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

I wish to lodge my strong objections to the proposed building over the green belt land from Tanworth Lane and across to Bills Woods.

The people of South Shirley have had to endure the erection of Dickens Heath (town) and this has increased in size by stealth with new phases being continually added on.

The traffic is now at horrendous levels during early morning and evening.
The line of traffic extends from the junction at the top end of Tanworth Lane all the way past Stretton Road and sometimes down to my own house at number 96 as the traffic travelling along from Dickens Heath is virtually nonstop. Once we make it onto the Stratford road off Dog Kennel Lane, the traffic is backed up both ways on the approach from and to the M42.
On an evening the traffic then backs up all along Dog Kennel Lane back to the Stratford Road.

How can a sane person think that building even more housing in our area is going to be sustainable within any proposed infrastructure?

Why does this council think that it's acceptable to pen us in even further in South Shirley when there are green belt sites around the Dorridge/Knowle and other areas? Would this be because perhaps the South Shirley population on the whole probably does not have the money, power, influence or status as some Dorridge residents may be deemed to have? Why are we, and our children thought of as not needing the afforded 'luxury' of some accessible clean air as residents in other parts of the Borough?
This smacks of discrimination in my view.

We have so much traffic travelling around us that they only respite we have for our families, within walking distance, is the exact place you have proposed to now take away from us. We would have to get into a car to get some fresh air, which is kind of ironic as it clearly all adds on to the problems we have regarding traffic.

It's vital to both young and older people's, physical and mental wellbeing to have open, pollution free spaces within which to escape to.

We hear that builders, counsellors and relevant landowners between them have already made up their minds to do this and this is shameful.

Yes, new housing will need to be built but why oh why concentrate it on South Shirley once again??

see letter

I wish to make the following comments in respect of the Local Plan review:

1. The proposed allocation of sites is disproportionate with over 40% of the allocations being located in the B90 Shirley postcode in the Shirley South and Blythe wards. If this is adopted in the final plan, the impact on infrastructure in the Shirley area will be profound. This has not been properly thought through. I am particularly opposed to site 13 which massively expands the urban area of Shirley into the Green Belt.

2. There are few sites in the Meriden Gap with a preference for cramming sites into the Blythe ward which will result in the urban part of the borough creeping into the Green Belt. It is notable that there are no sites put forward in the Dorridge and Hockley Heath ward. Not including sites in the Dorridge and Hockley Heath ward would be a missed opportunity in an established community , and is at odds with what has been proposed for Knowle.

3. Design standards must be required to meet the highest possible energy efficiency levels both to reduce carbon emissions and reduce costs for consumers. Issues including flooding need to be carefully considered when considering sites and appropriate engineering solutions provided in areas liable to flooding. Protecting and enhancing biodiversity should be a key thread throughout the plan.

4. Provision of new facilities, including medical practices, schools and transport infrastructure required to facilitate development on the scale proposed needs to be planned for well in advance of sites being built out. New communities need to be built sustainably, and take into account local needs such as affordable housing for first time buyers.

5. Shirley is designated as an "Urban Growth Area". It is not clear what this means and Solihull Council should not go down the route of high density development along the Stratford Road corridor. Instead, the focus, through the Shirley Economic Plan, needs to be on improving Shirley to make it more of a destination for visitors and local people.

6. Any sports pitches removed as a result of site allocations need to be replaced in other locations.

In summary, although I fully recognise the need for new housing development in the borough, and the need to secure a 5 year land supply to avoid unplanned development, we must allocate sites in a manner that safeguards Solihull's unique 'Urbs in Rure' appeal, protects health and wellbeing of our population and preserves our environment for generations to come.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I have been advised by my local parish council (Berkswell) to address you directly, as well as to the former, re my concerns over the above report, where it applies to the housing development plans for Balsall Common.
May I first of all say that I fully appreciate the challenges that SMBC face over the next 5-10 years and thus commend you on the contents and presentation of the draft report. However, in relation to Balsall Common, whilst I am not against the need for additional housing in the immediate vacinity per se, I would urge SMBC to consider the following points before any final decision is made.
1) As you are no doubt aware, Balsall Common village will be blighted by the advent of HS2, especially during the construction phase, which may very well start within the next 2 years, with our section of the project lasting for anything up to 10 years. During this period, our village will be transformed into a 'building site' with storage locations dotted around the environs, the construction of a 'temporary' living facilities for HS2 employees and the endless movement of HGV vehicles. It therefore seems unreasonable and unfair to burden our community further with additional construction work within the same timeframe, when conceivably, this additional housing requirement could be accommodated elsewhere within the borough.
2) On the other hand, if Balsall Common has to be seen to be 'taking its share' of the extra housing requirements, then why could this not happen to the west side of the village, where there is plenty of land available. It would of course mean that these houses would be further from the village centre, but this would be a small price to pay to avoid the potential monumental 'bottle-neck', which would arise from the construction of 800 proposed houses on the Barratt's Farm area in such close proximity to HS2.
3) As I am sure many residents in Balsall Common will have already indicated, the present infrastructure in Balsall Common is already 'creaking at the seams', especially from a schooling, recreational, parking/shopping perspective. This has arisen directly from extensive house building projects within the village, both past and present - we need to learn lessons from this experience. Whilst infrastructure issues have been mentioned in the report, there are no specific details which address these problem and therefore it would be irresponsible to forge ahead with extra housing without addressing the same. I would respectively suggest that an integrated plan for the village is required, covering for example, additional housing (if required), schooling, maintenance of/addtional recreational areas/facilities, retail/parking amenities, road network system, public transport. If this was forthcoming, then not only would this engender a greater degree of goodwill from the local community, but equally importantly, would hopefully prevent the real risk of destroying the amenable characteristics of our village, which the present plans are in danger of doing.

