Q23. Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Draft Local Plan?

see attached letter

By proposing to build several thousand homes in and around the village, the plan totally fails to acknowledge that Balsall Common and Berkswell are isolated from the rest of the Borough. They are placed the wrong side of the M42, and has limited bus and rail connections. Morning rush hour traffic is mostly heading out of the area to Coventry, Kenilworth and the A46/M40. Of that heading Northbound, a significant amount is bound for the M42 and M6.

How will this affect the boroughs housing requirement? If there is to be increased employment at the NEC hub, HS2 interchange and JLR, extra housing in Balsall Common is unlikely to solve the requirment (although it will probably be welcomed by employers in Warwickshire and Coventry, as a supply of housing to meet their needs!)

If the borough needs to supply housing, encourage employment, and develop a sustainable transport system, they all need to be in the same place - build the houses where the jobs are: Blythe Valley, Shirley, Solihull Town Centre, NEC/HS2 interchange, which is all West of the M42

There are significant errors in the greenbelt analysis which needs to be redone. Barratt's Farm grows mostly wheat so is grade 3 not grade 5 land. Lavender Hall Farm is used for materiel lay down or is scrub. So it is 5 not 4 classification. There are no defensible boundaries to allocations 1 & 3 contrary to the NPPF. There is no objective justification for a bypass, no change since 2012 when the line was removed. Using a footpath to split BA04 from RP54/55 is contrary to the NPPF. It should all be BA04. And lots more!

Solihull is a Conservative Council and should abide by the manifesto. "Peston 0n Sunday" (ITV Feb 5); Gavin Barwell (housing minister) stated emphatically that no green field site should be built on unless every brownfield site had been examined in detail, and then, and only then, would "a nibble into the green belt" be sanctioned by the Government. What is proposed for Balsall Common is not a nibble but a huge bite, and therefore we have every confidence that a representation to government would be successful. More than a million people watched this programme.

I strongly object to the proposed development at Barrett's Farm, Balsall Common. This site is Greenbelt land which should remain greenbelt land for otherwise a president will be set and all greenbelt will become vulnerable.This site does not satisfy the Council's policies.It will not provide varied and affordable housing in an area where it is needed most. It will not improve accesability and travel. It does not promote health and well being. The thoughts and opinions of Solihull residents are not being heard and respected and the needs of Balsall Common are not being addressed.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I should like to register my concern regarding the proposed development of green land on Sharmans Cross Road.

I believe that the rugby pitch land should be retained as a sporting facility for young people within the borough.

I question what is meant by "affordable housing" ? Does this mean housing that young people like my 24 year old son and his girlfriend can buy? Or does this mean Council property that only people on benefits can live in?

How many bungalows are going to be built? A recent survey revealed that half of older people want to sell up their large houses and downsize into bungalows but developers only want to build flats (which they call apartments because they think it sounds better).

See below extract from a report in the Daily Mail in July 2016:-

Older homeowners are 'trapped' in large houses and unable to downsize because of a crisis in bungalow building.
Around 2.85million over-55s would like to move into a smaller home, with half wanting a bungalow, latest figures show - but two in five cannot find a suitable property as fewer and fewer bungalows are being built every year.
Over the past three decades the number of new bungalows built each year has plummeted by more than 90 per cent - from about 28,000 in 1985 to fewer than 2,500 last year.
Just one in 63 new homes registered to be built in 2015 were bungalows, according to the National House Building Council.

REFERENCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3704252/Bungalow-building-crisis-sees-older-homeowners-trapped-large-houses-unable-downsize-developers-refuse-build-land-hungry-properties.html#ixzz4YEOvf5X4

Please can you get back to me and confirm what type of property is proposed for this site?
I assume it will be another block of flats to stick old people in and some miniature size council houses for people on benefits.

The monitoring process does not include any monitoring of whether the process of approving planning applications under the LRP is fit for purpose or needs improving.
The planning process does not take adequate action to seek input and support of people before approving a proposal by taking on board their input and once it is approved there is no feedback on how well a particular application went and whether lessons could be learnt to improve the process. There is evidence from current developments that shows this process to be badly needed

The LRP needs to address and currently does not
1 Improving the management of the planning application process
2 A process to learn from large scale plans already being done badly
3 Training in Change Management to be able to deliver the scope of allocation 9 if it does not want everyone to leave and take their rates with them
4 Improved due diligence of what developers are planning to do and then managing them

Generally in support of the Draft Plan with exceptions detailed in previous answers. I am a member of KDBH Neighbourhood Forum, whose submission I have read. It seems to me a totally negative document, and frankly downright rude in parts, bearing in mind all the hard work put in by the Councillors, Council officers and outside contractors involved. Sadly the Forum seems to have become a NIMBY campaigning organisation, which is not the purpose of such Fora. They are supposed to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan which is consistent with Council Policy - not campaign against it.

