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

Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Plan Consultation
Please find attached a representation from Gladman into the above referenced consultation

see attached letter

REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF NURTON DEVELOPMENTS
Nurton Developments does not agree with the spatial strategy and considers that Hockley Heath should be included as a location for growth for reasons set out below.
Paragraph 83 of the draft Local Plan sets out a vision for rural areas that, by 2028, the network of strong and vibrant communities will have been sustained with a range of local facilities and services that are readily accessible on foot and by bicycle and that are appropriate to the scale and hierarchy of the settlement. It envisages that sustainable extensions to those settlements that are highly accessible or have a wide range of services will provide for the Borough's housing needs. Therefore it is within the vision of the Draft Local Plan to locate additional housing adjacent to sustainable rural settlements in order to sustain strong and vibrant communities.
The Draft Local Plan spatial strategy includes in the hierarchy at paragraph 101 'development that would be a proportionate addition adjacent to an existing settlement that although is less accessible still has a limited range of services available within it (including a primary school)'. Therefore the spatial strategy clearly envisages locating additional housing adjacent to settlements with a range of services, including a primary school.
The Draft Local Plan Housing Topic Paper (December 2016) sets out reasoning behind the chosen spatial strategy. In relation to Hockley Heath it concludes that 'the poor accessibility of this settlement and the restricted opportunities [for development] mean that it is not suitable for growth'. This is considered to be an inadequate assessment which all-too-readily dismisses Hockley Heath. The village is a sustainable location for growth and the local village services and continued vitality of the community are reliant upon the growth of the village.
Hockley Heath is a compact village where local facilities are easily accessed by foot. The village has a primary school and other local facilities include pubs, restaurants, a café, take-away establishments, a convenience shop, butchers, post office, dentist, a physiotherapy clinic, hairdressers, various other retail shops and a community hall. This good range of local facilities supports the vibrancy of the community and village life.
Hockley Heath is served by two bus routes. The S3 links Acocks Green to Hockley Heath via Solihull, Knowle and Dorridge. This service runs every half an hour in each direction Monday to Saturday and hourly on a Sunday and in the evenings. This connects to the medical centre and railway station in Dorridge and the secondary school in Knowle. There are also school bus services from Hockley Heath to Tudor Grange Academy (the catchment secondary school) and Alcester secondary schools. The X20 runs from Birmingham to Stratford-upon-Avon via Hockley Heath. The service runs hourly in each direction Monday to Saturday and every 90 minutes on Sundays.
In view of the local facilities available at Hockley Heath and the range of bus services to higher order settlements, it is unjustified to conclude that the settlement has poor accessibility.
The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 55) states that, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. This appears to be recognised by the Draft Local Plan vision and spatial strategy, but the actual location of housing allocations falls short of achieving this objective at Hockley Heath. It is important that the village population is sustained by a mix of housing so as to sustain a strong and vibrant community and retain local facilities and services.
Between the 2001 and 2011 Censuses Hockley Heath grew by 80 households. This equates to 11% growth over a 10 year period. The Draft Local plan now considers a subsequent 17 year period. It is considered that allowance should be made for modest and proportionate growth to Hockley Heath in order to support the village as a strong and vibrant community and to provide for a mix of housing to meet local needs.
The objectively assessed housing need to be addressed in the Draft Local Plan provides the exceptional circumstances to review the Green Belt boundary to Hockley Heath. Without such a review the village is constrained and has very limited potential to meet needs for housing. The emerging Hockley Heath Neighbourhood Plan is also restricted in addressing the growth needs of the village without alteration to the Green Belt boundary.
 

see attached letter

The proposed 1350 houses is not acceptable. I have been a resident in Balsall common for 50 years and been involved with Planning. in Solhull since 1973 and have absolutely no faith in the planning to be able to deal with this or even their ability to read the plans. It is our misfortune to have a railway station in Balsall Common so there is virtually no hope of Appeals because government policy will enforce up to three storey development within walking distance of a station.

There is no infrastructure to support intense development.

There is 100 acres of brown belt land at Lincoln Farm screened from kenilworth road. Ideal for starter homes which are desperatley needed. Most development in Balsall Common has been 4 and 5 bed homes. Government views on support of greenelt are under review.