I look forward to receiving further communication from SMBC on this important subject, via our parish council, and trust that common sense will ultimately prevail. Thank you for reading this correspondence, and I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to acknowledge receipt.

see attached letter

see attached letter

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:

"Do you believe we are planning to build 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 should be included?"

I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.

The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.

1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".

2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.

3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.

4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.

5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".

6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties

7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.

8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.

9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.

10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."

In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:

1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport

2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots

3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2

4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged

6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

Firstly, I have tried to voice my objections via the online portal but I have found this to be very difficult, hence this email I will detail my objections. Additionally, my house backs on to the site known as Site 13 (back of Langcomb Road and the Baxters estate). I understand that I have the right to formally respond, but the documents sent to me prior to Christmas was so poorly written that it has been thrown away as it was seen as having no importance. I am therefore also formally responding to the letter sent to me asking for my response.

PLEASE NOTE, THESE VIEWS ARE WRITTEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH MARK BRUCKSHAW, ALSO RESIDENT OF 70 LANGCOMB ROAD.

Section 5 Question 3

I do not understand why 41% of the new build has been proposed for such a small area in South Shirley and so far away from HS2. Surely, 'spreading the load' and locating more in reach of HS2 would be sensible. I am hopeful that HS2 will bring opportunities to Solihull, but by building the homes at the furthest corner of the borough away from HS2, will reduce the opportunities it can bring. Additionally, I believe it will damage the opportunities it can bring:

1. Residents of South Shirley will not catch the train into Birmingham and then out again to link up with HS2, and so will drive. Regardless of what road improvements are made, by making residents travel across the borough to get to HS2 from South Shirley, will increase congestion to all areas in between. Also this will affect the environment at a time where we should be aiming to reduce the use of the car.

2. Businesses will suffer and move out of the area if they can not drive around the borough

3. The well being of all Solihull residents between South Shirley and HS2, will be negatively affected.

4. Policy P8 seeks to reduce congestion but the proposals will quite clearly increase congestion.

5. Policy P9 seeks to mitigate climate change, but the proposals of increasing car use will quite clearly contribute to climate change.

I strongly believe that the interests of all residents of Solihull should be considered. By 'spreading the load' around all of Solihull, the impact will be minimised.

Alternatives should be considered, brownfield sites can be utilised with creative thinking, such as the car park at Monkspath Hall Road, a multi storey car park could be built on part of the land therefore maintaining or increasing the existing number of spaces, and the rest of the land could be used for housing. The principle of 'top hats' could be used for existing block of flats and other buildings (additional floors are added to existing buildings). Commercial buildings can be converted to residential. Smaller pockets of green belt, spread around the borough could be used, therefore reducing the impact on infrastructure and therefore reducing costs to the local authority.

Section 7 Question 15

I object to the locations of the new housing in South Shirley, in particular site 13 (behind Langcomb Road and the Baxters Estate) and site 4 (Tithe Barn Lane, Dickens Heath). I do not have as strong objections to Site 12 (Light Hall Farm), although a beautiful area and a terrible loss if built on, it is better placed than Site 4 & 13 if Shirley is to have it's fair share of housing. Site 11 (TRW) I have no objections with.

Below is the justifications for my objects. I will state that my objects are based on my 25 years professional experience of managing residential estates and working with developers. I am a surveyor and a member of the Royal Institutions of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). I am also a volunteer and campaigner for homeless people and those without secure accommodation. I regularly go into Birmingham to feed and cloth people sleeping on the streets. I say this to stress that I am not a 'not in my back yard' person. My husband, Mark Bruckshaw, has over 30 years experience of managing estates and also volunteers, so between us, we have a vast amount of real and practical knowledge of the impact of housing developments.

1. Flooding.
Our back garden regularly floods from half way to the back of the garden. At some places it can be 5 inches deep. Bills Lane regularly floods and at times, the flood water gathers under the railway bridge. On Haslucks Green Road, at the junction with Bills Lane, the roadway regularly floods and is at times in-passable. Given that the water table is rising, the problem will increase.

