to consider
Issues with Frog Lane Development:
* The Frog Lane site is green belt land on the very edge of the village and has been selected over far more suitable sites in the village - in particular the brown field sites and extending existing developments. Why?
* It is too small a development - at only 150 homes it will not solve the housing shortage problems in the village and only add to the infrastructure challenges we already face (congestion, oversubscribed doctors, 4th class intake at school etc)
* The proposal comes with zero infrastructure additions so will only add to the severe congestion we already experience in the South of the village - only the developers will benefit and none of the existing residents
* The development is on the wrong side of the village and too far away from the railway station and shops forcing the potential residents to drive everywhere, further increasing congestion
* The Frog Lane site is on the top of a hill and the highest point in the area - surrounded by open countryside and public footpaths. Approving this site for development will blight the countryside for miles around as the site can be seen from so far away due to it's prominent position. I urge you to come out and visit not just the immediate area surrounding the site but walk the footpaths to the South and Southwest of the village to see how much of a visual impact the development will have - as far away as Fen End. Surely there are alternative sites available with less impact on the surrounding countryside
* The Frog Lane development is a Green Field site on the outskirts of the village so approving planning permission there will set a precedent and promote additional erosion of the green belt adjoining Frog Lane.
* The selection of the Frog Lane site by SMBC is made even more surprising by the fact that one of the owners of the Frog Lane land told me that their planning Consultants said it was extremely unlikely the site would be approved due to the limitations related to the proposal.
Based on the above issues it seems to any reasonable person that the Frog Lane site is clearly unsuitable for development. Why have you selected it from more than 40 planning sites in the village - in particular alternative brownfield sites - when there are so many challenges with the site? It seems the only reason SMBC would select it is to profit directly from the conversion of the playing fields to brownfield status which would allow you to sell the site for a huge profit in the short to mid term. This would be a scandal and something we would rigorously challenge as residents should you proceed with the Frog Lane development

Alternative Proposal
I understand there is a need for additional housing in all areas of the countryside and that we as a community need to play our part. However, I would urge SMBC to select a more suitable alternative plot to Frog Lane that benefits both SMBC and the Balsall Common residents, based on the following criteria:

* Select one large development with infrastructure included by the developers instead of 3 small sites and ideally select a brownfield or semi brownfield site (of which there are several in the village)
* Make the developers pay for the vital infrastructure the village will need to accommodate the expansion - with a large enough proposal the developers will pay for the infrastructure we need (shops, gym, community centre etc)
* Pick a site near the railway station and existing amenities so people can walk to the station and shops, reducing congestion in the village
* Leave greenbelt sites alone when there are alternative brownfield sites available as once you approve any plans on greenbelt you are negatively impacting the countryside forever and can't be reversed in our lifetimes
The selection of a single large site based on the criteria above will keep SMBC and the Balsall Common residents happy and satisfy the need for additional housing whilst minimising the negative impact on the existing residents of the village.

I urge you to reconsider the Frog Lane and Windmill lane proposals on this basis.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1205

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Elizabeth Rand

Representation Summary:

Object to the use of green belt land for housing, as brownfield sites should be used, more housing provided in units such as flats, which have a greater capacity in a smaller land area rather than in low-height, individual houses, and more housing should be developed in the north of the borough.

Full text:

I object to the use of green belt land for housing. Brownfield sites should be used and more housing should be provided in units such as flats, which have a greater capacity in a smaller land area rather than in low-height, individual houses. More housing should be developed in the north of the borough.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1208

Received: 08/02/2017

Respondent: Elizabeth Yates

Representation Summary:

Alternative sites - look at the areas east of Shirley, Hampton in Arden, Knowle, Dorridge There is ample land on Widney Manor Road behind Solihull Sixth Form with direct access to Solihull and the M42.

