Q16. Do you believe we have identified the infrastructure[35] required to support these developments? If not why not? Are there any additional facilities you believe are required, if so what are the

Location 16 East of Solihull is Green Belt, is an area already suffering from terrible traffic problems. Also this area is having to contend to extensions to the JLR plant and ever increasing noise from the airport. The motorway service station is also being considered which is not to far away.

The traffic on Damson Parkway, Hampton Lane and the A41 already causes locals no end of issues. We have to contend with the rush hour traffic and JLR traffic flow. How houses could be built in the fields and the transport links be improved has not been clarified.

I write regarding the Balsall Common sites.The two in the south are one and a half miles from the Doctors surgery and railway and not convenient for local shops. Brownfield sites should be utilised before green fields.
I would also question the points awarded to Balsall Common for local transport which is not frequent and not up to the standard of other areas. The facilities in Balsall Common of course need improvement but for instance the shops and car parking are severely restricted. I would add that eschelon parking must be preferable to the present dangerous 90 degree parking.
Congestion on the roads is recognised as severe in the Solihull Connected document. Parking along a main road during school hours for 300 yards is one example of this. The majority of traffic goes north therefore placing developments in the south of the settlement simply aggravates the situation.
Sally and David Bell
I write following a large gathering of objectors at the Balsall Common Parish Coucil Meeting last night. The largest attendance for years objecting to the Frog Lane proposal but also including the Kenilworth Road proposal as it is equally remote and unsustainable, equally badly served by public transport and also an area recognised for the traffic congestion in the Solihull Connected document.

I have always said that residents in Balsall Common will be prepared to take their fair share of the pain of new houses despite having had around 800 already in the last 20 years but it must be fair and we must have now an allocation of substantial funds maybe to the extent of taking all CIl money, if needed, to ensure this expanded village is not ruined.

Now we have the suggested three sites. Barretts Farm has merit if a linear park and a new school ,all weather pitch,and bypass come with it.
The other two sites you will have heard plenty of arguments against but basically they are too remote and move the greenbelt in the wrong direction.

We need now better parking. The 90 degree parking is a nightmare. We need now more car parking spaces. The car park for the station is always full and spills out up Hall meadow Road every day

We need a new primary school as the existing one built for 150 is now up to 700 and needs scaling back to alleviate the chaos at 8.30 and 3.00. A new two form school might be the answer.

The Kenilworth road already experiences higher volumes of traffic following JLRs acquisition of the old Honiley Air Field. There is talk of the number of employees here rising to 3000. The lorries serving them are massive. Further up the Kenilworth road is the quarry site where 1000s of tons of material come and go every day. HS2 construction starts soon to add to the congestion. New building sites in Balsall Common should be postponed either till after HS2 construction or until a relief road or bypass is in situ.

The shopping area is desperately in need of improvement. Sadly we missed in the end the opportunity to acquire the old office building that will forever now be a carbuncle.

I am worried that in the rush for house sites that the appropriate infrastructure that frankly should have been forthcoming years ago will be once again sidelined partly because there is so much else to do. As a ward councillor and resident I feel that I must shout loudly from the start to ensure this does not happen.

David Bell

The site between Lugtrout Lane and Hampton lane , based on the car ownership figures given in the document mean there are additional 1200 cars owned by people living off Damson Parkway. How is this to be dealt with as the road junctions at the end of Parkway already cause problems for existing residents. I am also concerned that not details of entrance and exist points is given, where would they be.

there is urgent need for 2 two-form entry primary schools, the current one is over crowded

the primary school in Balsall Common is over crowded - need for a new school - one east. one west would be a solution. parking is a major problem - should be solved by a thought through process. 2 large sites available.- only one chosen

the statements made about increasing the provision of schooling in Balsall Common lack rigour and clarity. The schools in the village are already oversubcribed. It must be made absolutely clear what extra school provision will be provided.
Merely improving waiting room provision at Berkswell station is wholly inadequate. There are only 2 trains per hour from Berkswell towards Birmingham and the same towards Coventry. At peak times these are packed...even getting on the train to stand is problematic. Increased public transport capacity is urgently required and the steps to be taken clarified not some wishy washy jam tomorrow policy statement

The current roads struggle to cope with the existing vehicle demand and car parking is insufficient to meet the requirement blocking the side roads around Knowle and Dorridge.

