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

In response to the Draft Local Plan Review I would like to make my opinion known it that I agree with the response of the Knowle Dorridge and Bentley Health Neighbourhood Forum.

We broadly support the submission by the KDBH Neighbourhood Forum and in particular the following.

1.There is no clear reason why the proposed allocation of 1050 dwellings should be targeted in just two locations at East and South Knowle in preference to areas such as Bentley Heath and Widney Manor which are better positioned to access Solihull, the Railway and Motorway network.
It is quite possible to accomodate 3-400 new houses on the north western edge of KDBH without closing down the Solihull/KDBH 'gap'. The M42/River Blythe and power lines are a permanent barrier between the two.

2.The allocation of 750 house to the Arden Triangle is an entirely arbitrary response to a contrived "masterplan' generated by Developers riding on the back of the Academy.

3.Other than a less than clear land swap it is not clear that the new Academy could be adequately funded.

4.The 'ambition' for the Academy does not justify amalgamating all the greenbelt land ownerships in the area.(i.e. sites 148-157).

5. The southern approach to Knowle on the Warwick Road should be protected. The proposed reallocation of the Greenbelt boundary is too agressive and should be restricted to only the land immediately required for the Academy (if proven to be viable) and probably no further south than the bridleway/footpath to Jacknett.

6. The Landscape Character assessment for Area 3 is incorrect insofar as it aggregates a number of very different landscape types under one broad banner of more moderately performing when some of the individual plots have historic hedgerows and veteran trees and encompass existing footpath and watercourse networks of higher landscape value. These plots are also contiguous with current high performing areas.

7. The topography and highly visible profile of sites 149-152 in particular is not suited to large areas of new housing development.

8.The large scale expansion of rural settlements like Knowle should be dropped for a more limited and dispersed approach which would ensure greater variety and quality of new development.

9 SMBC should encourage smaller brownfield and edge of settlement greenbelt infill sites to be brought forward to take up part of the housing need.

see email and KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

see email and KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

see email and KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

email and copy of KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

email and copy of KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

email and copy of KDBH forum response
Can I register a strong objection to the Council's draft Local Plan - with specific regard to the proposal to build some 1440 new houses in Knowle & Dorridge.

Attached is the reasoned response to the Plan from KDBH Forum which sums up my objection in the "summary" section.

Letter of Objection to House building in Balsall Common

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"
I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.
The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.
1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.
5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties
7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.
8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.
9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.
10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."
In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport
2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then a holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots
3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2
4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable.

On a personal note any development on the site adjacent to the "Doctors Surgery" located on Hall meadow Lane / Riddings Hill will result in a significant decrease to the already low levels of light available in my North Facing property and would therefore have a detrimental impact on my families right to light and general well-being.
I refer you again to the previously mentioned point 3 which states:
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
Yours sincerely,

see attached letter

Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill Lane)

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. 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.

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 unwanted 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, roads are 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 is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. 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 main employment centres.

The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing.Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

As site 3 is a considerable distance from the schools and amenities, 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. 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.

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". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous. Living where I do, each week, I witness near misses on this road and I have been concerned with the increase of large lorries now using it as a main access to and from the A452. Lorries coming in different directions often have to mount the verge or pavement to squeeze past each other, creating a huge danger to walkers, cyclists and other road users. The development of site 3 will increase this many fold.

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

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.

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."

Since moving from Coventry, I have been appalled at the lack of provision and access to the NHS at our local doctors. To get an appointment within a week is virtually unheard of and getting care for my three children has been extremely difficult. The difference in accessibility to this care in comparison to Coventry has been eye opening. My parents were turned away from Balsall Common doctors when my one year old daughter became lifeless and drowsy as they were told there were no appointments and they would be taking up a valuable emergency appointment for someone else. It was suggested that they visited a walk in centre with her instead to alleviate pressure at her own doctors. On arrival at Coventry walk in centre, she was rushed to Walsgrave and then to Birmingham Children's Hospital where she underwent 3 major stomach operations and spent the next five weeks hospitalised. Her consultant explained that the delay could well have been fatal and they spent several hours stabilising her before she could be operated on. Whilst in hospital caring for her, my middle daughter got a chronic ear infection and my parents were again refused an appointment as there were none available. From my experience, this is not a doctors with capacity to expand as they are unable to treat the patients that they have got.

