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

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

see letter

petition submitted by Solihull Ratepayers - 34 pages containing 361 signatures

I have just spent over an hour registering and endeavouring to fill out the incredibly cumbersome online form for the above only to find that next to none of it has saved. So, whilst I wanted to respond in the way suggested I am having to redo it via email. I did hear complaints about the form from others but thought it was due to their technical limitations - I realise now its due to SBCs limitations!

I now don't have as much time but I want to oppose in the strongest terms the above residential proposal. It seems to contradict many of the aims in your plan and looks like a dash for cash rather than a considered response to the boroughs housing needs!

It terms of health and well being the playing fields and the allotments are planned to be built on - in any studies these are key contributors to health and well being, not to mention developing community cohesion and actitiy for the young and the old.

In terms of sustainability the development is out or walking reach of shops and employment so will mean at least 150 extra cars - in a part of the village already congested. It is a highly visible site so wont add to the value or sense of place for those living here.

I know that there has been a environmental study undertaken meaning that the land at the most western part of the Frog Lane development wont be built on as it is ancient meadow land (that assessment has not been made public to my knowledge or indeed available to SBC). I am concerned that there will be contamination of the biodiversity of life on that land if the development were to go ahead.

There is ground water flooding on this site which will, if developed will run off into surrounding houses and farmland.

I could go on.

I think the plan is largely quite good - disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with world piece but you have not followed your own principles here - and you really should think again.

Please find attached the response on behalf of the Governing Body of Heart of England School to the Draft Local Plan.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I live directly opposite the exit road from the tennis club as it currently stands today.

The proposed development will affect me and my family for the following reasons.

Traffic
We already have a huge amount of traffic on the Sharmans Cross Road peaking in the morning, evening and the school run. At times the queues trying to get onto the Streetsbrook Road of a morning continue as far down as the Sharmans Cross Pub which have a knock on effect with the adjoining roads Prospect Lane and Solihull Road.
As well as the above we have the additional flow (directly opposite) from us too from the tennis club exit.
When leaving our drive we need to be aware of traffic coming from three different directions and at times this has caused several collisions already with myself and visitors and generally adding stress to every journey.
Of an evening the headlights from the tennis club shine directly into our living room which is frustrating and as a family we have had to amend our behaviours to work around this. Finally our drive is also used by other drivers to turn around due to the constant queues this again will no doubt increase going forward.
To add an extra 100 homes with a minimum of 2 cars per house will make the situation intolerable. I think due to our location this development in particular will affect us the most and for sure devalue our home.

Trees
Nearly all of our trees have drowned in our garden due to the flooding. Please see attached image no 1 & 2 where we had to pay to have them removed due to them being dangerous. If we continue to build this will no doubt have an affect on existing trees in this area.

Flooding
We have already had to invest considerably in our garden and home due to an existing high water table. I have attached some photographs (images 3 - 5) these show the three French drains and when the weather is poor we still suffer with flooding despite this investment. It is clear there is an issue around this area with flooding so again if you are to build on this green space there will be nowhere for the surplus water to go.

Green Space
I walk my dogs regularly and my child and his friends use the facilities to play. I believe (even more so) that we need to preserve our sports facilities and protect all green space which is left in Solihull. We already have issues with obesity in this country whilst we continue to take away playing areas this will continue to grow.

The proposed development will also spoil the overall look and feel of where we live and why we invested in moving to this location in the first place. Overall I believe this will also devalue our property which we have worked hard to invest in.

All of the above confirms that it is not in our interest for this development to go ahead. It will have a massive impact on how we currently live and use the area today.

Please see attached an e-copy of the response letter and associated documents which comprises the Borough Council's representation, comments and concerns/objections arising from the Solihull Local Plan consultation

Please see attached an e-copy of the response letter and associated documents which comprises the Borough Council's representation, comments and concerns/objections arising from the Solihull Local Plan consultation

Please find attached representations to the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review for the site at former Pinfold Nurseries (incl. no 67 Hampton Lane), north of Hampton Lane.

The submission comprises the letter of representations (9263 HRW LPA2 PN) and a site plan (ref.no. 9263 Site Plan) with the site edged red.

In respect of the Draft Solihull Local Plan Review consultation please find attached representations which are submitted by Turley on behalf of IM Land.

There should be no building houses on green belt farm land. Where are we going to get our food from during the next war?
There is no extra provision for parking in the village centre.
How will the roads cope with the increase in pupil numbers at the local schools. Drop off and pick up time is terrible now.
Frog Lane development. We keep cattle in a field in the winter in Frog Lane and with all the extra traffic, lights and noise etc. we won't be able to use it. So that will be the end of our business!

The road systems ( tanworth lane, dog kennel lane, dickens heath road & stratford road) can not cope with traffic as it stands already & is often grid locked in rush hour, the impact any further housing / traffic would have i cannot imagine. this area of fields is also home to a lot of wild life i.e deer, ducks, woodpecker, cuckoo, pheasant, etc. its also some of the only green space left for dog walking / recreation, plus a bridle path runs along side it which i use on my horse regularly.

I strongly oppose the plans to build on allocation 13, woodlands area.
This is a beautiful part of our town and used by many people as a recreation area, not to mention the amount of wildlife that reside there too.
New homes would cause immense stress on the local area roads, schools and amenities. We moved to the area last year and were unable to get our son into the local school we chose due to over subscription. In a heavily populated area already, I do not think adding more homes is the best answer.

I agree that the challenges listed are important but others are some missing. E.g. three important bottlenecks through the centre of Solihull. 1: The large car park on Monkspath Hall Road is used by traffic from the M42. A large scale car park is required that avoids clogging the road past St. Alphege, e.g. expand Mell Square car park across the Morrisons car park. 2: Sort the traffic in/out of Solihull School at peak times. 3: Sort out the roundabout by the train station.
There is no talk of future autonomous transport and more ideas needed on safer cycling.

Dear sir/madam,

I am writing to express my views on the proposed development in Balsall Common ( BC)I understand the need for more housing, I work with homeless teenagers. I also understand that when large developments are being proposed the infrastructure of the area needs to be considered, schools, access, health,etc. I am aware the potential building sites across Solihull have been weighted.

I am therefore confused as to why SMBC have chosen Frog Lane for development in BC given its lower scoring in relation to other sites around the borough.

Is there any awareness in SMBC as to the traffic congestion twice daily around the Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Alder Lane and Gypsy Lane junction? This junction is an accident hotspot and has been for the last 19 years. I have witnessed and helped casualties from these accidents on many occasions. I have voiced my concerns to SMBC in the past regarding this issue.

May I suggest SMBC visit this junction during school opening and closing times to witness the chaos. This area is a danger to the pedestrians and vehicle users at these times . Surely potential development sites need such matters to be considered. Please inform me of how this traffic/ accident hotspot is weighted in comparison with other sites?

Several potential sites (some partially brownfield) were identified to the north of the village, and they all scored more highly than Frog Lane in terms accessibility, so why were they excluded? As a matter of urgency, we ask you to consider them now.

Does the proposed development of Frog Lane still include the playing fields?

I am interested to hear where the children of primary school age will be accessing their schooling given that BC Primary School tends to run at full capacity most years ( I was a school governor in the past) following the proposed development in BC.


I look forward to your response.

I object to the special strategy on the grounds that the housing proposal for the Shirley area will have huge implications with green spaces, traffic congestion (already a problem in the area) and demand on schooling.

There are masses of wildlife in the area and a thorough review needs to be undertaken to ensure endangered species such as great crested newts are not affected.

Comments on sites specific to Balsall Common

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

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

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

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