Arden Triangle

Balsall Common-
The playing pitches on the Frog Lane site should be mapped as constraints.
The nature reserve on Riddings Hill is not indicated as a constraint.

It is highly destructive. It destroys important natural habitat currently in balance. It destroys residents sense of place and belonging. It destroys important heritage countryside. It destroys the economic wealth of current residents; aspirational house locations along the edges of the proposed development sites in Balsall Common are going to be negatively affected. Will residents find themselves in a scenario mortgage providers revalue homes based upon the scale and impact on current plots? Hugely diluting the equity value of some houses, i.e. the source of economic support for later life or the pension plans of others? Profoundly destructive.

The Draft Local Plan is driven by a statutory requirement to deliver one. However, it is a tawdry document, that will deliver great profit to developers. What it won't deliver, particularly from a Shirley perspective, is an improved quality of life.

Instead, the future it promises is of increased congestion, increased demand for services, banal high-density development. It offers little in the way of vision, of improvement - certainly to Shirley.

Opportunities for change aren't being seized; instead we're offered piecemeal nibbling away at open space and distinctiveness. A shabby little plan of pusillanimity.

Some acceptable aspects but I have concerns that the Green Belt intrusions for housing are only needed because there is a drive for commercial development for office/retail on land which could be used for housing eg Blythe Park/central Solihull. There is already office space in the area which is underutilised.
Does Solihull really need more office/retail at the expense of the Green Belt? I think not. More change of use of existing commercial properties would be preferable to concreting over farmland and ruin of villages. Missed opportunity...Pity.

see attached letter

see letter

see attached letter

see attached letter

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

"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 5 Question 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 7 Question 15

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

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

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

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

2. Roads/Congestion.

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

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

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

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

3. Increased Anti Social Behaviour(ASB) and Crime

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

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

4. Loss of Green Belt and nature

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

5. Health and well being.

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

6. Create more problems than it solves.

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

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

Please see attached our views on the Solihull Draft Local Plan for consideration.

We are primarily commenting on impacts on Balsall Common, but there are themes that are likely to be common to other areas.

Solihull Local Plan - consultation response, relating to Balsall Common only.
The suggested locations for additional housing appear to balance the need for housing and retaining the village feel. The exception is perhaps the Barrett's Farm site, which is substantial and a reasonable expectation is that this would materially change the character and centre of the village, given the influx of new villagers. Partial development of that area would seem more proportionate.
These proposed developments will place increased burden on transport and village facilities.
To increase acceptability of these developments, existing local residents need to feel investment is being made in their community. Therefore infrastructure improvements must come before housing to give residents feeling of spare capacity. Local constraints should be addressed, e.g. traffic, movements around schools, parking in village centre, before the new residents arrive.
Local railway stations are currently highly utilised with parking overspilling onto local roads. Supporting sustainable travel is an important objective and there needs to be substantial improvement in connecting transport and parking facilities to support increasing village population. While Network Rail is a statutory consultee, it may be more effective to develop options for improvement to have direct engagement with the Route to reflect that funding is increasingly being directed through local channels. This early engagement e.g. with Network Rail Western Route Managing Director to secure funding for station improvements ahead of housing development will be essential to avoid further overstretching of the current facilities. It is also important that these local improvements are not deferred or delayed due to HS2 developments that are planned at some time in the future.
When considering the new school facilities we would like to see broader community needs to be considered, e.g. flexible, divisible spaces with high quality resources. This may include auditoriums that could support local groups, provide local cinema and other youth projects. This may allow the release of other smaller village facilities by consolidating into a community space that has sufficiently regular use to support additional services, e.g. a cafe, or community advice services.

Proposed development on Whitlocks End Farm and Dickens Heath Road
As a local resident who would be adversely affected by the proposed developments I should like to forward my observations.

Between 7.30am and 9.00am on week days the traffic can queue back from Maxstoke Croft onto Tamworth Lane trying to merge onto Tamworth Lane. This is as a result of the heavy additional traffic from Dickens Heath and Cheswick Green developments where no additional road routes have been built to service either of these huge developments - this is before the current ongoing building developments have been finished.

Judging by the current poor state of local road repairs, potholes and congestion Solihull council is unable to afford to maintain current road provisions. Will there be any additional budget on top of that allocated for the house building to improve and increase road routes to service the additional car use that will inevitably occur BEFORE the houses are built?