Full text:

Proposed planning for Shirley
SAY GOODBYE TO THE CUCKOO

I am writing to state my opposition to the 'proposed' building development in Shirley and the surrounding area.
To my heading: 'Say Goodbye to the Cuckoo'. Every year it is a complete and utter joy to hear the cuckoo when walking the fields. Many people come for miles to spot and listen to the cuckoo. This bird is on the official site for the most endangered species of bird and on the RED LIST, their numbers have decreased by 37% and we should be protecting these birds, not destroying their habitat.
Having attended the recent consultation meetings at various venues, not once have the council officers been able to give any information regarding the access to these developments, extra schools places, doctors surgeries, transport e.g. bus or train. I congratulate Solihull Council in their training of these officers in subterfuge.
For the past forty years, Shirley has been 'dumped' on by Solihull Council. We have seen our green open spaces eroded away on a systematic scale with Monkspath, Hillfield and Dickens Heath. Solihull Retail park was built in SHIRLEY. From the M42 the A3400 is one road of car dealerships leading into Shirley itself. Powergen was left derelict for more than twenty years when this could have been utilised in that time. Blythe Valley is now a Business Park. Now you proposed to fill in the remaining spaces, depriving the population of Shirley of many beautiful green open spaces full of wildlife, ancient oaks which will be chopped down and no doubt buildings will be demolished to make way for these homes.
It is a disgrace that you intend to build on football fields that our young people use, and what about the allotments that are within the area, will they be protected? I doubt it. I love to be able to say when walking the fields that I can go out in the summer months and see cows, sheep, goats, ducks and even reindeer. What about all the foxes, badgers, Muntjac dear, plus the numerous species of birds and the wonderful site of flocks of starlings swooping over the fields and hedge rows at dusk. We need these places for families to be able to take their children to learn to enjoy and protect their countryside, to know where their roast beef dinner comes from, not just a piece of meat on a plastic tray in the supermarket.
Where is the traffic supposed to go, what about the roads. It is a well known fact that people in Dickens Heath cannot get out of the village at certain times of the day, the traffic tailing back from as far as the Miller and Carter island because all of the traffic is heading towards the A3400 and on to Solihull. Commuters from Yardley Wood in Birmingham already make the journey to Whitlocks End Station to commute into Birmingham, because they are unable to park at Yardley Wood. Trains from Whitlocks End are very often only three carriages long and people are standing all the way to Birmingham having paid for a seat! It is obvious that more trains will be needed, more buses will be needed. Traffic from Tythe Barn Lane will have to come through Dickens Heath Village or along Haslucks Green Road and on to Bills Lane which is already congested in the mornings and evenings.
We build the smallest homes in Europe, to squeeze in as many homes as possible, It is well known that you would not be able to get a Fire Engine to homes in Dickens Heath because of traffic parked on the roads.
If the building development should go ahead, I can agree with the TWR site being utilised and reluctantly the Lighthall Farm site at least they would have a chance at travelling to the Stratford Road, being adjacent to it but I am opposed to all of this development. Solihull needs to look at the areas east of Shirley, Hampton in Arden, Knowle, Dorridge even the Green Burial Site has been given the go-ahead at Temple Balsall, was Shirley not considered for this? This would have been far more acceptable to the Shirley residents than the 6,150 homes. There is ample land on Widney Manor Road behind Solihull Sixth Form with direct access to Solihull and the M42. 'Urbs in Rure' Not for much longer.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1218

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Alastair McCulloch

Representation Summary:

Two of the sites in Balsall Common at Frog Lane and Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Rd are not within walking distance of most local facilities and have very limited access to public transport. Sites which can provide better options in this respect should if possible be preferred.

Full text:

Two of the sites in Balsall Common at Frog Lane and Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Rd are not within walking distance of most local facilities and have very limited access to public transport. Sites which can provide better options in this respect should if possible be preferred.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1225

Received: 13/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Judith Thomas

Representation Summary:

1215 new houses in Balsall Common (1350 with current permissions) is wholly inappropriate due to use of greenbelt rather than available PDL sites, disproportionate level of build when compared to other borough locations with better transport links, combined with HS2 and developments planned for Coventry places unacceptable pressure on existing green belt, delivers housing in south east when employment opportunities are in North and West with an absence of reliable sustainable transport options. Smaller scale developments would blend into existing communities unlike large estates which tend to dominate or become isolated from existing provision.

Full text:

1215 new houses in Balsall Common (1350 with current permissions) is wholly inappropriate due to: 1. use of greenbelt in priority to available PDL sites 2. disproportionate level of build when compared to other borough locations with better transport links 3. combined with HS2 and developments planned for Coventry places unacceptable pressure on existing green belt 4 delivers housing in south east when employment opportunities are in North and West with an absence of reliable sustainable transport options. 5. More housing could be created by Berkswell PC proposals for use of reclaimed land at Cornets End Lane for new settlement

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1231

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Real Christmas Trees Ltd

Agent: DLP Consultants

Representation Summary:

Object- it is considered that a number of the proposed housing sites are unsuitable and will be difficult to deliver due to, for example, the need to properly replace existing sports facilities. This applies to Sites PHA 4 and PHA 18; other sites are also constrained in terms of delivery. It is proposed site PHA 13 should be extended to include land to the west (this is the subject of a detailed submission accompanied by a full suite of supporting studies) to provide the necessary certainty of delivery of housing over the initial phrases of the plan period.