Parking in the village is a problem. Did I read that Ove Arup international engineers had been appointed for this work ? I could do job in two hours on the back of an envelope. but I could not build Sydney opera House.!

Baratt Lane development will be affected.by
HS2 which is politically motivated madness.
d architect
The national housing scarcity could be solved if town cetres used the mostly empty floor space above retail shops.
For many years developers have resisted using this space because they do not want residential tennants.
Access to all these floors would need separate stair access and fire escape provision.

see attached letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

additional letter submission

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter -

Letter of Objection to House building in Balsall Common

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 a 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.

On a personal note any development on the site adjacent to the "Doctors Surgery" located on Hall meadow Lane / Riddings Hill will result in a significant decrease to the already low levels of light available in my North Facing property and would therefore have a detrimental impact on my families right to light and general well-being.
I refer you again to the previously mentioned point 3 which states:
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.
Yours sincerely,

I am instructed by my client Gallagher Estates to submit representations to the Draft Local Plan Review consultation (December 2016).

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

* Representations to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan comprising of Pegasus Group Report with accompanying appendices:
o Site Location Plan (Appendix A); o Review of SHELAA (Appendix B); o Review of SMHA (Appendix C);
o Un-met Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate (Appendix D)
o Chelmer Model Papers (Appendix E)

* Separate Background Documents relating to :
o Land at Damson Parkway , Solihull;
o Land at Four Ashes Road, Dorridge;
o Land off Bickenhill Road, Marston Green and;
o Land off Berkswell Road, Meriden

see attached documents

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

Arden Academy Questionnaire

see attached documents

Arden Academy Questionnaire

see attached

Draft Local Plan Representations - UKLD Smiths Lane Bentley Heath Knowle

Paws Off Our Green Belt

I recently received your flyer in regard to the housing plans for Shirley. Below is a draft of correspondence I was about to send to Solihull Council expressing my concerns. However, I think on reflection, it would be more appropriate to forward this to yourselves. I sincerely hope you can make voices heard at the appropriate level.

I would like to raise the issue of the proposed additional 1900 homes to be built on the greenfield sites at the Badgers Estate and by Whitlocks End Station (Allocation 13 and 4 respectively). I understand the commitment Solihull Council has to provide additional housing and in principle I have no firm objections.

However, I do not believe the current road system is ready for this. What sort of properties are going to be built at the Badgers location? I suspect they will not be 1 bedroom flats. More likely we will see developers building 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties. This will inevitably attract families and affluent individuals/couples who are likely to have 2 cars.

How is the current road system going to cope?

Tanworth Lane is already difficult due to the Dickens Heath development and another 600 homes in this location is going to make Stretton Road and the roads that feed to it, as I see it, busier still. I am sure Solihull Council has not been as short sighted to not have not considered this.

The development at Whitlocks End Station is only going to exacerbate the situation. The likely roads the residents will use are Haslucks Green Road and subsequently Bills Lane and Shakespeare Drive. If you are not familiar with these routes then I will assure you that they not fit for purpose with the current traffic volume, let alone with additional cars needing to use them.

However, let's assume all the new residents work in Birmingham and will walk to the stations at Shirley and Whitlocks End. The current train network is really not geared up for this additional footfall. If you haven't travelled to Birmingham at peak time via train recently, I suggest you do just that.

The transport links are not my only concern. What about the schools? Woodlands is already fully subscribed and as a longstanding resident of the area I sincerely hope my daughter will secure place in September 2019. Can Burman Road, Tidbury Green and Dickens Heath cope?

As stated previously, I understand and appreciate the need to build additional houses. However, does Shirley have to accommodate everything? Are there no other acceptable development sites?