I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

Since I moved here 4 years ago, I have had the pleasure of being able to show my children all kinds of different wildlife. The field is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deers, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see, I am sure. It is both disappointing and outrageous to hear that the developers are informing potential buyers that the conditions of planning to protect the Great Crested Newts on the current Kenilworth Rd development no longer need to be adhered to as they have made a financial arrangement with the Council. This makes a mockery of the planning process and laws surrounding protected species. The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

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.

Expanding Balsall Common this much will result in an increase in factors detrimental to our health and quality of life, with increased traffic, road noise and poorer air quality. The beauty of the village with its open countryside and fantastic greenbelt would be destroyed by these proposals.

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.

Much of the appeal of living in Wellfield Close, is the open countryside views and feeling of space and tranquility that one gets at the edge of the village. Having the field next door was a huge attraction to us when we purchased the house and we were pleased to learn that it was protected greenbelt. I chose a house that wasn't overlooked or part of a housing estate to give ourselves and our three young children the best quality of life growing up. Building houses right next door would greatly affect our way of life. Our house is situated so close to the boundary hedgerow that the new houses would be in close proximity to us. Whilst I really hope that you remove site 3 from these current proposals, should the council choose to ignore the protection of greenbelt and the views/knowledge of the local community and go ahead with building work at site 3, then I hope that you would consider greatly reducing the impact of these buildings on our home and be open to discuss possible strategies that might alleviate our concerns.

Objection to site 3 in Balsall Common (Windmill Lane)

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. 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.

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 unwanted 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, roads are 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 is extremely limited and it is difficult to actually get to the amenities due to volume of traffic.

The addition of new housing on the Kenilworth Road has resulted in traffic jams and extra pressure on an already burdened infrastructure. To add to this on this side of the village seems absurd. 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 main employment centres.

The local primary school has already had to expand to take in more students and is already oversubscribed and bursting at its seams. As a result, the quality of education and care that the children are receiving is diminishing.Traffic around the school is a huge danger to the young children. Cars park all the way down Alder Lane towards the traffic lights, down Balsall Street East, Holly Lane, Gypsy Lane and throughout all of the housing estate near the school, resulting in cars being damaged and grid locked roads. There is often no crossing patrol and to cross the Kenilworth Road and Holly Road as an adult, you take your life into your own hands!

As site 3 is a considerable distance from the schools and amenities, 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. 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.

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". The volume of traffic already using Windmill Lane as a cut through is high and the speed of this traffic is also already dangerous. Living where I do, each week, I witness near misses on this road and I have been concerned with the increase of large lorries now using it as a main access to and from the A452. Lorries coming in different directions often have to mount the verge or pavement to squeeze past each other, creating a huge danger to walkers, cyclists and other road users. The development of site 3 will increase this many fold.

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

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.

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."

Since moving from Coventry, I have been appalled at the lack of provision and access to the NHS at our local doctors. To get an appointment within a week is virtually unheard of and getting care for my three children has been extremely difficult. The difference in accessibility to this care in comparison to Coventry has been eye opening. My parents were turned away from Balsall Common doctors when my one year old daughter became lifeless and drowsy as they were told there were no appointments and they would be taking up a valuable emergency appointment for someone else. It was suggested that they visited a walk in centre with her instead to alleviate pressure at her own doctors. On arrival at Coventry walk in centre, she was rushed to Walsgrave and then to Birmingham Children's Hospital where she underwent 3 major stomach operations and spent the next five weeks hospitalised. Her consultant explained that the delay could well have been fatal and they spent several hours stabilising her before she could be operated on. Whilst in hospital caring for her, my middle daughter got a chronic ear infection and my parents were again refused an appointment as there were none available. From my experience, this is not a doctors with capacity to expand as they are unable to treat the patients that they have got.