Will additional doctor and hospital provisions be funded? My family have needed urgent care in past and have nothing but praise for the care we received, however, there were times when the ambulance did not know where to take the patient as no beds could be found in any of the Heartlands Trust hospital. The current hospital facilities are at breaking point now; if there are to be 6000 new homes in our borough a new hospital will have to be built BEFORE the influx of extra people. Will this be included in the plans?

All housing developments will clearly be unwanted by the local residents and so platitudes are often embraced by the developers to justify their plans, one of which is, 'we must provide more homes, particularly those who want to get on the housing ladder'. My understanding is that the current average wage is £26,500, if I suggest that a financial institution will lend 5 times the salary, (which I suspect is unrealistic as over generous) just how many of these houses will be £132,500 in price to give any young adult even a remote chance of 'getting on the housing ladder'? Building lots of lovely expensive houses (>£250k) do not help local people on average wages to buy property locally! Will the council have in-built stipulation or clauses to any prospective buyers of these new homes that they can only be purchased by people that are not property owners already?

I accept that new houses will have to be built somewhere, but on the current plans, there does appear to be a disproportionate amount of homes earmarked for the Whitlocks End Farm and Dickens Heath Road site, with, for example, no intention of building any homes in Dorridge? Which is my understanding? Therefore, can you give a guarantee that all local brownfield sites have been utilised before ploughing up our fields - which once developed can never be replaced.

Consider that, perhaps one reason that Solihull is such a desirable area is that it isn't totally over developed and congested and so building on all available open spaces will ruin its character.

see attached response

Further to our discussions I am responding to the local plan on behalf of Balsall and Berkswell Football club and have the following points to make:

1. We understand the need for expansion of the housing in the village and want to ensure that appropriate sports facilities are made available to the families and especially the children.
2. The football club have a lease from the council for land on Lavender Hall lane and also rent pitches in Lavender Park opposite the ground.
3. Two of the proposed housing sites off Meeting house lane and Holly Lane will result in between two and four football pitches being removed from the village. These pitches are used by various junior teams and so will need to be replaced. These have historically been hired and maintained by the club from either the Church or School.
4. One of the proposed developments offers a "sports facility" being built within the housing estate. This will not provide for any external pitch or outdoor facilities.
5. We believe that the Football club and council could work together to further develop the facilities both on the club ground and within the Lavender Hall park.
6. Our initial suggestions would be to Improve the resilience of what we have, i.e more drainage connected into external drains on lavender hall,
7. level & improve the playing surface
8. Upgrade Lavender hall park so that it is also made more resilient i.e. there would be a need to install drainage and improve the playing surface
9. The installation of floodlights would open up the possibilities of greater use
10. Improved car parking within either the current ground or in Lavender Hall park
11. Make the Lavender Hall park more of an integrated sports facility rather than just a pitch in the park
12. We are currently working with the cricket club to install a cricket square on our ground and already have the agreement of the council for this.
13. The lease agreement with the council always allowed for us to develop the site into multi sports facility and we see this as an ideal opportunity for this to happen and the council to meet it's sporting aspirations and commitments
14. In an ideal world the village could do with an all-weather surface as a training or playing surface and this would open up other sports including hockey, Netball in particular.
15. There is space on Lavender Hall Park to build a sports centre when indoor facilities including badminton, table tennis, tennis and cricket nets could be provided thus turning this end of the village into a true multi sports environment.

We very much look forward to working with the council on developing future sporting plans for the village.

Sorry not to have completed the online portal but I could not get it to work so resorted to an email!

I am in general agreement with the review proposals but wish to make the following comments:
* Birmingham's Housing Need. There are considerable areas of derelict former industrial land, both within the city council area and adjacent local authority areas. Whilst some of these sites are contaminated and developers would prefer prime building land, these should be restored and used to provide housing in order to maximise provision and reduce the need to build on green field sites and protect the Green Belt. This was government policy in the mid-1990s and still makes sense.
* Green Belt. The government has signalled its intention to minimise loss of Green Belt and we should only consider encroachment on Solihull's confirmed Green Belt where development enhances the quality of the environment. For example, by allowing housing on former industrial/commercial sites that may have been in existence for many years but would not today be considered appropriate development in the Green Belt or are no longer providing a community benefit.
Where it is necessary to sacrifice any areas of Green Belt there should be clear and defensible boundaries to avoid further encroachment. In particular, where it is proposed to build on land adjacent to established villages/communities, there should be an agreed new boundary to ensure they remain as clear 'insets' and do not gradually spread. Applications for 'infilling' should only be allowed where this is a genuine plot between neighbouring dwellings, as opposed to stretches of countryside that happen to lie between scattered houses.
* Transport Corridors and Parking. Adequate public transport needs to be provided for any new major housing developments but account must also be taken of the chronic parking issues around rail stations. Further development that would increase pressure on suburban rail stations (Olton, Dorridge, Marston Green, Widney, Hampton in Arden) and consideration given to creation of Park and Ride schemes to reduce the current parking pressures.
* Health Provision. Development should take account of the increased pressure on existing Doctors' Surgeries, where residents already have to wait weeks for a routine appointment and even have difficulty in getting emergency appointments. New surgeries/health centres should be a requirement of large developments unless there is clear evidence that the local surgery had capacity to register new patients.