Full text:

Object- it is considered that a number of the proposed housing sites are unsuitable and will be difficult to deliver due to, for example, the need to properly replace existing sports facilities. This applies to Sites PHA 4 and PHA 18; other sites are also constrained in terms of delivery. It is proposed site PHA 13 should be extended to include land to the west (this is the subject of a detailed submission accompanied by a full suite of supporting studies) to provide the necessary certainty of delivery of housing over the initial phrases of the plan period.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1275

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Denise Delahunty

Representation Summary:

Shirley has already took the brunt of increase in traffic since the development & further expansion of Dickens Heath. The Badgers estate is very difficult to exit every morning on Tanworth Lane due to Dickens Heath traffic. I have complained to the council & asked for traffic layout changes. Any further development should ensure traffic is taken directly to the A34 near to the M42 junction. Sol Councillors have been quoted as stating they wish a "separation" of Solihull and Knowle. Please sure other suburbs of Solihull are similarly considered

Full text:

Shirley has already took the brunt of increase in traffic since the development & further expansion of Dickens Heath. The Badgers estate is very difficult to exit every morning on Tanworth Lane due to Dickens Heath traffic. I have complained to the council & asked for traffic layout changes. Any further development should ensure traffic is taken directly to the A34 near to the M42 junction. Sol Councillors have been quoted as stating they wish a "separation" of Solihull and Knowle. Please sure other suburbs of Solihull are similarly considered

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1318

Received: 14/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Roger Monkman

Representation Summary:

Too many of the planned developments for Balsall Common are specifically aimed at Green Belt land and little or no thought has gone into brown field sites. The attitude seems to be one of taking over the Green Belt.

Full text:

Too many of the planned developments for Balsall Common are specifically aimed at Green Belt land and little or no thought has gone into brown field sites. The attitude seems to be one of taking over the Green Belt.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1361

Received: 11/01/2017

Respondent: Iain Baker

Representation Summary:

South of Shirley - The size and concentration of this proposal is totally in appropriate. Instead of these large development proposals the council would be better off agreeing a larger number of smaller developments spread around the borough to include such areas as Dorridge where there are no new estates proposed.

Full text:

I have become aware of the above proposed development plan and wish to register my objections in the strongest terms.

I live in Baxters Road and am therefore well aware of the heavy use age of this open countryside by the south shirley community

My objections are based on the following:

1) Whilst realising the council have obligations to provide additional housing the size and concentration of this proposal is totally in appropriate. Instead of these large development proposals the council would be better off agreeing a larger number of smaller developments spread around the borough to include such areas as Dorridge where there are no new estates proposed

2) Erosion of valuable green belt at a time when we are encouraged to live more healthy lifestyles

3) The plans include the building on the football field. Again a valuable community facility when there are limi ted sports facilities in this part of the borough

4) The proposal moves South Shirley even closer to joining up with Dickens Heath so losing the different characteristics of the two communities.

5) The current infrastructure is already totally inadequate. At peak times both the area around Miller and Carter and the A34 are virtually gridlocked

6) The doctors surgery in Tanworth Lane is already over capacity and provides an inadequate service

7) Both Lighthall and Woodlands schools are full and at the beginning and end of the day the area becomes gridlocked with cars and is dangerous for the school pupils

I note the consultation period ends on the 30th of January and hope the above factors will be taken into account when the proposals are considered further.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1366

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Fairbrother

Representation Summary:

I do not think that an allocation of approximately 85% to greenfield sites is justified. More effort needs to be made to identify suitable brownfield areas.
The allocation of almost 20% of the new build to Balsall Common is a disgrace and does not take into account :
- the substantial increase in housing which has already taken place
- the impact on an already overstretched infrastructure
- proximity of the proposed Barratts Lane development to HS2
- additional incursion into Meriden gap

Full text:

I do not think that an allocation of approximately 85% to greenfield sites is justified. More effort needs to be made to identify suitable brownfield areas.
The allocation of almost 20% of the new build to Balsall Common is a disgrace and does not take into account :
- the substantial increase in housing which has already taken place
- the impact on an already overstretched infrastructure
- proximity of the proposed Barratts Lane development to HS2
- additional incursion into Meriden gap

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1385

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: Christine Stajka

Representation Summary:

alternative to using green belt to deliver homes is to improve/make better use of town centres/brownfield land in urban areas, including Dorridge.