I live two fields away from the current development on the A452 and have been astounded by the constant noise from the construction. The vibrations from the pile drilling can be felt and heard in the house with the windows closed and I can only imagine what this noise would be like if it was right next door. The quality of life for my family through this proposed building period would be greatly damaged.

Since I moved here 4 years ago, I have had the pleasure of being able to show my children all kinds of different wildlife. The field is constantly used by a range of birds of prey, owls, herons, deers, a family of foxes, rabbits and bats along with many others that we haven't been privileged enough to see, I am sure. It is both disappointing and outrageous to hear that the developers are informing potential buyers that the conditions of planning to protect the Great Crested Newts on the current Kenilworth Rd development no longer need to be adhered to as they have made a financial arrangement with the Council. This makes a mockery of the planning process and laws surrounding protected species. The abundant wildlife in site 3 will be damaged under this proposal.

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.

Expanding Balsall Common this much will result in an increase in factors detrimental to our health and quality of life, with increased traffic, road noise and poorer air quality. The beauty of the village with its open countryside and fantastic greenbelt would be destroyed by these proposals.

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.

Much of the appeal of living in Wellfield Close, is the open countryside views and feeling of space and tranquility that one gets at the edge of the village. Having the field next door was a huge attraction to us when we purchased the house and we were pleased to learn that it was protected greenbelt. I chose a house that wasn't overlooked or part of a housing estate to give ourselves and our three young children the best quality of life growing up. Building houses right next door would greatly affect our way of life. Our house is situated so close to the boundary hedgerow that the new houses would be in close proximity to us. Whilst I really hope that you remove site 3 from these current proposals, should the council choose to ignore the protection of greenbelt and the views/knowledge of the local community and go ahead with building work at site 3, then I hope that you would consider greatly reducing the impact of these buildings on our home and be open to discuss possible strategies that might alleviate our concerns

Site 3

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 BARRAGEaction 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 HS2and 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.

Site 3

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 BARRAGEaction 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 HS2and 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.

Objection site 3, Kenilworth Rd / Windmill Lane, Balsall Common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

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

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

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

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

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

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

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

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

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

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

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

The representations comprise of the following submissions:

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

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

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see submission and supporting documents from agent - Pegasus

see attached

Feedback on local plan sites 8 and 9

I wish to object to the proposal in the Solihull Local Plan to build 1000 + houses on two sites in Knowle - site number 8 Hampton Road and 9 land to the South of Knowle known as the Arden Triangle.

I fully accept that there is a real need for new homes within the borough. However, Knowle would be increased by more than 20% if these plans went ahead - a highly disproportionate amount. Given that Knowle has no major commercial or industrial areas, it is effectively becoming a "Dormitory Village" - a place from which many people travel in order to work in a bigger town or city. The village infrastructure is already stretched, parking is woefully inadequate and the primary schools and doctors' surgeries are reaching saturation point. Both proposed developments would make significant inroads into the Green Belt at a time when the Government has issued a White Paper to the effect that Green Belt should be protected at all costs.

I live in Chantry Heath Crescent, in one of the houses that will be directly overlooked by any new houses built in Hampton Road so do have a vested interest in what happens there. Notwithstanding that, having read the Football Club's proposal for houses to fund a new club, I dispute the conclusion on page 28 which claims that 'the parcel sits well within the village development pattern' whereas in reality, as per the KDBH forum submission, 'Development here would be beyond the built-up area of Knowle and a significant encroachment into open countryside.

In the Benefits section on page 28 of the Football Club prospectus they refer to

* The provision of much needed housing in the area. I would reiterate that Knowle itself does not need housing on the scale provided. Very few occupants of the new houses would find work in Knowle, but would add to current congestion on the village roads and add to the parking problems around each of the local train stations.
* The potential for a borough sports hub. I question whether the facilities listed in the prospectus (other than the direct relocation of the football club) would ever materialise. On page 6 it states that 'further funding for a sports hub could also come forward with support from Sport England and the FA,' which of course may never happen.
* Provision of a community meeting place. We already have the Village Hall, Knowle Church Hall, Downing Hall and the Methodist Church Hall all situated in the very centre of Knowle.