At this stage, the proposals are a little vague. When I see the the thought and investment that has gone in to creating a fairly nice environment for villagers in Dorridge centre ( when the new Sainsbury's was approved/built,) I am not convinced that the Council is committed to giving the same degree of consideration to the transport infrastructure/environment and aesthetics for Balsall Common Residents:
- how will the additional traffic that new housing brings be routed/controlled - is a relief road for the Village planned?
- Where will increased numbers of train commuters park, when the station car park is already full to capacity and cars are already being parked along Hall Meadow Road? Why not use land behind GP surgery to provide more parking for commuters?greater variety of shops?
- where will shoppers park? are there plans to pedestrianise the shopping area as it is not always safe crossing the road in the Village centre (why not knock Shell garage down and build a car park for shoppers?)
- will there be more regular buses into Knowle, Solihull?
- you claim to be keen on encouraging sustainable travel - how do you intend to do this in a semi rural area where the car is a necessity for most families (most probably having at least 2 cars) due to poor alternative transport options?

Better footpaths to the schools must be considered

The area aroun Yew Tree Lane, Damson Parkway and the Solihull By-Pass is already heavily contested especially around Land Rover shift times. Building a further 600plus houses on the land by Lugtrout Lane will only increase the problem.

Hi, I wanted to contact regarding the leopard housing plans for Meriden villiage. I have currently lived in the villiage for 6 & half years now am love living here. I have 2 children living in a very small 2 bedroom house with no storage and of which one room is of box room size. I am currently carrying my third child and will be looking to need a bigger rented house. Firstly I'd like to know if the planning of these new houses go ahead, how would someone like me be able to apply for one of these homes? Will they be open to current Meriden residents first? I have been trying for a couple years to move now though everywhere in Meriden is mainly houses to buy. This is the place my children have grown up, they go to school here and I work here, I do not want to move from the villiage. I am very happy to hear that there is a proposal for more houses here though I am worried who they will be given to. Our village is very calm and a lovely area for my children to live an! d I don't want that spoit. I also worry about the expanding school classes as my sons current class is already one of the biggest of the school as due to accommodating the last new builds. I have also tried contacting yourselves previously for myself to be on the council list to be able to big for a new property with no look in knowing how to gain access to this.
Many thanks

More infrastructure would be required in all areas

Traffic congestion, and parking have not been considered properly for Knowle/Dorridge

I disagree. It is very difficult to assess the impact on infrastructure of an increase of 25% - 50% in the size of Balsall Common but the "likely infrastructure requirements" listed in Appendix C are merely scratching the surface. For example - "Integrate highway access with Station Road", "Highway capacity improvements at Station Road and the junction with A452" (which means the very centre of the village) and "multiple points of vehicle access" (which presumably means onto the narrow and busy Meetinghouse Lane) are too vague to be meaningful. As I said in my answer to Q15 the only route eastwards from Station Road is either via the traffic light controlled low bridge which is impassable to high vehicles, or via Meadowhall Road and the single carriageway bridge on Lavender Hall Lane which leads to the centre of Berkswell village.

There is no indication of the possible location of the new schools which would also presumably require release of yet more Green Belt land and more severe traffic problems.

There is no mention of drainage/sewage which is already an issue for the village.