Point 313 of the draft plan states 'New development sites must be resistant and resilient to flooding, to accord with the NPPF.' The trees in the Christmas tree farm at the back of Langcomb Road, currently assist to reduce the level of flooding. I am aware of the flood measures that can be taken for new developments, but the increased risk of flooding by removing the trees and the impact on the surrounding land would also need to be considered. This work would be very expensive and developers would 'overlook' the impact on the surrounding areas.

2. Roads/Congestion.

I believe that the road system in Shirley (and the wider impact on Solihull) would not cope with the amount of homes proposed in such a small area. Although road improvements can be made, there is a physical limit to the improvements. I have detailed above the negative impact of congestion.

As a society would should be looking to reduce travel by car. Building on green belt increased the need for the use of a car. Site 4 and 13, have no real bus services and Whitlocks End and Shirley train stations are overcrowded. It is impossible to park as either station past 9 am. The proposed increase number of residents, will not be able to use the trains. Both points add to the need to use a car.

With regards site 4 & 13, the proposed Affordable housing - should include those on lower incomes or disabilities, some of which would not be able to afford a car. How is it proposed for these disadvantaged people to access society if they can not travel?

With the additional planned build on the old CEGB site, the land by San Souci, the building planned by Bromsgrove Council near to site 4 & site 13 and the various other pockets of developments in Shirley which will already have an impact on the roads, for even more developments in a such a small area, the impact on the roads will be immense.

3. Increased Anti Social Behaviour(ASB) and Crime

Statistics show and in my experience, the building of new highly populated homes in small areas such as proposed for South Shirley increases ASB and crime. This increases the cost on the police service and support services. Residents health and well being is affected. We have a duty as a society to reduce risks not increase them. I would urge Solihull Council to learn from mistakes made by others and not make the same mistakes.

There is a public bridle way at the back of my house, if the development goes ahead, this should be removed. Various local authorities, including Birmingham and Redditch are spending £millions on removing alleyway. If the bridle way remains and a new development is built, it will be rife with ASB and crime. I can say this with authority from managing housing estates.

4. Loss of Green Belt and nature

From experience of living by site 13, it is rich with nature including, bats, woodpeckers, owls, field mice and many more. I am aware of the measures developers can take to reduce the impact such as building bat boxes, but in real terms, the bats do not stay long in the bat boxes they find alternative places to live. I strongly feel that the human race should protect wildlife and not be happy destroying their habitat, particularly when there are alternative areas for building.

5. Health and well being.

Many people use site 13 and site 4. I regularly walk with my children in site 13. We are all being encouraged to consider our health and well being to enrich our lives and also to reduce the financial strains on the NHS and other support services. To build on the sites, will have a negative impact and is clearly against the objectives in policy 14, policy 17 & policy 18.

6. Create more problems than it solves.

The problem of a 2 million housing shortage is a real problem and one that has been highlighted to government over many years. I am very glad to see that finally, some steps are being taken to address the problem. I would urge Solihull Council not to solve one problem by creating many more problems as I have highlighted above.

I do hope my views as a resident and as a professional are taken into consideration. Given my professional experience, I would be happy to volunteer my time to work with yourselves to help to problem solve, should you wish.

see attached report
Balsall Parish Council resolved at the Council meeting on 15 February 2017 to submit this report in response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan Consultation ending 17 February 2017

see attached letter and supporting statement

see attached response

l am emailing you on behalf of my young family to give our objections to your proposals to build a large housing estate on our local fields in south Shirley.

We have lived in the local area for three year and one of the main attractions to this area was the easy access to local open spaces. So as you can imagine, we are very, very sad and upset to learn of the Solihull's proposals.

Whilst we appreciate that the council has been directed by central government to have a five year housing plan, we feel that the sheer volume of the new housing development that is proposed near us is far too high. Therefore we would like to question why other areas seem to have "ring fenced " and be exempt from such a huge volume of development.

l shall firstly discuss

1. TRAFFIC

If we look at the current road network, our local roads struggle every morning with congestion. Tamworth lane is extremely busy at rush hour and on any one week day morning, commuters can be queuing past the entrance for the allotment to pull out onto dog kennel lane. lt is common sense that building a large new housing estate Will create MORE congestion. Almost every dwelling will have at least one car and probably two or three. lf we multiple these figures by the number of houses proposed surely this is just going to cause more traffic, more pollution and more accidents on the road!

AIR POLLUTION
Has any thought been given to increase air pollution?
Shouldn't the government be looking at aiming to decrease local air pollution???

2. PRESSURE ON LOCAL SERVICES

GP SURGERIES : We already struggle to get an appointment at our Medical (GP) surgery. Where are all the proposed new residents going to register for medical services? surely our surgery would not have the capacity to take any more patients without it having a detrimental affect on its current client group. So will local residents suffer ?

EDUCATION :
Our children attend woodlands primary school. The reception year is oversubscribed and again the school does not have the funding to expand and to take more children. Where will all these new residents children attend school or does the council have plans to build services especially for new residents?