Full text:

Objection to building on Site 13
I am completely in agreement that new housing must become a priority for our country if we want our future generations to have homes where they can live in peace and be free to bring up families.
But ......
There must be thought and consideration when planning where these homes are to be built. Other major cities in Europe are more populated than London and Birmingham and have more countryside nearby than our major cities. We need to make the best use of the land available. We need to employ architects that are imaginative - one of the most desirable places to live in London are Kensington and Chelsea and yet these are densely populated. Getting people to live in town centres, within walking distance of shops, pubs and cafes, won't just create lively new communities - it will provide - a much needed boost for local businesses. Train stations, car parks and warehouses could be moved underground and derelict ground near railways could be used. We must build above shops and revitalise our High Streets, without ruining the skyline (see Madrid, it has wide boulevards and low-rise buildings, yet it is home to more than 3.5 times as many people per hectare as London). There is no need to use green belt and tear up our precious countryside.

Solihull, especially Shirley seems to be taking the brunt of the regeneration programme. According to plans there will be non-stop housing from Stratford Road to Cheswick Green. Families living in this rabbit warren will need recreation land to survive and Site 13 is perfect for this. It has played a massive part in the health and well-being of the local community for many years and must be safeguarded as such. It will be all the more important if families living in the proposed houses are to be content. This land was given by the LAYCA Community Association under an agreement with Solihull Council to provide an informal recreation area for the then recently constructed estate (Woodloes rd, Baxters rd and Stretton rd). Surely, as well as building on green belt land the council will not renegade on this agreement as well.?

The main roads in the area are very congested especially during peak times, it will make it very difficult to enjoy living in Shirley if commuting takes even longer. Schools are full and short of money, unable to afford to build extra classrooms; doctors surgeries are buckling under the weight of their patients, G.Ps unable to cope. We need to take all aspects of 'living' into consideration. Plans for 2550 homes to be built in a small concentrated area in Shirley is too much, we ask for Site 13 to be left as an open space. The shortfall will be approx. 600 houses, these could be accommodated in other infill sites in the area such as Dorridge.
Dickens Heath is also being expanded, we need a coalescence between DH and Shirley, site 13 is perfect for this. This area is and should remain as an area of public space for the benefit of the present and the new community.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1410

Received: 12/01/2017

Respondent: Celia Scottow

Representation Summary:

Over 80% of the new homes will be on Green Belt and the proposed plans concentrate 2550 homes into a very small area of countryside around South Shirley while ignoring smaller logical infill sites elsewhere, such as in Dorridge. It appears that locating 600 new homes in Site 13 is a simple option, using green field space without investigating other possible options, and I am very concerned that once again South Shirley will be losing more of its pleasant characteristics for the benefit of other areas of Solihull.

Full text:

see attached letter

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1432

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Dominic Griffin

Representation Summary:

Barratt's farm is prone to flooding; the land owners proposed development plans do not take HS2 into consideration; low cost/high density housing residents will have limited employment opportunities.

Full text:

800+ houses on the Green Beltat Barratt's farm is unlikley to assist in solving the boroughs needs. As a proportion of these are low cost, how are the residents supposed to get to the job locations in the North of the borough?

The land owners development plans are an idealised version of what is likely to occur. Speaking with the architect, he was completely unaware that the site was bordered by the proposed route of HS2, which means any development will take place further from the railway line, and closer to existing dwellings

The field slopes down towards the base of the railway line. There is always water-logging and light flooding there. If the area is built upon, it will only increase the likelihood of flooding to the station area, and the lower end of Station Road

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1434

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Burrow

Representation Summary:

Proposed locations do not comply with the NPPF, the greenbelt analysis, sustainable locations/transport policies. The greenbelt analysis is flawed, as land to the east of Balsall Common in the narrowest part of the greenbelt has a higher value than other greenbelt. Similarly the land between Dickens Heath and Shirley. Land close to the urban core with all its facilities and a new settlement in north Berkswell are better alternatives, and how can SMBC justify not building in Dorridge with its 3 trains per hour but can in Balsall Common where there is no 30 minute service.