Re LPR ref 1
There is currently no access to this site. Access off Station Road will increase traffic through an already dangerously busy shopping area. Access towards Coventry is via a single lane road with height access restrictions.
Improvement to passenger waiting facilities may be required at Berkswell Station but there are only 2 trains per hour.
The existing cycle way is being removed due to HS2 and the area is crisscrossed by footpaths which are well used.
Bus service is non-existent due to lack of access
Your infrastructure sets out a requirement for more secondary and primary provision. The former would need further consideration as the existing school is already full. A new primary school would be needed but if this is provided within this space it will further increase the traffic through the village and, if located at the Waste Lane end, it is very close to the existing primary school. It would be far more sensible to locate this at the northern side of the village.
No mention is made of drainage/sewage which is already an issue for the village.

Concerned that sufficient places are made available at Arden School for all the new houses. Better to overprovide because any excess spaces will be snapped up by pupils from very nearby Warwickshire villages like Lapworth, who have long journeys to secondary schools at present. Underprovision on the other hand would be disastrous for all. Less critical for Junior Schools as Lapworth has an excellent J+I School, which could at present take more pupils from Solihull if necessary.

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

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

The 25% increase in housing stock in Balsall Common and Berkswell by the proposed developments proposed will result in a substantial population growth.The existing infrastructure is struggling to cope with the present population, and is certainly inadequate to meet the needs of the proposed increased population.
Improvements are essential; including more primary school places, additional village centre and train station parking, improved bus and rail services, updating existing drainage system, and better more modern sports and leisure facilities for all ages.

The existing road infrastructure around Dickens Heath is not sufficient for current traffic levels (there are long queues in and out at rush hour), new developments at Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green will add to the problem as they do not bring any road improvements. Developing land south of Dog Kennel Lane will massively add to this problem (850 new properties) and compromise the existing road system further by adding new junctions, lights and roundabouts. Further additional development in this area must therefore be accompanied by the required infrastructure improvements.

You have stated the infrastructure is to follow. I know that right now the roads around Shirley and Solihull are a nightmare to travel on in rush hour. In the last 6 months this has declined further.

Draft local plan proposals - open discussion Lighthall School 16/1/17
I understand that houses need to be built but more importantly to the residents of Majors Green, infrastructure ie. roads hopefully should be at the forefront of any further developments in our area. We live in Majors Green, already feeling the affect of the horrendous Dickens Heath traffic. It sometimes feels like the M25 and most of us have difficulty even getting off our drives.
My concern as mentioned, is Haslucks Green Road leading from Whitlocks End Train station to the Drawbridge Pub. Many accidents (including pedestrians) have occurred along this stretch over several years. More houses built along Tilehouse Lane and Tythe Barn Lane will mean more traffic along our road which will be unacceptable. This road is owned by Bromsgrove Council.
I would like an answer on the following point please:
a) Are there going to be other roads built diverting some of the traffic away from our road in Majors Green?
I look forward to receiving a full and proper answer rather than the one offered last night please.
PS. in my opinion, Dickens Heath will end up looking like one of the worst estates ever built. It is too big, too repetitive and spoils Solihull.

There are no sensible alternatives for the large proportion of new residents of the Knowle developments who will need to access Solihull by car. The proposal for a 30 minute bus service is pathetic. This is what we are supposed to have now and it does not cope with peak times at all. Any service MUST respond to the variation in demand. Infrastructure provision needs to be provided at the beginning of development, not afterwards. An additional 3500 residents is a 30% increase in size, which will wreck existing services of ALL sorts, not just transport.

The traffic congestion in the Shirley and Dickens Heath area has increased rapidly over recent years and the roads, pavements and traffic calming measures make it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. Bills Lane junction with Haslucks Green Road, Tythebarn Lane junction with Tilehouse Lane and the stretch of Haslucks Green Road between these two junctions is very busy and have narrow and poor street lighting. The country Lanes of Bichy Leasowes and Cleobry Lane are also becoming very busy. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle for walkers and cyclists has not been considered. Congestion on the A34.

No mention is made of the infrastructure that would be required to support the proposed housing sites west of Dickens Heath and south of Shirley. The internal roads within Dickens Heath have no capacity to take on additional traffic resulting from the proposed housing site west of Dickens Heath. The proposed housing site south of Shirley would worsen the existing traffic congestion on Dickens Heath Road during the morning peak time. The proposed housing sites at south of Dog Kennel Lane and TRW/The Green Shirley would worsen the existing traffic congestion along Stratford Road in the morning peak time.