3.WILDLIFE

Has any thought been given to the affect on our local wildlife?
It is truly shocking to think of all the animals and creatures that live in our local fields losing their natural habitats and/or dying out locally because of this proposal.

how will we educate our children about being responsible, caring adults who care and RESPECT local wildlife, if we let the council build on the only local fields we have , wildlife will disappear ? Is the council proud of its plans to kill local natural habitats?

This is 2017 , we know how much damage man has done to the earth already , please don't do it here !

4. MENTAL HEALTH

Lastly I want to talk about the mental health of the residents of this area. There is a lot of research that talks about the benefits of exercise and outdoor activity on ones mental health.

Public heath England , improving access to green open spaces (2014) states " There is significantly and growing evidence on the health benefits of good quality open green spaces. The benefits include self-rated health, lower body mass index, improved mental health and longevity. " The paper states " local authorities play a Vital role in protecting , maintaining and improving green space". It is evident that if residents have good mental health and well being the demand for health services will be lower hence less pressure on the NHS.

lf all the proposed site is cleared and made into a concrete jungle, all the local residents , children and their pets may well suffer from poorer mental health.
Why cant we as adults protect this area for the next generation?

PROPOSAL:

We appreciate that Solihull housing has to submit a draft plan to the government of their local five year housing plan and if you do not, developers have more right to appeal. So whilst I oppose this plan to build IN MY BACK YARD AND WOULD LIKE TO STOP ALL PROPOSALS TO BUILD HERE, I recognise this is unrealistic.

Therefore I propose that the council reconsiders exactly where they are going to build.

l would like to see the first two fields that face the housing on the woodlands estate to be left alone in their natural state. So the natural beauty of the area can be maintained, wildlife can continue to live there in their current undisturbed state and local residents, their children and dogs can continue to enjoy the fields.

Furthermore, I am aware that the laws on GREEN BELT LAND are changing to suit government policy but if we look at the original aim of the policy to "CONTROL URBAN GROWTH AND TO PREVENT URBAN SPRAWL by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belt is their openness". Surely this proposed development would be urban sprawl, would not be welcome by the current residents and would ruin a beautiful area of open space and countryside. So we can protect the area for future generations of our children and their children and wildlife.
my children are very upset about this prospect, don't ruin this lovely area,

email & see attached report
Please find attached my objection to site 3 (Balsall Common) proposed for allocation in the Draft Local Plan.

This objection is in response to Q15 in the DLP and recommends the removal of site 3 from the plan and that site 240 be allocated instead.

You will note that this report is co-authored my myself, Jeanette Mcgarry and Wendy Wilson and is focused solely on site 3.

I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss this report further with yourself, Cllr Courts and the co-authors of the report.

Ref : SMBC draft Housing Plan : proposed developments of 1,150 houses in Balsall Common

I am writing to respond to the Consultation Document published by SMBC as it relates to Balsall Common.

My interest is as a resident at 99 Meeting House Lane in Balsall Common. My property backs onto the fields earmarked for the Barratts Lane development.

I have tried to use the SMBC Questionnaire : I have submitted it but it doesn't allow me to tell the story in the way I think is relevant - despite the several hours it took to read most of it! So I am sending you this short précis which covers the points I want to raise.

Current situation -
* Balsall Common has already undergone significant housing development over the past 30 years with significant increases in Kemps Green, Needlers End, Riddings Hill and more recently on the Kenilworth Road (Elysian Gardens). Add to this numerous infill/smaller estates.
* Overall population growth must have increased by at least 2-300% over that period (conservative estimate).
* The improvements in infrastructure have not kept pace at all with the increase in housing and population growth
* The centre of the village is small with relatively narrow roadways and becomes hazardous to all users at peak times.
* Parking is severely restricted adding to periodic traffic "chaos" and danger to pedestrians
* Facilities at the railway station are totally inadequate with restricted parking availability - overflow parking onto Hall Meadow Road overspills almost onto the roundabout by the station every working day
* Having said that the greenfield area to the north of village at Barratts Farm provides good access to the countryside for many residents where people walk and take their dogs, cycle - which adds to the satisfying rural aspect of the village - so important for a more healthy lifestyle and family time


SMBC Plan -
* The proposal in the SMBC Development Plan is to increase housing by 1,150 units
* This is almost 20% of the entire allocation for the borough! - going into an community which has already seen massive redevelopment in very recent times
* Note - of this 800 representing 13% % of the total Plan is earmarked for just one area in the village - at Barratts Farm !
* This will be in close proximity to the new HS2 line
* 100% of the development is in the green belt