Allocation 13

I wish through this e-mail to lodge my objections to the proposal to build some 2550 new houses in the Shirley area and particularly the 600 proposed for Allocation 13. As I understand it this would be 41% of Solihull's housing requirements and seems grossly unfair.
It has been suggested that these houses would enable people to live in Solihull and use HS2 to commute to London. If this is the plan then it is very short sighted as to reach the HS2 station near the NEC / Airport would require a 12 mile car journey along the already busy M42. Furthermore, the Stratford Road through Shirley is already gridlocked every day and is not likely to get any better.
As for the local roads, Tilehouse Lane, Haslucks Green Road, Bills Lane and Tanworth Lane are all used on a daily basis as a shortcut for traffic from M42 J3 (from the Redditch / Bromsgrove direction via Wythall) to get to Shirley, Hall Green and Solihull Centre so any large scale building of the type proposed would put massive pressure on these roads.
If 2550 houses were built this would probably equate to somewhere around 10,000 additional people in the Shirley area. Where will the school places, doctors surgeries, hospitals etc come from ?
At a recent drop in meeting at Lighthall school I asked this question to several councillors and the stock answer was "it's too early to say". Surely such infrastructure planning should be in place before plans for housing are put forward.
Allocation 13 has always been an area for recreation i.e. walking, horse riding, cycling etc and is also a valuable area of green space keeping a clearly defined border between Shirley, Wythall and Birmingham and in my view should remain in tact.
After all Solihull's motto "Urbs in Rure means town in the countryside. Hopefully it will stay that way.

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. I feel this site is totally inappropriate for any more housing development for a number of personal reasons.
I would ask SMBC to please listen to the residents comments and take these on board. At the end of the day, the residents are the people who live and know the area well, they are not trying to be difficult, just realistic. I would request that SMBC look at the suggested brown field sites as an alternative, especially for Site 3 for the reasons given above, which should definitely remain part of the green belt!

OBJECTION to site 3, Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

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.




I also wish to add that the building of the houses on the Kenilworth Road has bought me the following:

1) two cars that are permanently dirty due to the dust from the building site
2) the windows to my house and window sills are again permanently dirty, from all the dust from the building site
3) my guttering has clumps of grass, mud and debris that were thrown into it when building work commenced in the field adjacent to my house
4) my back lawn looks like a building site from all the mole hills in it. Since all the building work disturbed it's natural home, it has moved into my back garden.
5) the traffic has got considerably worse, as has the speed of the drivers that use the Kenilworth Road. I have had two near misses where I have pulled out of Welsh Road onto the Kenilworth Road and the car behind me, has nearly driven into the back of my car.

Every day now, the traffic regularly goes all the way back from the traffic lights on the Kenilworth Road, all the way down to Eveson's.

The new white gates with the 50 speed limit signs look very nice, but that is not much consolation to those of us who live on the Kenilworth Road and have to use it day in, day out.

Although my points 1 to 4 are temporary and will cease once the building work has finished, my traffic concerns unfortunately will not be.

Allocation 13

As a resident of the Badgers Estate in Shirley, Solihull I would like to register my concerns over the forthcoming development in relation to the above. My objections are:

1. The size of the build. I realise we will have to have some new builds in the area but why can't we have these spread more evenly across the whole borough? Eg. rural areas nearer to HS2

2. The population in Shirley will be left with virtually no green belt - the Council have already built in our park - how is this taking our well being into consideration?

3. The infrastructure is already at capacity thanks to the Dickens Heath development, how much more do you expect Bills Lane, Haslucks Green Road etc. to take?

4. Both Shirley and Whitlock's End railway stations car parks are packed to capacity.

5. How do you propose stopping even more landlords from buying property which ends up empty like so many existing properties in Dickens Heath?

These are just 5 of my concerns but there are more particularly over the infra structure - we have to live here and it is becoming increasingly undesirable

OBJECTION to site 3, Kenilworth Road/Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

Dear Mr Palmer,
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.




I also wish to add that the building of the houses on the Kenilworth Road has bought me the following:

1) two cars that are permanently dirty due to the dust from the building site
2) the windows to my house and window sills are again permanently dirty, from all the dust from the building site
3) my guttering has clumps of grass, mud and debris that were thrown into it when building work commenced in the field adjacent to my house
4) my back lawn looks like a building site from all the mole hills in it. Since all the building work disturbed it's natural home, it has moved into my back garden.
5) the traffic has got considerably worse, as has the speed of the drivers that use the Kenilworth Road. I have had two near misses where I have pulled out of Welsh Road onto the Kenilworth Road and the car behind me, has nearly driven into the back of my car.

Every day now, the traffic regularly goes all the way back from the traffic lights on the Kenilworth Road, all the way down to Eveson's.

The new white gates with the 50 speed limit signs look very nice, but that is not much consolation to those of us who live on the Kenilworth Road and have to use it day in, day out.

Although my points 1 to 4 are temporary and will cease once the building work has finished, my traffic concerns unfortunately will not be.