There is a great contrast between the current state of the football and cricket clubs on the Hampton Road Site. The cricket club has been proactive in improving their clubhouse, providing a new electronic scoreboard and maintaining the whole ground well. The football club on the other hand is in a very sorry rundown state, with few attempts at improvement. In their own prospectus they state that 'planning permission has been granted for floodlighting at the existing site. This has been commenced but not completed due to issues with funding'. They could have already fundraised and/or applied for funding from the FA, and other sources, (on which they wiil rely to add extra facilities at any new site), but have failed to do so. Do we really want to entrust new green belt to a club which appears too lacklustre and incompetent to maintain and improve the smaller site it occupies now?


In my opinion, none of the constraints that caused Solihull MBC to reject the request for planning permission on the land opposite Grimshaw Hall in the 2012 SHLAA have changed. What has changed however, is that developers have dangled the carrot of a new football club (and other amenities which may never materialise) in front of us, in the hope that we will overlook how much green belt we will all be sacrificing for ever, in order that the 291players, volunteers and supporters of the football club will get an extra couple of pitches to play on.

With regards to the Arden Triangle site, I accept that if we must have more houses, then by all means include a new school or two as part of the deal, as this will benefit so many more people that the Football Club proposal. Please only grant permission for as few new houses as would be needed to fund the new school and ensure that as little new greenbelt as possible is taken
Knowle is a popular place to live precisely because it still has a village feel. How much expansion can it take before this is no longer the case?

I wish to make the following comments on the current version of the Local Plan:

1. There is no mention anywhere in the draft, in any context, of dog-walking facilities. A very large proportion of Solihull households include at least one dog and in addition there are working dogs employed by the Police, Fire, security and airport services. There are currently relatively few places in the urban part of the Borough where dogs can be exercised properly off-lead away from traffic: these include Elmdon Park, the Conservation Fields off Brueton Park, Dorridge Park and Langley Hall Park. Smaller public spaces open to roads do not meet the needs of many dog walkers, mainly because of the danger of, and to, traffic. Many owners therefore make otherwise avoidable car journeys from their homes simply to take the dogs somewhere they can have a decent safe walk, at least once a day. They then require parking provision at or near the park. "Country" walks are available along rural footpaths but there is hardly ever any car parking available at the beginning or end of the walk. Dog-walking and cycling are not particularly compatible as each is a nuisance to the other. The provision of adequate land for exercising dogs is relevant to a number of the Policies, especially but not exclusively, provision of housing (need to ensure that there is significant acreage of off-road, enclosed, walkable land within walking distance of new housing and also that access to such amenity land from existing housing is not compromised by the interposing of a housing estate), health and wellbeing (a daily walk with a dog has multiple health and social benefits) and climate change (providing dog walking space within walking distance from home will reduce the number of polluting car journeys).

2. Your question 7 (agree with Policy P2?): I do not believe the case for relocating the railway station to Monkspath Hall has been made. It would be an enormously expensive venture for no benefit - for instance, there is no mention of a direct train connection to Birmingham International or HS2 - and it would, rightly in my view, be seen as a vanity project. Officers have suggested that the current station is too far from and too inaccessible to the town centre but the journey from a new station at Monkspath Hall would be uphill and therefore less accessible for anyone with fitness issues, buggies, luggage etc. It would also inevitably entail losing part of Tudor Grange Park and much of Monkspath Hall car park. (Despite the insistence of officers that there is oversupply of car parking in the town centre, the views expressed to me by the general public are very much to the contrary).

3. Your questions 15 and 16. I have already emailed my comments on your site ref. 16 "East of Solihull". In case these have been lost, I reiterate: this site is in Green Belt and:

The staggered junctions of Yew Tree Lane, Hampton Lane, Marsh Lane and the Solihull Bypass cause significant traffic congestion (with concomitant noise and air pollution and delays to journeys) particularly back along Hampton Lane towards Catherine de Barnes, and not only at peak times. Traffic congestion along Damson Parkway/Yew Tree Lane will probably be exacerbated by the opening of the JLR logistics operation and flow through Hampton Lane is likely to increase with the development of UK Central. A housing development opening out on to any of the adjoining roads could only make matters much worse. Some of the land earmarked is used for children's sports and the football pitches, the need for which would increase with the influx of new families, would be lost.

