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

I object to the Local Plan proposal for Balsall Common under references 1at Barratts Farm, 2 at Frog Lane & 3 at Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road.
All these plans for Balsall do not give sufficient consideration for the infrastructure of Balsall Common; the impact on the local primary school, GP surgery and village centre etc. I would support a plan where one housing site catering for all the housing needs and incorporating a school and shops is built. I understand that land is available to the north of the village for such a proposal.

with houses & jobs come families & children , Solihull schools are already oversubscribed, GP surgeries and hospitals beds full , how do the council propose finding places for the additional populus ?

In Balsall Common, I would really welcome a bypass. The traffic is vey heavy and fast during rush hour. I walk along Kelsey Lane to the primary school. It feels unsafe as lorries and cars speed along the road many doing over the 30mph speed limit. With the proposed housing development there will be more cars on the road. Parents will be put off walking from the new housing development due to the unsafe levels of traffic on Kelsey Lane, Alder Lane, Kenilworth Road.

Please find attached the Response of The Knowle Society to your Consultation of the draft Local Plan 2017 Review.

Herewith my thoughts concerning the local plan review, I send them by email because of the issues with the web portal.

1. The proposed developments on allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 are closely clustered. This will clearly impact road usage as well as require additional provision for schools, medical and other facilities. As a resident of Blackford road I am aware of the steady increase in traffic from the existing developments in and around Dickens Heath. It would appear that the highway usage and plan is a critical part of the proposal. Further, a lot of local traffic is caused by Dickens Heath pupils travelling by car to Alderbrook or other schools in Solihull. In summary, I can't see how the scheme is supposed to work sustainably without understanding the plan for additional services and roads.
2. The use of the 'TRW' site seems very logical. The land has limited recreational value and is clearly underutilised. Given the existing developments on the site it seems logical to extend the 3-4 storey buildings and provide housing local to the Shirley industrial area (including Cranmore) within walking distance.
3. Allocation 13 is the exact opposite and I oppose its use for housing. It is a valuable green space for recreation, nature and acting as a buffer between Dickens Heath and Shirley. Unless the previously planned 'Shirley Relief Road' is reinstated it is difficult to see it offering any improvement in the already busy traffic in the area. This allocation in particular would cause Shirley and Dickens Heath to merge into a mass of over-corded small local roads and housing.
4. A more general observation is that across Solihull there are a number of large ground level car parks. These don't strike me as a very efficient use of space, especially when they are near to shops/services or travel connections. Has adequate consideration been given to reviewing these for re-development and incorporation of housing?
5. Further to the point about local traffic above (1) I believe that additional provision will be required for car commuters to Solihull, the motorway network and to the rail network. The local railway station at Whitlocks End is already overloaded with cars. If more housing was within walking distance of this or other rail stations, it would relieve the pressure. The commute to the M42 in the morning is already difficult and I believe specific improvements are required to allow the traffic out of Shirley (to the motorway) to not be delayed by traffic coming in to the Cranmore businesses, as they currently do. Improvements to Dog Kennel Lane and the connecting roundabouts on the A34 and at Dickens Heath road could ease this. It would appear that this needs to be planned and enacted before the developments commence to minimise the impact and allow maximum flexibility in planning new roads/connections.

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

"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 ALL Greenbelt land where there are alternative PDL sites available; especially those in Balsall Common known as Barratt's Farm and Windmill Lane. The latter is an historical site in which no development should be allowed to encroach into and ruin.
The reasons for my objection are below.

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. If Balsall Common must be subjected to yet more development, it seems ridiculous that greenbelt can be released when there are so many other brownfield sites available.

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".

Buses to and from the village are infrequent (1 an hour) and there is such heavy demand for the train service from Berkswell station that trains are often full to capacity. The inadequate parking at the train station results in neighbouring roads being used as car parks for the full day and over night having a negative impact on movement around the edge of the village.

Within Balsall Common itself and its surrounding hamlets is often grid locked, particularly at rush hours and school run times or when a nearby major road has issues and traffic diverts through the village. Parking in the village and surrounding area of Berkswell is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The local primary schools are already oversubscribed and bursting at their seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing. Traffic around the schools is a huge danger to the young children.

These sites are all considerable distance from the schools and amenities, and there would undoubtedly be a huge increase in volume of traffic as it would be considered too far to walk.
Balsall Common is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car.

Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane will become even more of a "rat run". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane and Meeting House Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous.

These sites 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

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) These sites 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 am objecting to the planning application to the proposed 100 houses in sharmans cross road

please see attached letter

Yours sincerely
Policy and Spatial Planning
Solihull Council
Re: LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
Dear Sir or madam
I would like to object to this planning application to build 100 houses on Sharmans Cross Road
The area of central Solihull is already extremely crowded. One only has to travel along Sharmans Cross Road towards Tudor Grange school to experience traffic gridlock which occurs twice a day. A development of this size will cause intolerable traffic misery and be a danger to pedestrians including the many children who use this route.
The schools and medical clinics are currently over subscribed. Increasing the population in this way will put an unsustainable strain on the local GP surgery and schools.
One of the reasons, I choose to live in this area, is the lovely green environment which up to now the council has protected. This development which is out of character with the surroundings will destroy trees and be an eyesore. It is of extreme importance that Pow Grove a medieval coppice be protected from further damage, This development will cause severe decay to this delicate urban treasure by the sheer increase in of human traffic in the area and noise pollution which will affect the wild life extant in the pow grove area .

Allocation 9, 750 homes south of Knowle completely underestimates how much highways work is required. Before starting any more development work new roads and access from Warwick Road and Grove Road are required. If any further development is planned using access via Middlefield Avenue and Hertford Way it will make the current disaster there even worse. The Council needs to seriously look into training in Change Management if it is to have any hope of support from existing home owners rather than taking their rates to Stratford and Costswolds

There is no clear mention of primary care provision. Our surgery is very small and has a 1.5 full time doctor equivalent. Our practice area covers much of the proposed sites. We have 3000 patients between the 1.5 doctors, which is already above the national average. Any significant increase on this would seriously undermine our ability to provide safe and timely healthcare to the new residents unless we could procure funding to increase the staff ( both medical and administrative) at the surgery to cope with the huge increase in demand for appointments and care.

Letter responding to draft local plan review.

No, the locations for Allocated Housing Sites identify the loss of too many existing Football Clubs/Pitches, contrary to Policy P18/P20, without identifying any compensatory arrangements for their replacement (i.e. Sites 4, 8, 13, 16, 20).

In Appendix C Schedule of Allocated Housing Sites Site Constraints, there is a an inconsistency in terms of the text for existing Football Clubs/Pitches, whilst some are not even referenced.

Where the allocation of Housing Sites is identified, a clearer statement is required on how existing Football Clubs/Pitches will be protected/any loss compensated.

The Public Health Department fully supports the proposal to include HIAs in order to maximise positive impacts of the proposed development and minimise potential adverse impacts.

Solihull GPs have also been consulted on the proposals and have raised concerns that the Solihull MIND facility may need to be closed due to local development plans on the land.

Concerns have also been raised about the potential increased pressures on GP practices from house building in GP catchment areas. The document attached contains communication from local GPs on these 2 issues.

see letter
I would like to state for the record, my strong objection to the proposal for 700 new dwellings on Site Allocation 4 (west of Dickens Heath) in the Solihull Local Plan Review.

site 4 objection

16 - East of Solihull (between Lugtrout Lane and Hampton Lane). As a Solihull resident and as someone who works in Solihull, I totally object the proposal of 650 new homes. This number is far too large for the supporting roads into and around Solihull. I am more than willing to take time to show the necessary decision makers how the roads already struggle to cope during peak hours. Also I think it is a terrible decision to build on one of the few green belt sites in the heart of the town.

Quality is mentioned in several areas and I assume that relates to residents quality of life. It is difficult to see how placing greater burdens on the local roads and schools in Knowle while also providing spaces for travellers really helps to maintain quality. Also, it is difficult to see how the constant erosion of green-belt land is improving quality. It appears that the plans are driven more by the appeal to property investors and political correctness than a real housing strategy.

I strongly object to the proposed loss of the playing fields located in the Frog Lane site, Balsall Common. Playing fields are a rare and precious facility that should be preserved for the community. There are plenty of alternative locations to build new houses without the need to build on this facility. The playing fields were not part of the original consultation when this location was originally proposed, they appear to have been added as an after thought.