Impacts -

* Further destruction of the green belt around Balsall Common representing also additional unacceptable incursion into the Meriden Gap
* Increase in population will not be supported by already inadequate infrastructure - centre of the village especially will be put under even greater strain
* Increase in hazards resulting from increase in traffic density and road usage :
Specifics regarding road access and possible by-passes around the village are still to be finalised - but in any case the general increase in population - and therefore cars - will cause more overloading of the already stretched traffic networks
* Add to this problem the significant level of construction traffic supported by inadequate networks at the same time as HS2!
* Station parking already overstretched will become impossible
* Schools and doctors surgeries will not cope without further significant extension and therefore investment
* Size of Barratts Farm development too large to be absorbed by village - risk of becoming a separate community (village within a village)
* Barratts Farm development will cut off the easy or nearby access to countryside for many residents
* Where will the "multiple points of vehicular access" be located to give access to and from Barratts Lane site? Impossible onto the very narrow and already dangerous Meeting House Lane - at the very least for health and safety reasons. So the access pints will be at the far ends of the village. See further comments below.
* Current quality of life enjoyed by existing residents will be further negatively impacted by this proposed disproportionate development - also coming on the back of HS2

This allocation to Balsall Common (and especially to Barratts Farm ) is totally disproportionate to the size of the village. The village is already overly-developed due to recent increases in housing which have outpaced both existing and recent increases in infrastructure.

Alternative considerations

* Brownfield sites - more effort needed to identify these. It is too easy to redesignate green belt land
* Total allocation needs to be more sensibly and sensitively spread rather than doing what is easy and convenient - perhaps this has been done based on developer land banks in the green belt currently available (I assume use of these was never promised so therefore were at their risk)
* I would suggest a suitable cap on any allocation - perhaps based on population - to ensure fairness and sustainable integration. Any allocation to BC should include the existing development on the Kenilworth Road (Elysian Gardens) to avoid changing the goal posts. The allocation of 800 homes to one site in a small village - in this case Barratts Farm -should not be allowed to be developed to such a size due to difficulty of sustainable integration. We don't want a "village within a village".
* If brownfield sites and a fair and proportionate allocation of sites around the borough do not generate the housing capacity required, consideration should be given to the creation of a "new town/ village". Although this would still probably be within the greenbelt, such an approach would have the benefit of :
- being planned from scratch according to current or new norms - so built for the future and not as a make-do catch-up which is what the current proposal represents
- include purpose-built transport networks rather than inefficient (and potentially dangerous ) bolt-on access points or use of inappropriate roadways
- limits for redesignation from green belt would be agreed in advance, but would allow for further growth and expansion in the future as whatever you do now, you will want more at some stage going forward
- no disruption to existing communities as a result of "haphazard" top-down allocations based on available land (incl speculative developer land banks) which are probably in the wrong place (as in the case of BC)


Meeting House Lane

There is a suggestion - though denied by a Parish Councillor - that an access is being planned to the Barratts Lane site at or near No 111 Meeting House Lane. Can I remind you that you have the report prepared by the Parish Council raising several health and safety concerns regarding traffic using the lane. As you know the lane is narrow and has no pavements (and no room to make them) to the east of the pinch pints (by the church/tennis courts). There is not enough room for 2 cars + pedestrians. Sleeping policemen (road bumps) act as an inducement for some cars (usually SUVs) to increase their speed. However dangerous, traffic today uses the Lane as a short cut around the village at peak times. We know children who have been "brushed" by cars on their way to school. I walk down the lane most days - on several occasions the traffic have driven at inappropriate speed within a few feet of me. One road user commented to me that speed bumps were "an unnecessary inconvenience as nobody has been killed yet". He was serious! - as am I on this subject. So already today we need better traffic calming measures, improved signage regarding speed, and clarity of priority at the pinch-points.
Conclusion - any suggestion of an entry/ exit onto Meeting House Lane from the proposed Barratts Lane development is not worthy of consideration at least on health and safety grounds


Conclusion

I formally object to the proposed allocation of a further 1250 new houses to Balsall Common on the grounds that it is totally disproportionate to the size of the village Such large development, will overstrain the already inadequate infrastructure (despite plans to improve), represent an unwarranted incursion into the Greenbelt and Meriden Gap and reduce the rural quality of life currently enjoyed by residents. Specifically with regard to the development of Barratts Lane - the village would have serious problems absorbing and integrating the "massive" allocation of 800 houses on this single site. I would therefore request that you withdraw the proposed Balsall Common developments as currently drafted from the Plan.

I would appreciate a reply to my points at some

see attached letter

see letter from agent on behalf of landowner

Response to Solihull MBC 23 questions extended consultation on the draft local plan
Question 1 are the right borough challenges identified?
Question 2 agreement with the Borough Vision

Only In a very small part yes, as they are clearly written from an urban Solihull centric perspective, once more bringing into disrepute the belief that Solihull successfully combines a well-balanced combined Urban and Rural vision. Looked at from a holistic position, Solihull MBC in this draft proposal will not be satisfied with following their own policies until an urban jungle is built through the most vulnerable portion of the Green Belt between Berkswell / Balsall Common Parish and Coventry City. Berkswell / Balsall Common is already a congested community with poor infrastructure and very poor public sector connectivity with the local economic centres which are primarily to the East and South ie NOT Solihull.
Adding the proposed disproportionate housing and its resulting population to Berkswell / Balsall Common will simply make the problems worse and continue the belief that SMBC will ignore its own Policy's when they do suit political goals.