Full text:

The proposed locations do not comply with the NPPF, the greenbelt analysis, sustainable locations/transport policies. The greenbelt analysis is flawed. Anyone looking at a map can see the land to the east of Balsall Common in the narrowest part of the greenbelt has a higher value than other greenbelt. Similarly the land between Dickins Heath and Shirley. Land close to the urban core with all its facilities and a new settlement in north Berkswell are better alternatives

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1461

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Cliff Dobson

Representation Summary:

Site 16 is within the Meriden Gap and contributes to the purposes of the Green Belt, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and helping prevent coalescence between settlements. The proposal would result in the permanent loss of this significant green belt site.

In addition, the development of housing on the scale proposed will aggravate existing congestion on Hampton Lane, Lugtrout Lane and Damson Parkway, and would create immense pressure at the junction of these roads and Solihull By-pass.

Full text:

Site 16 is within the Meriden Gap and contributes to the purposes of the Green Belt, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and helping prevent coalescence between settlements. The proposal would result in the permanent loss of this significant green belt site.

In addition, the development of housing on the scale proposed will aggravate existing congestion on Hampton Lane, Lugtrout Lane and Damson Parkway, and would create immense pressure at the junction of these roads and Solihull By-pass.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1466

Received: 15/02/2017

Respondent: Yasmine Griffin

Representation Summary:

The proposed developments in Balsall Common are not in the right locations. Brownfield land should be sourced for housing rather than using green belt land. There are substantial amounts of brownfield land between Balsall Common and the motorway which would be far better sites than the 3 proposed allocations.

Full text:

The proposed developments in Balsall Common are not in the right locations. I object strongly to the 800 proposed houses on Barrett's Farm. It is precious Greenbelt land which has numerous public footpaths for local residents to access the countryside. It is also a wildlife haven and the numerous ponds on the site are vital to land drainage for existing homes. I do not understand why brownfield land has not been sourced for housing. There are substantial amounts of brownfield land between Balsall Common and the motorway which would be far better sites.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1477

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Mark Bruckshaw

Representation Summary:

Object as believe that the building so many properties in such a small area will be devastating to the area and cause more problems than it solves. From my 30 years experience in housing, ASB, crime, will rise and health and wellbeing will plummet. The roads will not cope, regardless of what improvements are made. Businesses will suffer and move out of the area. FORWARD THINKING PLEASE!

Full text:

I Object. I object. I believe that the building so many properties in such a small area will be devastating to the area and cause more problems than it solves. I have worked to help homeless people for over 25 years and so my view point does not come from 'not in my back yard'. I have managed estates on residential properties for 30 years and from experience, ASB, crime, will rise and health and wellbeing will plummet. The roads will not cope, regardless of what improvements are made. Businesses will suffer and move out of the area. FORWARD THINKING PLEASE!

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1485

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Angela Stuart-Smith

Representation Summary:

Small numbers of housing developments in rural villages would revitalise them and prevent grid lock on over used roads.

Full text:

The infrastructure of the area surrounding Solihull is totally inadequate to support large housing developments.

Small numbers of housing developments in rural villages would revitalise them and prevent grid lock on over used roads.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1494

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Angela Stuart-Smith

Representation Summary:

Other brownfield sites in village ignored, Wootton Green Lane etc. Traffic kept out of centre of village and numbers sustainable plus easy access to A45. Already sustained 2 large housing sites plus some presently being built. 1300 houses proposed would increase village by a quarter ! Ludicrous.

Full text:

I don't agree with housing on Barretts Farm site. It is green belt, in Meriden gap and Coventry gap. HS2 is planned thru it plus extra road from Kenilworth. Traffic thru middle village causing even more gridlock! Other brownfield sites in village ignored, Wootton green Lane etc. I agree Frog Lane - Oakes farm site suitable. Traffic kept out centre village and numbers sustainable plus easy access to A45, Warwick, M40. Already sustained 2 large housing sites plus some presently being built. 1300 houses proposed would increase village by a quarter ! Ludicrous.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1496

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Bob Holtham

Representation Summary:

The need to expand Knowle by 1050 additional homes is not made.
It is wrong to allocate 750 of these houses to one site (ref.9) on the principal approach to the village and where the typography of the southern half in particular would mean a landscape of roofs.
This allocation is predicated on the supposed need for a land swap to fund the redevelopment of Arden Academy.
The Policy should concentrate on allocating a variety of other smaller dispersed sites such as Smiths Lane, Bentley Heath between KDBH and Solihull where travel would have less impact on the Village.