There is no provision for increased car parking in Knowle. 1050 new homes will surely lead to at least 1000 extra cars driving on local roads and needing to park near to local shops. Current parking arrangements are inadequate for today's needs, with inappropriate parking on pavements and grass verges, and this can only get worse. While bus services and cycle lanes are a good thing the reality is that the majority of journeys will be by car for the convenience, speed and ability to convey heavy shopping loads.

Jensen House, Auckland Drive Smiths Wood. I object to the plan to build new houses there. My reasons are: There is a shortage of school spaces, parking spaces and open spaces for kids to play. At the old bosworth fields, kids have activities during summer/spring/autumn. People walk their dogs there too .Building new houses would be the wrong thing to do as the field is surrounded by more than a thousand homes as it is. There are different species of birds that come to feed there too.

LPR 5 (A452 / Moorend Av. Junction) proposed development concerns me as the HS2 development 2 miles away will result in increased traffic past the location and resultant noise, vibration and pollution, a poor location for housing.

As a local resident I have already been affected by increased traffic delays from the recent single lane running downgrading of the adjoining A452 past the Chelmunds Cross development. Any junction modelling must take account of future road expansion and not further constrict it exacerbating traffic issues. Once developed it will be difficult to re-develop as required by increased traffic flow.

The beautiful green space and nature areas of chelmsley wood are being destroyed. The Chester Road moored avenue area is adjacent to the nature area by the river Cole. It's beautiful and part of the local community used for dog walking exercise and playing. This is the same for the land at the back of Hawksworth crescent and kite green close. Give us quality of life in the north of the borough as well as the south

Proportion allocated to Shirley sites too high, in particular site 13 is well utilised by the local community and important to remain as public access to footpaths and open area to wildlife.
Not acceptable to use Solihull green belt areas and sports sites to compensate Birmingham shortfall.
Proportionate allocation of social housing inappropriate and will alter to detriment the nature of established housing genre.
Inadequate provision available for infrastructure to support increased population and necessitates movement for employment in other areas resulting in higher volume of traffic.
Suggest moving higher allocations to North Solihull, Catherine de Barnes, Dorrige, Hockley Heath.

Whilst I appreciate that there is a need to provide more housing across the country, I object to the number that are proposed within the Solihull area. My main objections are based on concerns for the infrastructure to support this amount of development: the roads around the area are currently at saturation point, along with school, hospital and health facilities. This development would also be destroying significant pockets of green belt which support varied wildlife and provide green spaces for the current residents. More traffic fumes will also have a negative impact on the health of current residents.

I agree with principle of concentrated development so that infrastructure can be built in BUT to have MORE concentrated development in the Shirley/Dickens Heath would put too much pressure on existing infrastructure. Due to Dickens Heath, local 2ndary schools are already at capacity (all schools have porta-cabins already), roads are full to capacity & parking space is at a premium.There are other suburbs of Solihull on the edge of the urban area that have not had this amount of development imposed.

Adding more housing in greenbelt areas detracts from the vision. Building the proposed additional housing on the existing country side will not solve the traffic and schooling issues specifically in the Balsall Common area. Both the school and local facilities are currently over capacity, without the additional of 1600 plus cars and kids. Nothing in the proposal caters for this increase and a considerable lack of consideration to this.