Question 3 agreement with Spatial Strategy?
The approach defined for sites being appropriate for development as written looks good with the right priorities, But Unfortunately they have not been adhered to in this draft plan.
Barratt's farm land is Green field land not Brownfield land and has significant drain off issues. And as stressed above the village is virtually bereft of effective public transport The demolition of the Meriden Gap Green belt and its impact on the local ecology of the Green fields, ancient hedge rows and trees will directly effect the existing local residents and families who extensively use the area and its many crisscrossing footpaths for open air exercise and leisure activities. The additional traffic emanating from such a large increase in housing will add to the air pollution provided by poor control of the take off and landing heights from Birmingham Airport, especially the north turn over the settlement
If this land is built on the drain off problem identified above will represent a risk to local adjoining properties to the north and south.

Question 7 regarding sustainable Economic Development?
Good principles. But again not seriously considered in the draft plan with no consideration of the disproportionate building of houses on an already congested and ill planned village centre.

Question11 policy P2 providing homes for all
The total proposed housing numbers are grossly disproportionate to the size of the existing community and will have a very significant detrimental impact on the size, shape, character and environment of Berkswell / Balsall Common as a Rural Village. It is also noticed that while mention is made of affordable homes, no mention is made of homes for older members of the community.

Question 15 appropriateness of draft proposed sites. As mentioned throughout this response mention is made of how Solihull MBC have failed to follow their own Policies in establishing the appropriateness of the chosen sites and yet proposals for a new village on a brown field site development to the north of the region have been ignored.

Question 16 completeness of required supporting infrastructure to complement the proposed draft development?
While Doctor and Schooling infrastructure is mentioned, no mention is made of shopping, banking etc Banks are withdrawing from Berkswell / Balsall Common and a lack of action on the site to the rear of the Co-op shop allowing it to be isolated from other retail outlets, preventing a cohesive village centre

Question18 sustainable Travel
Good ideals but difficult to execute when public transport apart from Birmingham focused rail is very, very poor in the area

Question 22 Delivery
CIL payments for local development should be focussed in the local area for locally requested and agreed infrastructure improvements.

Question 23 Any other comment
No explanation has been given to the fact that a grossly disproportionate number of houses are proposed to be built in Berkswell / Balsall Common in an important and sensitive Green Belt area compared with elsewhere in Solihull borough. Such as Dorridge, Knowle or other villages to the South.
There is a very strong perception in the Berkswell / Balsall Common region that Solihull MBC have abandoned the Greenbelt and consciously discarded their own policies and values and have lost what trust they had as a result.

original responses not received - copy provided
see attached letter

see attached response

see attached response

In response to the consultation, I would like to add mine and my husband's support for the full and detailed response made by the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath Neighbourhood Forum on all counts.

I understand there is a need to build additional homes, but my biggest concern is that building on Green Belt would be to the detriment of Solihull and it's long-standing Urbs in Rure motto. People come to live here because of the proximity to green and open spaces. To build homes - or anything else - on these spaces is to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Once green belt is gone, you can't ever get it back. Brown field sites should be favoured for housing, such as the TVR site in Shirley where housing - with it's excellent transport links - would be most appropriate.

see attached letter

see attached letter

Response to Draft Housing Plan
I have attempted to respond to Solihull Council's draft housing plan using the online portal this afternoon. However, I have found the website to be very confusing and circular in nature. I could not access the online form for responses, despite clicking on hyperlinks for 'direct access to the online form'. As a result, I am emailing the key points that I wish to make instead. However, I would be grateful if the Council would review the approach that it takes to consultations in the future and consider the accessibility and clarity of its webpages.

Question 1 - I believe that the following key challlenges should also be included:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 2 - I believe that my responses to question 1 should also form part of the vision for the plan, namely:
* Improving the range and number of facilities in Balsall Common, including the town centre, without this creating further problems with traffic and car parking
* Retaining the character and attractiveness of rural and semi-rural locations in the borough
Question 3 - I agree that brownfield sites should be selected ahead of greenfield sites. However, the distribution of planned new homes within the plan does not seem to reflect this strategy sufficiently. For example, greenfield sites in Balsall Common seem to have been allocated a very large number of new homes, particularly relative to its current size when other more developed areas of the borough that may benefit from regeneration or be better able to absorb expansion have not. I believe that this will be damaging to the character and attractiveness of Balsall Common and that it would be better for all communities in Solihull for new homes to be built in smaller numbers per development but in more locations spread throughout the borough. The present plan seems to place the burden on a small number of locations.

The current spatial strategy does not take sufficient account of the disruption that will be caused in communities by HS2 and how building new homes in the same areas may compound the difficulties experienced. Balsall Common will I expect, for example, experience significant issues from HS2 such as construction traffic, potentially at the same time as disruption from the building of a large number of new houses and infrastructure to support them. This needs to be taken into account when making final decisions on sites so that particular parts of the borough are not shouldering the burden of multiple developments at the same time, whilst other areas remain undisturbed. All areas need to make a fair contribution to the sustainable development and success of the area.