Full text:

The need to expand Knowle by 1050 additional homes is not made.
It is wrong to allocate 750 of these houses to one site (ref.9) on the principal approach to the village and where the typography of the southern half in particular would mean a landscape of roofs.
This allocation is predicated on the supposed need for a land swap to fund the redevelopment of Arden Academy.
The Policy should concentrate on allocating a variety of other smaller dispersed sites such as Smiths Lane, Bentley Heath between KDBH and Solihull where travel would have less impact on the Village.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1505

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: the landowners land Balsall Common

Agent: Howkins & Harrison

Representation Summary:

Q15 - partially disagree - see letter

Full text:

see letter from agent of Land owners at Hob Lane and Waste Lane Balsall Common

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1518

Received: 05/12/2016

Respondent: Mr Mike Ross

Representation Summary:

I have information on the points allocated to each individual site and Frog Lane is very low compared with other sites. Why have these sites not been included, ie Grange Farm, 3 sites in Wootton Green Lane and over 100 sites across the borough which have not been included for development ?

Full text:

My Objections to the development in Frog Lane.
As a resident of 60 Balsall Street East I have first hand experience of the traffic congestion, which at times has led to dangerous driving conditions due to the volume of traffic and causing people to park with total disregard for anyone's safety. I have lived here for 11 years and it only gets worse with every development and added traffic in the village. SMBC acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village, so why propose another development here ? Particularly given that brown field sites to the north were identified and appeared in the original shortlist of potential sites. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE !!!
The playing fields are a valuable public amenity, well used by local football teams and dog walkers. Government guidelines stipulate that they should be preserved and protected at all cost. Why is SMBC ignoring these guidelines ? THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE !!!
Why was the playing field added at such a late stage without any public consultation or knowledge?

FROG LANE IS A GREEN FIELD SITE. WHY HAS IT BEENPREFERRED TO OTHER AVAILABLE BROWN FIELD SITES ?

This proposed development is 1.5 miles from local amenities, rendering it unsustainable according to Government planning guidelines.

I have information on the points allocated to each individual site and Frog Lane is very low compared with other sites. Why have these sites not been included, ie Grange Farm, 3 sites in Wootton Green Lane and over 100 sites across the borough which have not been included for development ?

WHAT DOES SMBC INTEND ON DOING ABOUT SCHOOLING, DOCTORS, AND PARKING IN THE VILLAGE THIS IS A MAIN CONCERN AS THEY ARE ALL ALREADY OVERSUBSCRIBED

With reference to my recent concerns, currently it takes me 23 minutes to get from my house to the traffic lights on the kenilworth road ( under a mile )!!! In the morning. I understand that development has to take place but really in the worst traffic area in the village?!!!!
If the development goes ahead I will be forced to sell my property and I assume smbc will be compensating for loss of value on my property from the development ?

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1526

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Keith Tindall

Representation Summary:

There is an inherent danger that large scale development of the kind proposed for Balsall Common and Berkswell in the rural east of the Borough risks making it a less attractive area in which to live, and this must be of major consideration in the Local Plan.
It seems that draft plan fails to fully recognise this, but instead simply sees areas of open countryside that it is happy to urbanise without fully considering the consequences.

Full text:

There is an inherent danger that large scale development of the kind proposed for Balsall Common and Berkswell in the rural east of the Borough risks making it a less attractive area in which to live, and this must be of major consideration in the Local Plan.
It seems that draft plan fails to fully recognise this, but instead simply sees areas of open countryside that it is happy to urbanise without fully considering the consequences.

No

Draft Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 1535

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: BDW and Gallagher Estates Ltd

Agent: Avison Young

Representation Summary:

Welcome release of land from Green Belt for housing.
Concerned that insufficient land allocated.
Object to inclusion of Sites 1, 2 and 3 ahead of SHELAA site 142, land at Grange Farm, Balsall Common.
Concerned that scoring of sites is erroneous.
Disagree with findings in GBA, Sustainability Appraisal, Landscape Character Assessment in relation to SHELAA Site 142.

Full text:

6. Please refer to full representation