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

Letter of opposition to proposed development of Barratts Farm in Balsall Common and construction of by-pass.
I would like to start this letter with highlighting that there is enough brown field sites to fulfil the housing requirements needed by the council. There is no valid reason to take greenbelt land in order to build these houses and the 'bypass' will simply serve to provide an access road for the houses and nothing else.
Without clear access from the South neither Hallmeadow road or Station Road could cope with the increased traffic this development will bring.
Whilst traffic levels are higher during peak commuter periods it has already been accepted that the village does not require a 'bypass' in order to sustain the levels of traffic, there is currently not enough demand for this. The real reason for the proposed bypass is simply to fulfil future road links for HS2 expansion. In the current proposal this 'bypass' is not a 'bypass' it is an access road for the 900 houses which will only add further pressure to the commuter traffic within the village.
There is already a clear lack of car parking spaces in and around the village. Hallmeadow Road is consistently used for general parking for Berkswell Station and the medical centre. The only other two car parking sites in the village have now been turned into Shops or houses (the spaces directly behind the shops leading to the Co-op supermarket and behind the new shops of Tesco and Costa). Parking for any of the shops, library and Jubilee centre are extremely hard to come by. In this area there is an average of 1.6 cars per household with 2.5% of households having 4 or more cars/vans. It is fair to assume that there will be upwards of an additional 1500 cars in the village and the pressure these additional 1500 cars would bring would be immense.
It is already difficult to obtain a doctors appointment at the clinic directly opposite us. Despite raising no objections to the build of the clinic, as it was a much needed requirement for the village, and although I don't have official figures, the feeling locally is that it is already at capacity in terms of providing an acceptable level of service. With an average of 2.4 people per household locally another 1900 patients will do nothing to ease this problem.
Building more houses in this location will create more unsustainable car traffic by encouraging more car commuters to live in Balsall Common. It is accepted that Balsall Common is an area where there is little in the way of job creation and many residents have to commute by car to work around the West Midlands. Only 6% of residents of this area travel to work using public transport (information from solihull.gov.uk). This is contrary to planning policy. Routes to exit the village to the east is very restricted under the low bridge at Station Road and the narrow bridge on Lavender Hall Lane with no room for expansion on these. To the west Balsall Street East is not a major thoroughfare and does not have the capacity to cope with a large increase in traffic, so virtually all traffic will be travelling north on the A452. Brownfield sites to the north of the village would be far more suited to cope with this without adding strain to the village centre.
Within the plans for using this land you are earmarking reclassified greenbelt land which simply does not make sense, and its legality can be brought into question.
The NPPF identifies the 5 key Purposes of Green Belts as the following:
1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and,
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
It is our understanding that there are adequate brown field sites which could be used without using greenbelt land in order to fulfil the housing requirements.
With the above 5 points in mind it is clear that the availability of these brownfield sites would bring into question the adherence to the NPPF guidelines. The development would bring outlying areas of Solihull even closer to the outlying areas of Coventry.
The development of these houses in the site we are objecting to will do nothing to benefit the village, only to ruin the community feel of this village and put further strain on capacity. With 73% of people travelling to work by car in this area that means in the region of 1100 cars will be commuting to work each day.
The bypass is not a 'bypass' it is an access road to serve the 900 proposed houses. This would not help in easing pressure on the village it would put much more strain on the village and Station Road due to the sheer amount of extra traffic therefore irrelevant where it is placed. The 'bypass' needs to be moved fully away from our boundary perimeter, at least 50 metres from our boundary border.

I am writing to give my views on Solihull Council's draft housing plan and its impact on Balsall Common - my location.

* In planning to locate 1350 homes in Balsall Common, I'm not convinced that consideration has been given to developing brownfield sites elsewhere or that building on the green belt constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'
* I am extremely concerned about the lack of consideration for infrastructure improvements. These should include the impact on schools and the doctors' surgery as well as provision of services - water, electricity, gas etc.
* I also feel that public transport links are insufficient which will necessitate a huge increase in the use of cars in and around the village.
* The centre of Balsall Common will certainly require improvement to accommodate a massive increase in the number of people using it. Currently parking in the centre is a nightmare and by June we will only have one bank left. These are things which need to be considered before starting to build more homes.
* I am very concerned about the a proposed access to the Barratt's Farm site being on Meeting House Lane. For a lot of its length, the lane has no footpath and an increase in traffic along the lane will certainly constitute a major hazard to pedestrians and other users.

see attached letter

Allocation 13

I am writing to object to the proposed housing development sites in Shirley and in particular allocation 13 which is a beautiful part of Shirley, great for recreation and of course has plenty of wildlife living there. My main objection is that Shirley is already such a busy place, traffic is so built up particularly since ASDA has been built and I find Haslucks Green Road just too busy. I find it difficult to get doctors appointments, sometimes you have to wait 4 weeks to see a doctor. I cannot understand why Shirley is taking the brunt of the newbuilds in Solihull when it is recognised how busy the High St is for traffic. I also cannot understand why Shirley is being picked on when Solihull has many other areas and we must be the furthest away from the new HS2 development. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you are building such a large amount of housing in one area. We have already seen an increase in traffic etc with Parkgate, we will experience more with the new Powergen development yet you want to increase it again? Please reconsider the plans, save Allocation 13 look at brownfield sites around the borough and at least spread it more evenly across Solihull and not build such a high amount in one place, ie Shirley.