Please see response to question 15 for further comments on considerations for the spatial strategy/choice of locations.

Question 7 - Balsall Common should be listed as a town centre requiring a masterplan. Now, even before new homes are developed, the centre suffers from significant traffic problems (speeding, congestion, parking problems) and too few facilities. If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceed, a master plan is vital to ensure that the area remains a pleasant, desirable and prosperous place.

Question 15 - I believe that the locations selected should include consideration of ease of access to employment. For example, it seems strange that there are not more sites in or near the Dickens Heath/Monkspath/Blythe Valley area to enable ease of access to jobs at the business park and in the area south of the airport and east of Land Rover to enable ease of access to the jobs at both of those sites. The proximity of significant numbers of employment opportunities and transport links are much better in those areas than some of the sites selected (e.g. Balsall Common, Knowle). I also believe that those areas would be better able to absorb expansion without damage to the character of the area. For example, Dickens Heath features modern housing developments already and additional similar developments would be in keeping with its current design/character.

If the number of new homes cannot or is not spread more evenly around the borough and plans for Balsall Common to have the number of homes suggested proceed, I would welcome these being in smaller numbers across more developments. I believe that this would allow the town to expand in a more managed way that is in keeping with its character, limits the amount of green space and natural habitat being lost in each part of the town and manages the additional traffic more evenly. I am quite concerned about such a large number of homes being planned for Barrett's Farm for a number of reasons, including:
* This will create a large volume of additional traffic for a small number of routes
* The nearby town centre will not be able to cope with the additional demand and has little room to expand
* The location is a beautiful natural habitat for a range of wildlife and the public footpaths are a well-used and well-enjoyed feature of the area
* Having such a large estate of new build houses is not in keeping with the unique and semi-rural character of the area
I would welcome some of these being located in other parts of the borough or, at least, other parts of the town. For example, I believe that a developer owns land near Oakes Farm Shop off Balsall Street East and that this would be a good location for some of the homes currently planned for Barrett's Farm because:
* This part of Balsall Common is less congested
* It is serviced by a main road that could take the additional capacity
* There is a farm shop/cafe and a pub within close proximity
* There is space for the development of additional facilities, unlike in the town centre which is close to Barrett's Farm
* Pressure would be taken off the town centre, which is currently very busy with traffic and people relative to its size
It also would seem to make more sense in terms of ease of access to road and rail networks, as well as the health centre, for new developments in Balsall Common/Berkswell to be nearer to Hallmeadow Road, Truggist Lane, Riddings Hill, Lavender Hall Road etc.

I am sure that there are also other locations in Balsall Common and neighbouring villages/towns (e.g. Berkswell, which appears to have not been earmarked for any expansion) where the homes could be spread out in smaller numbers to make growth more manageable and easily absorbed.

Question 16 - If the number of homes planned for Balsall Common proceeds, I believe that the following infrastructure is required is addition to new schools and GP surgeries:
* Traffic calming measures in and around the town centre, including Station Road, Kenilworth Road and Meeting House Lane to counteract the volume and speed of traffic that already exists and will be exacerbated by new developments. I live on Meeting House Lane and the speed bumps and chicane that are there already are already ineffective at discouraging people from using the road as a 'rat run' and driving at high speeds to and from the town centre (e.g. because the speed bumps are very small and very spaced out). My cat was recently killed as a result of a speeding driver on my road. I am very concerned about the number of houses that may be built on Barrett's Farm and make the noise, volume and speed of traffic on the road even worse. I would ask that the Council would consider not having a vehicle access point from Meeting House Lane to the Barrett's Farm development (or off other similar residential roads) and instead ensure that access points are from main roads designed to manage this sort of capacity. I would also welcome Meeting House Lane being made a no-through route (e.g. being blocked off half way down near the Catholic Church/Tennis Club) or at least having more chicanes/single file traffic and more frequent/higher speed bumps , pavements being built all of the way down and any other appropriate traffic calming measures.
* More green spaces e.g. nature reserves, parks, play areas, cycle tracks, walking routes/public footpaths
* Extension of the by-pass (Hallmeadow Road) so that it provides ease of access to new housing (e.g. the Barrett's Farm development) and takes pressure off other routes in the area. At the moment, this road is underused and does not provide much of a useful route to anywhere
* Extension of the Kenilworth Greenway and the ability to access this by bike from Balsall Common (at the moment, it is not possible to access the Greenway on a bike without having to lift this above stiles/gates, which is very frustrating)
* More frequent and later night rail services from Berkswell to and from Birmingham New Street and International
* Additional bus routes and more frequent services
* Supermarket on the outskirts of the town (e.g. off the by-pass)
* Additional shop, bar and restaurant premises (but not all in the current town centre)
Question 22 - I understand that there may be good reasons why the Council may want/need to divert some of the CIL payments, new homes bonus and profit on the sale of Council land to areas other than those where the new homes are built in order to support prosperity and growth across the borough. However, I think that it is important that those communities who experience the disruption of new homes being built, their local area being changed (e.g. loss of natural habitats and greenfield sites, change in area character) and the impact of additional people/traffic in the area are compensated through sufficient additional infrastructure and facilities for managed and sustainable growth before the profits relating to those developments are used elsewhere. Diverting profits to areas of the borough which have not had new developments should be in exceptional cases only and where the minimum required needs of those in the development areas to manage the impact on their community effectively have been met first. I would also say that if developments were more evenly spread across the borough, it would be easier to justify sharing the benefits across the borough, too.