The traffic on Kenilworth Road is already significant. 1150 more houses will worsen this problem significantly.
The high street and amenities are small and are not even adequate for the current population (compare Knowle high street to Balsall Common high street). To add 1150 could effectively bring in another 3000 people, depending on housing type. For that, the village would need an entirely new central hub, of which there simply is no space.
I fear you are turning a small village into a town, without any consideration of what a town sized population actually needs.

I am in receipt of your letter of 8 December 2016 giving notice that our property is adjacent to the Proposed Housing Allocation, 8 Hampton Lane, Knowle. I would like to put forward my opinion and objection to the proposals, which after discussion with many people and neighbours are in line with general opinion.

The proposal for 1050 new homes in Knowle is completely disproportionate with the proposed deployment of new homes elsewhere in the Borough. I have enjoyed living in Knowle for 45 years and have seen many changes, not all to the benefit of the community. However, this proposed expansion will destroy the village atmosphere and make it little more than part of the Birmingham urban sprawl. 50% affordable housing is far too high and will only serve to lower the standard of the existing environment. I believe Government guidelines state that 25% affordable housing is a reasonable objective and see little need for this to be so excessively exceeded.

The present infrastructure will not support this number of homes. New or improved schooling will need to be provided, additional car parking provided, improvement to access roads and additional medical care are a just few of the major considerations.

The current preferred option put forward by Solihull MBC includes just 2 development areas. The Arden Triangle and Hampton Road. This is ridiculous as the majority of the future generated traffic will be centred on the Warwick Road and High Street. Hampton Road is already too busy and its junction with Wootton Close, Arden Vale Road and the existing Football Pitch is an accident waiting to happen. Current street parking in Hampton Road creates poor visibility and interrupted traffic flow. The junction of the High Street with Hampton Road and Lodge Road is a notorious bottleneck. All of these problems will only be exacerbated with the additional homes.

Careful planning of the Arden Triangle could provide The New Schooling, a new Car park and medical centre. There would still be adequate space for the proposed development of up to 750 new homes. Access would be from Station Road and The Warwick Road. If this development is accepted it should be the limit to the development within Knowle itself. Fair use of the money derived from the sale of the Council owned land, and any Section 106 agreement would cover the cost of rebuilding the necessary infrastructure. The remaining homes should be built to the West in say Bentley Heath, where access would be via Widney Manor Road into Solihull, rather than the Warwick Road and motorway connection via the A34 (J4). Additional shopping could be provided together with other essential infrastructure facilities that are clearly missing at present. This would relieve the pressure on Knowle village, with its woefully inadequate parking; it would also be convenient to Widney Manor railway station.

With regards to the Hampton Road Proposal, this should have taken the form of 3 completely separate proposals. Each should be considered independently of one another. If planning permission were to be granted on the Football pitch and woodland, it should be up to the football club to seek an alternative site. The development of the football pitch itself could possibly be accepted, as it would not extend beyond the existing developed frontage of Hampton Road and would form a boundary limit to any future development to the East, within the Green Belt. I note that the plans for the football pitch also include the cricket pitch in one of the documents. This is very misleading and clearly shows that this proposed site is just the thin edge of the wedge. The football club have failed to maintain or improve their existing facilities, so I fail to understand how they can hope to maintain a very much larger complex. The owners of the woodland adjacent to the football pitch are currently felling many trees; I trust that this is being carefully monitored by the Council to ensure that no specimen or mature trees are felled and that TPO's have been put in place.