I suggest the alternative proposal of developing instead land to the south of Catherine de Barnes, along and between Henwood Lane, Berry Hall Lane and Ravenshaw Lane. Not much mention is made in the draft Local Plan of Catherine de Barnes. This settlement already has some community infrastructure in the shape of a village hall, pub, shop, restaurant and some small businesses. The village could be enlarged into a sustainable settlement with the addition of a school and health centre if there were sufficient new homes. Upgrading Ravenshaw Lane to provide direct access on to the A41 Solihull Bypass near Junction 5 of the M42 would actually alleviate some of the existing congestion along Hampton Lane. This proposal has the added advantage of preserving the green space between Damson Parkway, Lugtrout Lane, Field Lane and Hampton Lane as a buffer against urban spread.


4. Finally, re Policy P15: there is an increasing trend towards enclosing residential properties with high iron railings. Many of these, notably along St Bernard's Road and Dovehouse Lane have made the properties look unpleasantly like compounds: they have a forbidding look and are obviously designed to exclude. They all detract from the relaxed, traditional, friendly street scene that contributes to Solihull's attractiveness as a place to live and are absolutely out of character with the atmosphere of the Borough. It would assist planners in refusing planning applications for more of these if policies on design could include emphasis on retaining more traditional boundary treatments and specifically on discouraging the erection of railings where none previously existed.

Solihull Local Plan review - particular interest in Shirley and Allocation 13
Please find my own thoughts on some of the proposals put forward for the new local plan. I am a resident of Shirley and live on Blackford Road (B4102) so these proposals do raise some concerns.

* I believe that the density of proposals affecting Shirley South is too high. Allocations 4, 11, 12, 13 will all have a very large impact on the area with respect to transport, schooling and healthcare facilities such as GPs in what is an already congested and high density of dwellings area.
* As a resident of Blackford Road my main concern is the huge increase in traffic that this will bring. Without clear proposals regarding road infrastructure and transport it is difficult to see the positives going forward of any development. Although I am not against the building of new homes completely.
* Blackford Road has a history of structural problems and has been repaired 4 times since I have lived here (2010), once closed for 6 weeks. I don't believe this route is viable if traffic is going to increase.
* If the road infrastructure was reviewed BEFORE building, more effort could be made to modify the roundabout system at the end of Dickens Heath Road to promote the use of Dog Kennel Lane which would then disperse traffic across a number of routes into Solihull and beyond. Any development could be built meaning new residents are not fronting straight onto the road and negative impact to them would be minimised too
* Allocation 13 reduces the buffer between Shirley and Dickens Heath too much. This is not seen elsewhere in the borough.
* Allocation 12 and 13 are not currently well served by public transport - in fact they are quite far away from the local train stations (Shirley and Whitlocks End), too far for most people to walk. Shirley and Whitlocks End both have carparks that cannot meet existing demand and it is currently not safe to cycle due to the poor road layout in the area (particularly leaving Dickens Heath towards Whitlocks End).
* All Shirley sites would not obviously benefit from HS2 - should there be a greater effort to place housing within reach of this valuable new route?
* I am very against Allocation 13 being adopted in this plan. It currently is accessible to all, offers a near "rural" experience within walking distance of most Shirley residents and is not currently served well by the existing road network. Too much habitat for wildlife will be lost and the infrastructure changes needed would be great and disruptive.
* Allocation 13 is a valuable habitat and maintains a healthy buffer and green corridor to de-lineate Shirley from Dickens Heath so the two areas can maintain their distinct community identity.
* Allocation 13 would remove accessible amenity land from some of the most affordable homes in the area and seems to work against the promotion of healthy lifestyles for all. Please look again at this as a proposal.
* I would like to see a reduction in the allocation burden on the Shirley area overall and particularly want Allocation 13 dropped.
* I would like to see a more even spread across the borough - perhaps in the form of smaller developments to include houses that are affordable in the more affluent/expensive areas.
* I would like a reassurance that the council will protect as many green spaces as possible including hedges and trees on existing roads to maintain the motto of Solihull Urbs in Rure. These enhance the experience of living in the borough and can aid the pollution problem caused by congested roads if maintained and planted well.