I hope that this response is helpful.

Green Belt Land
We strongly object to the use of green Belt Land to build houses.

We were under an illusion that Green Belt Land meant Green Belt Land,
and that it was inviolate.

In this modern age are things not what they appear to be or
is it another way of being economical with the truth?

Surely the people concerned realise that once used it cannot be retrieved?

see attached letter

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN DECEMBER 2016
My understanding is that the SMBC Draft Local Plan dated December 2016 is a "non-statutory document" and hence residents will have the opportunity comment on the Final Local Plan when published, and at the Public Enquiry.
It's accepted that there is a growing need for the Borough Council to agree to the development of more residential properties in the area and this will, regrettably, mean building on Green Belt land. However, the prospect of using 85% green belt land, including an existing amenities area, is difficult to accept.
When you consider the existing construction sites, together with what's proposed by SMBC and Bromsgrove District Council (BDC), we are looking at just under 3800 new properties that border Wythall Parish, hence the already busy arterial route through the Majors Green and Tidbury Green will become even more heavily congested. Add the extension to the Whitlocks End Railway Station car park and the proposed new sports hub along Tilehouse Lane/Tythe Barn Lane and it's obvious that serious consideration must be given to the highways infrastructure.
You may not be aware that we've had 30 traffic accidents on a 300 metre stretch of Haslucks Green Road/Tilehouse Lane in Majors Green during the past 18 months, including one pedestrian badly injured as she walked along the pavement. Worcestershire County Council has made a number of improvements but long term a more practical solution must be found in order to negate the potential for a fatality.
During the next year, I am confident that SMBC will be addressing residents' concerns and undertaking many assessments in and around the proposed development sites including health care provisions, primary and secondary school capacity checks, ecological assessments, recreational considerations, road transport management, etc.
It is pleasing that SMBC intend constructing cycle/walking lanes in and around the construction sites, in particular, those leading to Whitlocks End Railway Station.
Consideration should be given to carrying out road traffic flow measurements and analyses of all roads affected and come up with a solution that will link the proposed development sites with the A435 and A3400 roads, therefore preventing excessive traffic congestion in the Dickens Heath, Tidbury Green and Wythall Parish areas. Looking at the roads in and around Dickens Heath, I urge SMBC to come up with a road system that will be an improvement on what can only be described as "shameful".
In addition to your Draft Local Plan, a further report, dated 16th Dec, has been issued by The Planning Inspectorate (Government) which looks at the pro and cons of housing development in the BDC area up to 2030. It refers to an additional 7000 properties for which they have land for 4700 only. The remainder may be built on Green Belt land. It does mention Wythall amongst other neighbouring areas (in Section 66 (Policy BDP5B) citing "large scale" settlements"
In summary, I trust that you will:
* Consider spreading the development sites more equally around the whole of the Borough rather than concentrate on Shirley and Dickens Heath areas.

* Seriously consider the impact on of constructing on Green Belt land

* Carry out a traffic flow survey in the Dickens Heath, Majors Green and Tidbury Green areas and undertake an analysis of the increase in traffic resulting from the ongoing and new developments

* Make it a condition that the development companies agree to fund the necessary improvements to existing highways, pavement lighting, and construction of new highways as required by your Final Plan

* Consider retaining the Amenities Area behind Badgers Estate

* Encourage Centro to extend the Whitlocks End Railway Station Car Park as soon as possible.

* Consider charging a parking fee at the existing and new Whitlocks End Railway Station to limit commuters from outlying areas using the facility

* Co-ordinate SMBC and BDC development plans

* Ensure Richborough proposed plan for the Sports Hub has adequate parking spaces for those who will use the facilities

* Consider constructing a Park and Ride facility in a strategic location in order to limit the traffic flow through urban areas

I have made a very late decision to respond within the consultation period. I had decided that as a resident of Knowle, any comments would be dismissed as "Nimbyism". However this decision is perhaps defeatism at its worst, so I request that you please give consideration to my views in the attached document.

see letter and various appendices supporting site land - between no. 39 and 79 Earlswood Road (The Paddock) and The Orchard, 79 Earlswood Road, Dorridge

Please find attached my response to your questionnaire which includes my personal concerns regarding my own land which appears to be included in the potential Barrett's Farm development but which has in fact never been offered by me for development.