The creation of a commercial sports complex on the land off Hampton Road, by the canal, would be totally inappropriate within the Green Belt. The proposed site includes inadequate car parking, and the proposed increase in commercial activities is not acceptable within the Green Belt. A visit to the Old Silhillians Club at Copt Heath, on a Sunday morning, will quickly demonstrate the effect that the construction of a similar sports facility will have on the immediate area. There will be car parking all over the proposed new development and down Hampton Road. The Old Silhillian's site includes vastly superior car parking, yet cars are frequently parked on the verges and down Lady Byron Lane. One must also question whether yet another sports complex is actually required. The huge costs in running such a complex will necessitate large scale non sports related activities including: Bar& dining, Conferencing, Discos and other fund raising activities, all within the Green Belt. The use of Section 106 money for the building of this complex would be totally inappropriate; it should be for the benefit of the general local population, not just for the members of a local sports club.

The development of Thacker's nursery and the fields fronting onto Hampton Road, opposite Grimshaw Hall, is an unnecessary extension of the village into the Green Belt. This land has been deliberately neglected in recent years to aid an application for residential housing. It is basically good quality agricultural land which forms a sloping site down to Purnell's Brook. The lower area liable to flooding, and the drainage run off from the new site would greatly exacerbate the problem. . The development of this sloping/elevated site would have a devastating effect on the surrounding and adjoining housing. The area is a haven for wildlife including bats, badgers, birds of prey and other protected species. This land should be brought back into agriculture, rather than being left vacant in the hope of future development. If this proposal succeeds it will encourage more land owners to neglect vulnerable sites, in the hope of getting residential/commercial development.

It is my opinion that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council have failed in their duty to fully consider all possible sites and have taken the easy option of adopting two professionally submitted proposals, to the exclusion of all other options.
There are several sites within the Knowle, Dorridge and Bentley Heath area which have been put up for consideration and overlooked. Inevitably future planning applications will be made on some of these which will be difficult to refuse, as they are eminently more suitable for development than the selected sites. This will result in the continuing urbanisation of the area and further increase the pressure on local facilities.

I therefore urge Solihull MBC to change its proposals and limit the Hampton Road proposed site to the Football pitch only.

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.

In the dickens Heath area I do not believe you have considered the impact of 700+ new homes and the vehicles this will bring on roads which are typically small narrow lanes already over crowded. I do not believe planning has been put in place for the current expansion of dickens heath and the consideration of multi car households is not considered or realistic in an affluent area with residents that can afford two or more cars per household.

As residents of Majors Green, adjacent to the Solihull border, we are very concerned about the lack of
thought in connection with infrastructure, roads and pathways, with the council's new housing plans.

As long standing residents we have had to deal with the vast increase in traffic due to the way the village of Dickens Heath has been designed. The roads through DH village are narrow and in one case obstructed, so that cars are directed from Shirley, through Majors Green. This is also compounded by the increase in parking facilities at Whitlocks End Station,
again in Solihull!.

Worcester Council have done their best to make the road less hazardous, but they were not designed for the amount of traffic which will increase again with the new houses that are planned to be built in Solihull.

We understand that new housing is needed but surely it is important to think of the road situation as well. More houses mean more cars, therefore surely we need better infrastructure in both roads and pathways before we build the homes that will again increase the traffic flow with the prospect for us, of more accidents!

Concerned Majors Green Resident.

I am a concerned resident of Haslucks Green Road, Majors Green.
We have lived here for 40 years and have seen the traffic increase bringing
numerous accidents on our area of the road.

We understand that housing is needed but what has not been mentioned is whether you will be looking at improving the road and pavement system as well.

Majors Green is in Worcestershire, and we have been working with the W.C.C. on road improvements, but we are seriously affected by the increase in traffic brought about by Dickens Heath Village and the increased parking facilities at Whitlocks End Station.

The area has very narrow roads and we see many near misses on the bend by the station. Many of the path ways are unlit and overgrown so it is difficult and scary to walk them in the winter.

New Housing brings more traffic and pedestrians to the area so I am hoping that road and pavement structure is also being talked about when planning permission is discussed.

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) sitesavailable, would strongly suggest thatdue 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 causedelays 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 allaccessibility 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 asHS2 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 bothinfrastructure 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.