I thought I would try to put forward some positives.

* The council look like they are going to use the B4102 as a main route into Solihull. The road network using the Monkspath Hall route is already in a much better state to take additional traffic and delivers the road user to an area of parking with close links into the centre of town (and possibly to the new train station if it moves). The properties built in this area tend to have been built away from the main road and this could mean detrimental impact is minimised to residents (unlike around Blackford Road and Tanworth Lane which both have a range of aged properties that front directly onto the road with small front gardens.) The Monkspath Hall route support enhanced bus routes into Solihull. In fact if the station were there a new transport hub could be created and the land made available at the existing station given over to home building.
* Monkspath Hall Carparks take up a very large area of land - if the carpark was made multi- could land be released to build affordable flats? If affordable these homes could potentially serve the workers of the service industries in the town centre and might be an attractive proposition to the young of the borough. They would not need public transport or cars to access all that Solihull has to offer re. work and recreation but would have the benefit of great connectivity to Birmingham and London .
* Don't expand Touchwood for retail but put homes there instead. Touchwood is expensive for businesses to rent and increasing numbers of shops are leaving to set up elsewhere (for example Sports Direct which is moving to Shirley). If there are already empty retail units why make it bigger? Provide flats.
* Make any infrastructure changes before building commences. Don't leave it to the developers - they will do what is affordable to them not what is needed by the communities affected.
* The council needs to stop paying lip service to cycling and make it viable to those who are too fearful of the dangers. A dedicated cycle route into Solihull from the areas affected by the proposed sites e.g off the Stratford road, through Hillfield park. It is not enough to just paint some lines on an existing road.
* The council need to incentivise people to leave their cars at home/lift share.
* Parking permits should be introduced in the most congested areas eg Dickens Heath and the centre of Solihull - it might make people think twice about having a car and parking it on the roads if this were in place.
* Make Blythe Valley the new Dickens Heath by placing Allocation 13 houses there in addition to those already granted.
* Use the NEC carparks for housing and make multi storeys instead - this puts the new homes within reach of HS2.
* Enhance Shirley by placing more homes above the retail units on the Stratford Road for the benefit of the workers in the shops and businesses. This will enhance the feel of Shirley.
* Make protecting green spaces however small a priority. Even a hedge can enhance a road that might otherwise experience busy traffic.


I've tried not to make it too longwinded!

I am writing to object to the decision to build over 600 new homes to the south of Shirley Estates. Having lived in Shirley for over 39 years and living on said Woodlands estate as a boy and now as an adult. I feel I have some expert knowledge on the surrounding areas.

It was a great place to grow up and was also a great place for my children to grow up, which was was why I moved back onto estate. For a council estate it must rate as one of the best as proving as over 50% must now be privately owed. Over the last 10 years due to Dickens Heath growth the traffic has steadily got worse. I cant understand why with all the green areas i see on the other side of Dickens Heath and Earlswood you wish to build on the fields right next door to Woodlands and Badgers Estates.

Dog Kennel Lane has unused fields either side of it but even that would cause more horrendous traffic problems. We all see the headlines about Solihull being one of the best places to live but if all this planning goes ahead Im sure that would no longer be the case. Knowle and Dorridge have plenty of areas to build on to.