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed development of the former Solihull RFC pitches behind Sharmans Cross Road. I currently reside at 45 Sharmans Cross Road and believe this proposed development will directly impact me and many others who live on the road and in the surrounding area. Whilst I think this land should be used, I believe the density of the proposed development will leave the local road network and facilities such as the junior and infants school unable to cope. During rush hour, Sharmans Cross Road is already completely blocked by stationary traffic all the way from the junction with Streetsbrook Road to the school. The impact on the cars of another 100 homes pulling out directly into this traffic is obvious and will place the safety of the children walking to school at increased risk.

There is also the issue of flooding - the impact of paving over of such a large area of green land can only increase the already high risk of flooding occurring and Sharmans Cross Road is already frequently covered by over six inches of water up by the school. It is such a shame that the land cannot be used in a sporting capacity and I understand that Solihull Council formally minuted that they would not sell the freehold of grounds used for sport. With minimal investment, this area could be turned into a wonderful resource for grass roots sports in the area - rather than paving it over and cramming it with properties that are completely out of keeping with the area just to line a developer's pockets. There were very good reasons for denying the application in 2009 and they still stand and are just as valid today.

see attachments

LDP - Proposed Housing Allocation 18
I am vehemently opposed to the above planning application. My main objections are as set out below:

1. The land in question is not adequate to sustain and facilitate 100 dwellings which inevitably would be so densely packed that any spaces for cars to park would be so limited which could well cause parking to overflow into Sharmans Cross Road and beyond into the side roads. The extra cars coming out of the development would cause further traffic chaos, misery and pollution along Sharmans Cross Road adding further hazards to children coming and going to Sharmans Cross School and also to cyclists using the road.

2. The site in question is earmarked for recreational and sport use and on these grounds alone the site should be kept and used for such purpose. We desperately need to keep our sporting land for the future wellbeing of the local residents and their children - to lose these facilities would be totally wrong.

3. I believe that the local amenities which are already overburdened such as schools and medical centres would find it hard to accommodate further demand on their resources hence leading to a poorer level of service.

4. This land is surrounded by old woodland the wildlife from which also enjoy the open space and this development would have a detrimental effect on our already diminishing wildlife in this area.

5. Sharmans Cross Road is prone to flooding in heavy rainfall and concreting over such a large area of land would inevitably lead to more flooding not only of the road, but flooding may well occur elsewhere in the vicinity which has never before experienced flooding.

6. The density and design of the development would be totally out of keeping with the surrounding properties and I feel would inevitably lead to a loss of light and privacy for some of these residents.

We are writing to endorse our full support for the KDBH NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM response to the Solihull Draft Local plan.

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

The reasons for my objection are below:

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. In light of the recent white paper on the future of house building across the country in which it is stated that Green Belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when there is no alternative, surely the council must now look again at the 14 brownfield sites in and around Balsall Common that were submitted in the call for sites.

4) Solihull Councils latest transport strategy publication,Solihull Connected, acknowledges that the south of Balsall Common is the most congested part of the village. The development of site 2, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 and B4101 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres. Several of the 14 PDL sites available including site 240 (Wootton Green Lane/Kenilworth Road) are located in the less congested north of the village.

5) The development of site 2 (150 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units) and the proposed site 3 Windmill Lane/Kenilworth Road (200 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452 particularly past Balsall Common Primary School on Balsall Street East. In this area at school drop off and pick up times the congestion is severe at present with traffic often in grid lock. Accidents have already occurred due to this situation and with the additional traffic caused by these sites in the south of Balsall Common the risk of accidents will only increase.

6) Site 2 being 1.5 miles from local amenities 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) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 2. Given that the area is larger than site 2, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 2.

8) 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 request

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 2 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.