So I'm writing to object to planing of said houses and would like to know how else I can object

(Your website was very unclear on what I should do to object and how can I attend varies meetings of objections when like most people are at work when the are scheduled to happen)

I am responding to the Council's Draft Local Plan with specific reference to Q15:
"Do you believe we are planning to build homes in the right locations? If not why not, and which locations do you believe shouldn't be included? Are there any other locations that you think should be included?"
I wish to object to the development of site 3 (Kenilworth Road, Balsall Common) and would propose that serious consideration be given to the development of site 240 (Wootton Green Lane, Balsall Common), as an alternative.
The reasons for my objection are below, based on the outcome of the investigations undertaken by the BARRAGE action group and as such the evidence and supporting information can be found in their report.
1) Balsall Common fails to meet the Council's own specified criteria for high frequency public transport and therefore is not a settlement with good accessibility. As such, the allocation of circa 20% of new housing in the Borough to Balsall Common, is in breach of SMBC's policy that "all new development should be focused in the most accessible locations".
2) Moreover it is a settlement with limited employment opportunities and therefore most people have to commute to work by car. A significant expansion will add unnecessary pressure to the road network as well adding to the carbon footprint. There are no proposed Sprint Runs to mitigate for this.
3) The proposed allocation of 3 greenfield sites in Balsall Common, when there are 14 PDL (Previously Developed Land) sites available, would strongly suggest that due consideration has not been given to these sites. As such, the "very special circumstances" to justify inappropriate development in the greenbelt have NOT been demonstrated.
4) The development of site 3, being in the south of Balsall Common, will add to the congestion hotspots on the A452 caused by northbound traffic heading to the main employment centres.
5) The development of site 3 (200 units), in addition to the two sites currently under construction on the Kenilworth Road (115 units), will inevitably cause delays to drivers trying to access the A452. As a consequence, the risk of accidents will increase as drivers attempt to exit these sites in a situation even more difficult than it is today. Windmill Lane will become even more of a "rat run".
6) Site 3 scores poorly in relation to all accessibility criteria, as defined by SMBC, apart from the Primary School. As such most journeys to the shops, medical centre and railway station will have to be by car, adding to the existing congestion and parking difficulties
7) To alter the boundaries surrounding the Crest Nicholson developments on the Kenilworth Road (sites 22 and 23), in order to develop site 3, would directly contravene National policy, as these boundaries were regarded as permanent.
8) The existence of the Berkswell Windmill (Grade II* listed building), as well as Great Crested Newts, a European protected species, has been overlooked in the Council's assessment. As the setting of this iconic landmark will be harmed, the proposal is in breach of National policy.
9) Using the same criteria as the Council to assess sites, part- PDL site 240 outperforms site 3. Given that the area is larger than site 3, this site should be re-assessed by the Council with a view to allocation instead of site 3.
10) The phasing of all 3 proposed allocations for development to take place in years 1 - 5, at the same time as HS2 and the site at Riddings Hill, will place intolerable strain on the settlement. There will be insufficient time to effectively plan for and deliver the necessary improvements to both infrastructure and facilities, which are already overstretched. In particular, the current Primary School provision is wholly inadequate. This directly contravenes SMBC's stated intent to "manage the growth."
In light of the above, I would support the recommendations from BARRAGE that:
1) A re-assessment is made of the appropriateness of significantly expanding Balsall Common, given its poor accessibility using public transport
2) If there is justification for significantly expanding Balsall Common, then an holistic view is taken as to where housing is best located, with due consideration to be given to the re-use of PDL sites in preference to "greenfield" as well as congestion hot spots
3) The phasing of any development must recognise the impact and disruption of HS2
4) The necessary infrastructure to support any significant expansion must be identified and planned for alongside any development

5) SMBC consults on ALL PDL SITES, which fall within or are adjacent to Balsall Common, with a view to potential allocation with immediate effect to ensure the community is fully engaged
6) Site 3 is removed from the Draft Local Plan as it is not compliant with both National and Borough planning policies and, as such, is not sustainable. I feel this site is totally inappropriate for any more housing development for a number of personal reasons.
I would ask SMBC to please listen to the residents comments and take these on board. At the end of the day, the residents are the people who live and know the area well, they are not trying to be difficult, just realistic. I would request that SMBC look at the suggested brown field sites as an alternative, especially for Site 3 for the reasons given above, which should definitely remain part of the green belt!